1 / 18

Strategy

Strategy. Based on a redefinition of: (i) LHC schedule and (ii) the scientific programme for the Laboratory 2002-2009 with: Streamlining the Laboratory on the LHC; Clear financial targets across all CERN activities to meet the cost to completion;

tavon
Download Presentation

Strategy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Strategy Based on a redefinition of: (i) LHC schedule and (ii) the scientific programme for the Laboratory 2002-2009 with: • Streamlining the Laboratory on the LHC; • Clear financial targets across all CERN activities to meet the cost to completion; • Clear lines for changes in human resources policy, covering staff and outsourcing; • Changes in structures and improved control and communication Scientific Policy Committee

  2. Papers submitted to March Committees • CERN/CC/2430: Status and Schedule of the LHC Machine, Experiments and Computing • CERN/SPC/806;/FC/4537:The scientific activities for CERN and budget estimates for the years 2003-2010. Preliminary orientations • CERN/FC/4538: Management and control structures •  CERN/FC/4539: Proposal for the unblocking of the withheld part of the 2002 Materials Budget Scientific Policy Committee

  3. 1.1. LHC Schedule • Contracts for dipole cold mass assembly are being signed; CERN has a double role of supplier of sc cables and end customer of the dipoles: we must be prudent in defining the dipole delivery schedule, hence the LHC schedule. • SC cable production to end mid 2005; • last dipole delivered July 1st, 2006; • Machine closed and cold: Oct. 2006; • First beam: April 2007; • First physics: mid 2007; • The detailed revised schedule in the MTP to be presented in June. Scientific Policy Committee

  4. 1.2. The LHC experimental programme • We do not propose to delay further or suppress either ALICE or LHCb. • Heavy ion collisions were a fundamental factor in LHC approval in 1996. • LHCb extends studies of CP violation in the B system. Precision far beyond current B factories, entirely new decay channels to be explored. • Experiments promoted by more than 1500 scientists, approved and funded in their own countries. • Cancellation would cause havoc and embarrassment in MS and to our partners in non-MS. Scientific Policy Committee

  5. 2. Scientific activity, 2003-2006 • A programme reduced to the bare bones, aiming at an almost complete focusing of CERN human and financial resources on the LHC; • Integrates results by Task Force 1 • Non-LHC activities: only those are retained where significant investments have to be protected, or which are vital to CERN future. Very painful choices have been made. • Still a long time-gap to LHC, with extremely reduced physics: will CERN be sufficiently attractive to get the good people needed later for the LHC exploitation?; • Council to decide activity above this minimum level. Scientific Policy Committee

  6. 2.1. SPS programme • SPS running is the most expensive • Minimal programme must respect main interests of fixed target users (investment done, PhDs…) & LHC detector calibration • Proposals: • Confirm the approved 2003 programme; • COMPASS phase 1 up to 2004; phase 2 (if approved) from 2006 onwards; • Full year stop in 2005; • 30% beam time reduction in other years (but CMS may require more time in 2004) up to 2006. Scientific Policy Committee

  7. 2.2. Neutrinos • Management has come to the decision that CERN must withdraw from its participation in OPERA (direct observation of t neutrinos), in spite of its scientific interest • The withdrawal releases about 12MCHF of funding over the period 2002-2010 and 6 FTE/y. • This measure implies that CERN will not participate in a neutrino physics experiments in the foreseeable future. Scientific Policy Committee

  8. 2.3. PS programme • Running PS much less expensive than SPS • A valuable low energy programme, a large community: no reason to disrupt • However, 30% cuts on running time in 2003 to 2006. Scientific Policy Committee

  9. 2.4. Accelerator R&D • General reduction to 1998 level: 4M/y, about 30 FTE; • CTF3 maintained: • we need to know if it is a viable technology for MultiTeV physics • CERN can make a decisive impact • Good level of collaboration with European Labs • SPL 120 MeV front end: a minimum investment; • No provision for further R&D on neutrino factory (muon cooling, etc.) • Support to a possible (EU based ?) network with CERN know-how. A MINIMAL programme for an accelerator laboratory of the importance of CERN. Its narrowness and limitations can only be justified by the present severe budgetary problems. Task Force 1 Scientific Policy Committee

  10. Overall view of proposed scientific plan Scientific Policy Committee

  11. 3. CERN Neutrino beam to Gran Sasso CNGS Beam as approved in 1999: • 71 MCHF (2.5 M contingency) marginal cost • 22 MCHF recuperated equipment (WAN, LHC) • 59 m *y MS contributions 62 M, cost to CERN 9 M, for a total value 93 M. 1) Via DESY, produced at BINP: Dipoles for Transfer line, Vacuum line. 2) IN2P3, Horns 3) Compagnia di San Paolo. Payments and Commitments:

  12. CERN Neutrino beam to Gran Sasso (cont’d) Revised figures submitted by project in 2002: • 79 MCHF (2.5 M contingency) marginal cost • 84m*y • Independent Review Panel: estimates 84 MCHF, but sees scope for 3 MCHF savings; • Management has asked the CNGS project team to present a revised project version, with the project cost to CERN as originally foreseen. • Start up in 2006 (NuMI: second quarter of 2005); • CNGS will be a most important scientific facility for European physics. Scientific Policy Committee

  13. 4. Fellows & Associates • We propose to reduce budget by 15-20%; • Reduction mainly on non-LHC activities; • Compensation from other sources possible in certain areas (e. g. EU fellowships, trainee programmes). Scientific Policy Committee

  14. 5. Restructuring the Accelerator Sector • Adapt to the post-LEP, LHC mode of operation; • Facilitate deployment of people on the LHC, for which manpower has been always a critical area; • Two main areas of activity: accelerator operation, advanced technologies for accelerators and detectors; • Task Force 5 has addressed this problem and made proposals; • Idea has gained momentum. Proposal to regroup activities in two Divisions will be presented in June. Scientific Policy Committee

  15. 6. Saving and Financial Plan • ambitious target on Industrial Services; • uncertainty margin (20% ?) • Supported by Task Force3, • More work, tight controls Reallocation of some 41 M/year over the period, in 2002 money Scientific Policy Committee

  16. Scenario 1 – Summarized Anticipated Budgetary Position (MCHF, current prices) Scientific Policy Committee

  17. Scenario 2- Summarized Anticipated Budgetary Position (MCHF, current prices) Scientific Policy Committee

More Related