sPHENIX cold QCD topical group

[David Morrison <morrison AT bnl.gov>]

Hi John,

These are good points.

Berndt charged the sPHENIX collaboration, so the eventual report will be
delivered to him by the sPHENIX collaboration, after we follow all the
steps we deem suitable and appropriate.

I think this is a good opportunity to be welcoming to our colleagues who
are not-as-yet-collaborators.  Sure, we have to be sensitive to how they
might view this process, but I think this can be done in a way which is
much more "inviting" than "uninviting".  As you know, it's a *lot* of
work to describe a full detector and the physics it can do.  Starting
from scratch this is daunting.  We're providing a serious context in
which additional expertise can jump right in to strengthen the overall
picture.

About the "methodology" – Ed O'Brien and I met with Diane and her
colleague, Phil Hollabaugh (a P6 expert) a few weeks ago to learn what
the story is.  One thing is that they have a lot of information baked
into the eRHIC costing model about BNL labor costs and overhead rates
and a zillion other things.  They've been working with people in C-AD
(again, about the accelerator) to develop WBS's and to query them about
the work and costs associated with their part of the whole eRHIC
project.  Diane's group has developed a spreadsheet-based approach to
ask for the information they need, which they then fold into some master
P6 model.  I understood that this was the methodology being described in
the charge – work with Diane's group to collect information about what
it would take to realize an EIC detector, starting from sPHENIX, and
that Diane's group would help transform that information into a cost and
(presumably) schedule estimate.  I think it's generic enough that I
don't see a need to alter the charge – if anything it gives us the
go-ahead to insist on a measure of support from Diane's group.

