> Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:06:21 -0500 > From: "Gollin, George" > To: "'cremaldi@phy.olemiss.edu'" , "'fukui@slac.stanford.edu'" , "'gan@mps.ohio-state.edu'" , "'yury@physics.berkeley.edu'" , "'pellett@physics.ucdavis.edu'" , "'mvelasco@lotus.phys.nwu.edu'" , "'g-gollin@uiuc.edu'" , "'cremaldi@phy.olemiss.edu'" , "'mhess@psfc.mit.edu'" , "'g-gollin@uiuc.edu'" , "'rosen@physics.ucla.edu'" , "'Warner@lamar.colostate.edu'" , "'ellison@math.unm.edu'" , "'ykkim@hep.uchicago.edu'" , "'bugg@slac.stanford.edu'" , "'prepost@hep.wisc.edu'" , "'zhouf@bnl.gov'" , "'hauptman@iastate.edu'" , "'yasar-onel@uiowa.edu'" , "'torrence@physics.uoregon.edu'" , "'yasar-onel@uiowa.edu'" , "'william.oliver@tufts.edu'" , "'sher@slac.stanford.edu'" , "'spanier@slac.stanford.edu'" , "'baltay@yalph2.physics.yale.edu'" , "'mgstrauss@ou.edu'" , "'sawyer@phys.latech.edu'" , "'fisherp@mit.edu'" , "'rvankoot@indiana.edu'" , "'purohit@beauty.physics.sc.edu'" , "'schumm@scipp.ucsc.edu'" , "'uriel@pizero.colorado.edu'" , "'usha-mallik@uiowa.edu'" , "'rayfrey@cosmic.uoregon.edu'" , "'awhite@uta.edu'" , "'yasar-onel@uiowa.edu'" , "'yasar-onel@uiowa.edu'" , "'repond@hep.anl.gov'" , "'kamon@physics.tamu.edu'" , "'karchin@physics.wayne.edu'" , "'wilson@lamar.colostate.edu'" > Cc: Andreas Kronfeld , Dante Amidei , Dave Cinabro , Dhiman Chakraborty , George Gollin , "Gerry Dugan (E-mail)" , "John Jaros (E-mail)" , "Ritchie Patterson (E-mail)" , Shekhar Mishra , Slawomir Tkaczyk , "Thomas M. Himel (E-mail)" , "Usha Mallik (E-mail)" > Subject: LCRD (and UCLC) funding summaries Dear LCRD contact people, Here is a summary of the DOE/NSF funding results and what we know about this coming year's renewals. 1. Funding results for FY04 2. What's in store: DOE and NSF are discussing the possibility of a joint proposal. =============================== 1. Funding results for FY04 *** LCRD proposals *** accelerator: 17 submitted, 10 funded by DOE. $376k awarded for FY04, $466k for FY05, $401k for FY06. detector: 24 submitted, 14 funded by DOE. $564k awarded for FY04 only. *** UCLC proposals *** accelerator: 12 submitted, 2 funded by DOE. $24k awarded for FY04, $156k for FY05, $167k for FY06. 5 funded by NSF. $128k awarded for FY04. detector: 15 submitted, 4 funded by DOE. $136k awarded. *** Totals *** accelerator: 29 submitted, 17 funded. $528k awarded for FY04, $722k for FY05, $568k for FY06. detector: 39 submitted, 18 funded. $700k awarded for FY04. combined: 68 submitted, 35 funded, $1228k awarded for FY04, $722k for FY05, $568k for FY06. =============================== 2. What's in store: DOE and NSF are discussing the possibility of a joint proposal. A number of us met July 29 with Jim Reidy from DOE and Marv Goldberg from NSF at the Victoria LC meeting in July. Marv said that DOE and NSF are discussing an agreement about how to support LCRD/UCLC this coming year. He would like there to be a joint dual-agency effort, in which a single (common) proposal is sent to the two agencies, and is reviewed by a single detector panel (whose reviews are used by both agencies) and a single accelerator panel (again, whose reviews are used by both agencies). After the reviews, the two agencies would decide in cooperation how to handle the details of funding awards. Speaking only for the NSF, Marv commented that the LC detector proposals to NSF were not as well received by the reviewers as was the case for the DOE proposals. Marv felt that the case for the high priority of the detector R&D wasn't made as strongly in the proposals as it was during plenary session talks at the Victoria workshop earlier that day. Marv thinks we ought to emphasize that some aspects of LC detector proposals are also generic: "yes, it'll go into an LC detector, but it's of general utility to HEP detector development, because some day there'll be another HEP detector built somewhere at some accelerator." Jim Brau asked Marv how the review panel for UCLC/LCRD projects would be set up. Marv said the NSF has to set up the panel since they are not allowed to use a review panel set up by, for example, ALCPG/USLCSG. It is possible that a joint proposal document might be a "Big Document" rather than the short, page-limited document that NSF has usually required for its proposal format. But this will need to be worked out between DOE and NSF if they really do manage to arrange a joint submission process. In a change from last year, Marv said the review panel would evaluate the proposal NOT as a proposal in competition with everything else in the world. They will set aside funds for LC work, and the review will be used to decide how to handle these set-aside funds. Jim Reidy said he's less optimistic than Marv on the possibility of a joint NSF/DOE proposal effort: DOE and NSF have very different ways of handling proposals and he thinks it is too different (NSF vs. DOE) to do a same-review, joint proposal process yet. Later, when LC work is "projectized" this will be easier. Jim said he wanted to see more clearly from the proposals how the proposed work fits into the international picture. [This is an issue some of us had discussed earlier. It would make sense to have individual proponents write descriptions of this into their project documents.] Maury Tigner asked when we should submit proposals. Jim Reidy said he thought they ought to be ready to tell us what they would like us to submit in about two months, but they might not know enough to give us a go-ahead as early as that. It sounds like it will work to have proposals arrive in Washington in November. Both Jim Reidy and Marv Goldberg thought it was quite possible that the ~December reviews could be used to make funding decisions this time, eliminating one step from the process. (This is a good thing!) =============================== So- it sounds like a Big Document that holds progress reports is probably going to be something we'll prepare this fall. Could you forward this to other participants in your projects, please? best regards, Dan, Dave, Dhiman, George, Gerry, John, Ritchie, Shekhar, Slawek, Tom, Usha