Cheers,
Dave

On 3/19/18 4:42 PM, John Lajoie wrote:
> Hi Christine,
> 
>     Thanks for sending out these minutes - this is very helpful, sorry I
> was unable to attend.
> 
>     I have a few comments/questions - these things may have already been
> discussed so I apologize in advance for any redundancy:
> 
> -> I am very supportive of the modified wording of the charge.  Is it
> clear to everyone that as sPHENIX is asked to form the detector study
> group that sPHENIX controls the process of producing the LOI?  Will the
> LOI be internally reviewed by sPHENIX, in much the same way our other
> documents have been, prior to being sent to BNL?
> 
> I realize it might seem "uninviting" to outside people, but I am worried
> that if the process is not clear from the start it could cause problems
> later on.
> 
> -> Although we don't have to present budget/cost information in June, do
> we know yet what "the methodology that Diane Hatton has developed for
> EIC and that Elke Aschenauer and her group is using to develop a cost
> estimate for a generic EIC detector" actually is?  Are we OK with this,
> or is this another area where the charge should be modified?
> 
> -> I agree that the timescale of September for the LOI seems arbitrary. 
> I was toying with changing the language in the charge to say something
> like "present preliminary findings.." but that just takes all the
> pressure off and really doesn't help.  Arbitrary or not, it's a good
> deadline.
> 
> ->  IMHO we should not agree to a charge until the BNL review process
> for the document is spelled out, in writing, in the charge.  In recent
> times there have been too many documents that have gone to the ALD only
> to be forgotten.  You will be able to get more of a commitment from
> people to work on the LOI if they know it won't be ignored. 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> John
> 
> On 3/18/2018 10:16 PM, Aidala, Christine wrote:
>>
>> Below are minutes from the discussion of the LOI charge that was held
>> on Friday.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Christine
>>
>> --
>>
>>  
>>
>> In attendance: Christine, Nils, Dave, Gunther, Abhay, Sasha
>> Bazilevsky, Ernst, Jin, Joe Osborn, Paul Stankus, Pawel, Yuji
>>
>>  
>>
>> Here is the modified language that was presented for discussion (see
>> the slides at
>> https://indico.bnl.gov/event/4377/contributions/20417/attachments/17883/22050/LOIChargeDiscussion20180316.pdf)::
>>
>>  
>>
>> “You are asked to establish a detector study group consisting of
>> members of sPHENIX and any individuals interested in EIC science from
>> outside the sPHENIX collaboration that can update the Letter of
>> Intent for an EIC detector built around the BaBar solenoid in the
>> context of the eRHIC pre-CDR and perform a cost estimate of the
>> construction costs in FY2018 dollars. This estimate should be
>> performed with the methodology that Diane Hatton has developed for EIC
>> and that Elke Aschenauer and her group is using to develop a cost
>> estimate for a generic EIC detector in conjunction with the ongoing
>> pre-CDR cost estimation process.  The Letter of Intent should contain
>> an outline of the expected physics program for the detector in the
>> first five years of running using estimates of the luminosity
>> development anticipated for initial EIC operation.
>>
>>  
>>
>> A brief presentation on the physics capabilities of the detector
>> should be prepared for the PAC meeting in June.  The complete version
>> of the updated LoI and the updated cost estimate should be ready at
>> the time of this year’s RHIC Site Visit, tentatively expected in the
>> second part of September 2018.  When the complete versions of the LoI
>> and cost estimate are available, a review will be scheduled, similar
>> to the one held in 2014.”
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> One of the goals: Language that makes it easy for individuals and
>> groups outside of sPHENIX to participate – Richard Milner (via e-mail)
>> and Ernst Sichtermann (on the call) both stated that they found the
>> draft language in the slides suitable in this respect.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Items for further discussion to consider for additional modifications
>> to the charge:
>>
>>  
>>
>> 1.      “using sPHENIX as a basis”(term in the opening paragraph of
>> Berndt’s original e-mail) – Should consider language that is clearer
>> about what “sPHENIX” is assumed to be, e.g. including MVTX or not? 
>> Descoped EMCal or not?  Perhaps refer to the “reference configuration”
>> that served as the reference for the 2016 descoping charge.  Also
>> don’t want language in the charge that could be construed as
>> constraining us to reuse every single component of sPHENIX. 
>>
>>  
>>
>> 2.      Timescale – RHIC Site Visit in September believed to be
>> somewhat arbitrary.  Important thing is likely to be ready with a
>> document and cost estimate in hand whenever CD-0 may be granted to
>> EIC.  Should we consider proposing alternative language in the charge
>> regarding timescale?  E.g. “end of September”?
>>
>>  
>>
>> 3.      Review of LoI and cost estimates when they are complete –The
>> 2014 for the previous LoI was not in fact a BNL review!  BNL did NOT
>> take action to review that LoI, and PHENIX had to organize its own
>> review.  We should add more explicit language in the charge about the
>> review process that will follow delivery of the LoI and updated cost
>> estimates. 
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Other notes:
>>
>> Cost guidance – Dave and Gunther requested some kind of total cost
>> guidance from Berndt, but Berndt does not wish to cite a dollar
>> value.  There is a sense from Berndt that a detector based on sPHENIX
>> as a starting point should be “significantly” less costly than a
>> green-field detector design; however, this has not been quantified. 
>> There was general sentiment among those in the discussion that we
>> should present a detector to do the physics, not a detector designed
>> to be cheap.
>>
>>  
>>
>> eRHIC pre-CDR is expected April 9, to undergo a BNL review later in
>> April.  We should identify exactly what we need from C-AD and contact
>> them with a request.  Even after we have the full pre-CDR document in
>> hand, should plan a meeting with relevant individuals from C-AD to
>> ensure that we are on the same page with regard to luminosity and
>> energy development as well as IR design. 
>>
>>  
>>
>> We should consider individuals to approach—e.g. detector experts,
>> physics experts—to ask them to consider contributing to the LoI.
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:* sPHENIX-cold-QCD-l
>> [mailto:sphenix-cold-qcd-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] *On Behalf Of
>> *Aidala, Christine
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 15, 2018 11:15 PM
>> *To:* sphenix-cold-qcd-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>> *Subject:* Re: [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] Discussion of EIC detector LOI
>> charge Friday, Mar 16, 4:00 pm EDT
>>
>>  
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>  
>>
>> An agenda page has been created for the discussion tomorrow:
>>
>> https://indico.bnl.gov/event/4377/
>>
>>  
>>
>> The Bluejeans connection is https://bluejeans.com/345777492.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Sasha has reserved Room 2-219 in the Physics Department for those at BNL.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Christine and Nils
>>
>>  
>>
>> --
>>
>> Christine A. Aidala
>> Associate Professor
>> Department of Physics
>> University of Michigan
>> (734) 764-7611 <tel:%28734%29%20764-7611>
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> *From:* sPHENIX-cold-QCD-l
>> [mailto:sphenix-cold-qcd-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] *On Behalf Of
>> *Aidala, Christine
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 14, 2018 10:19 PM
>> *To:* sphenix-cold-qcd-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>> *Subject:* [Sphenix-cold-qcd-l] Discussion of EIC detector LOI charge
>> Friday, Mar 16, 4:00 pm EDT
>>
>>  
>>
>> Dear Cold QCD TG members,
>>
>>  
>>
>> We apologize for the short notice, but Nils, Gunther, Dave, and I will
>> hold a discussion this Friday, March 16, at 4:00 pm EDT, of how to
>> potentially modify the draft charge from Berndt Mueller such that it
>> allows us to move forward effectively in preparing the LOI.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Minutes will be sent out for those cannot attend, and individuals are
>> encouraged to give input via this list or by contacting us directly. 
>> The original draft charge from Berndt is below, but note that he has
>> already agreed with Dave and Gunther to the modification that no cost
>> estimates would be expected by the PAC meeting.  One of our main goals
>> in proposing a further modified charge is to ensure that individuals
>> outside of sPHENIX who are interested in EIC science can formally be
>> part of preparing the LOI and feel welcome to do so.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Christine and Nils
>>
>> --
>>
>>  
>>
>> Dear Gunther & Dave:
>>
>>  
>>
>> As you know, the eRHIC design team is close to completing the
>> pre-conceptual design report, the NAS Study Panel is expected to
>> publish its assessment of the value of a US based EIC in the May time
>> frame, and DOE may declare CD-0 for an EIC sometime in the second half
>> of 2018. In this context it will be important that we have a clear and
>> up-to-date understanding of the value of sPHENIX as the basis of a
>> Day-1 eRHIC detector. The ePHENIX Letter of Intent now is four years
>> old and urgently requires an update that takes into account the
>> developments in detector technology and interaction region design.
>>
>>  
>>
>> For this reason, I ask you to establish a task force within the
>> sPHENIX collaboration that can update the ePHENIX Letter of Intent in
>> the context of the eRHIC pre-CDR and perform a cost estimate of the
>> construction costs in FY2018 dollars. This estimate should be
>> performed with the methodology that Diane Hatton has developed for EIC
>> and that Elke Aschenauer and her group is using to develop a cost
>> estimate for a generic EIC detector in conjunction with the ongoing
>> pre-CDR cost estimation process. It would be useful if the Letter of
>> Intent would contain an outline of the expected physics program for
>> ePHENIX in the first five years of its operation using estimates of
>> the luminosity development that Ferdinand Willeke can provide.
>>
>>  
>>
>> I would like to schedule a brief presentation on ePHENIX at the PAC
>> meeting in June; thus, it would be ideal if at least a first draft of
>> the updated LoI and the updated cost estimate would be ready
>> internally to the collaboration. The complete version of the LoI
>> should be ready at the time of this year’s RHIC Site Visit, which will
>> probably be held in the second part of September 2018. I will ask
>> Maria Chamizo-Llatas to schedule a review, similar to the one we held
>> in 2014, when the complete versions of the LoI and cost estimate are
>> available.
>>
>>  
>>
>> These are exciting times for all those interested in the physics of an
>> EIC. The facility is finally at the doorstep from concept onto the
>> path toward realization. I hope that this request will build on and
>> further strengthen the excitement of all those within the sPHENIX
>> collaboration who are looking forward to participation in a future EIC
>> physics program.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Berndt
>>
>>  
>>
>> --
>>
>> Christine A. Aidala
>> Associate Professor
>> Department of Physics
>> University of Michigan
>> (734) 764-7611 <tel:%28734%29%20764-7611>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sPHENIX-cold-QCD-l mailing list
>> sPHENIX-cold-QCD-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-cold-qcd-l
> 
> -- 
> 
> *John Lajoie*
> 
> Professor of Physics
> 
> Iowa State University
> 
>  
> 
> (515) 294-6952
> 
> lajoie AT iastate.edu
> 
> Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/john.lajoie.5> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-lajoie/9/a9/bba/>
> Contact me: Skype john.lajoie
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> sPHENIX-cold-QCD-l mailing list
> sPHENIX-cold-QCD-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-cold-qcd-l
> 

-- 
David Morrison  Brookhaven National Laboratory  phone: 631-344-5840
                Physics Department, Bldg 510 C    fax: 631-344-3253
                          Upton, NY 11973-5000  email: dave AT bnl.gov