EURO A High Intensity Neutrino Oscillation Facility in

EURO A High Intensity Neutrino Oscillation Facility in Europe • Status of EUROnu • Costing, safety, etc • Annual reports • Milestones and deliverables for WP 1 • This meeting

Status of EUROnu • 21/48 th finished! • Much progress since last meeting: § Only just started then § This meeting will show significant progress • Using EC metrics § 34 documents § 52 meetings § 7 new associates since we started • Many issues raised at 1 st meeting, by IAP, etc, dealt with

Status of EUROnu • Scientifically, EUROnu not important! • Politically it is: § Recognised as part of CERN strategy § Main European activity on 2 nd generation facilities § Strong connection to IDS-NF § Point of contact with CERN management § Input to SPC Neutrino Panel • ECFA/Strategy secretariat (+ ICFA? ) review panel § Review IDS and next EUROnu report § Maintains important role § Internationalises further

Costing, Safety, etc • Outputs of EUROnu: § Performance § Cost § Safety § (Technical) risk • Cost § very important! § very limited resources § needs to be done efficiently and coherently as pos. § taken on by Ilias

Costing Workshop • Need a costing panel • Need a PBS/WBS § allows exploitation of overlaps § same approach, assumptions, etc • Combined approach to experts • Use CLIC tool: § some work already done § use well defined (defendable) techniques § even methods of making a choice • More later

Safety • To come next • Workshop planned • Focus on big, potentially show-stopping issues • Technical risk: § identify issues requiring further R&D § focus large impact things § hopefully, comes out of other work?

Annual Report #1 • Not (quite) done with! § Was submitted late § More (trivial) information requested § All now received and submitted • Many lessons learnt (by me!) • We must all do better next time

Annual Report #2 • Includes independent Technical review • Outcome between § Everything is fine, continue unchanged § Cancel and repay EC funding • Next report: submitted by end October! § all due milestones and deliverables done § WP reports § Form Cs done & signed § Explanations of costs done • Work will start in August • Review during next annual meeting: RAL – Jan/Feb 2011

WP 1 Deliverables Del. no. Deliverable name [1] WP no. Lead beneficiary Estimated indicative person-months Nature[2] Dissemination level [3] Delivery date[4] (proj. month) D 1 Requirements for proton driver 2 2 12 R PU 6 D 2 Report on 1 st year activities All 1 47 R PU 12 D 3 Review detector performance of baseline scenarios 5 4 36 R PU 12 D 4 Review physics of baseline scenarios and optimisation 6 6 24 R PU 12 D 5 Review of baseline muon front end and large aperture acceleration 3 3 56 R PU 15 D 6 Comparison criteria 1 3 9 R PU 18 D 7 Collection device construction 4 15 40 P PU 18 D 8 Bunching performance evaluation 4 7 40 R PU 18 D 9 Interim report All 1 94 R PU 24 D 10 Target and collection design report 2 1 175 R PU 30 D 11 Cost and performance evaluation for reference muon front-end 3 7 56 R PU 30 D 12 Report on the experimental validation of the collection device for Li-8 4 15 90 P PU 30

WP 1 Deliverables • D 8 done and being written up • Criteria not completely defined, e. g. θ 13 known? • But use obvious: § Physics: -δ - θ 13 - Δm 223 § Cost and schedule § Safety: § Risk: - personnel - environmental impact - technical - only show-stoppers

WP 1 Deliverables • Ultimately, would be good to have figure of merit • Techniques exist to do this • Easier to do if θ 13 known • Otherwise, use 3 cases: § large, e. g. >10 -2 § intermediate, e. g. >10 -3 & <10 -2 § small, e. g. <10 -3 • Needs results of costing and safety panels

List and schedule of milestones WP 1 Milestones Milestone no. Milestone name WPs no's. Lead beneficiary Delivery date from Annex I Comments 1. 1 Review of 1 st year milestones, deliverables & costs All 1 12 Reviewed by Governing Board 2. 1 Proton driver report 2 2 12 Parameters reviewed by external expert 4. 1 Baseline Beta-Beam scenario 4 3 12 Documentation reviewed 5. 1 Review detector performance for Neutrino Factory 5 6 12 Report reviewed 6. 1 Update physics potential 6, 5, 2 6 12 Report reviewed 3. 1 Evaluation of baseline front-end complete 3 3 15 Report reviewed by external expert 4. 2 Design of collection device 4 15 15 Drawings qualified by external expert 3. 2 Evaluation of baseline acceleration systems complete 3 5 18 Report reviewed by external expert 4. 3 Lattice frozen for production ring 4 3 18 Optics qualified by external expert 1. 2 Initial facility comparison 1 1 20 Reviewed by external expert 4. 4 New decay ring optics for 8 Li and 8 B 4 3 21 Optics qualified by external expert 1. 3 Review on interim milestones, deliverables & costs All 1 24 Reviewed by Governing Board 2. 2 Preliminary design of target and collector 2 7 24 Drawings qualified by external expert 2. 3 Preliminary target/collector integration report 2 8 24 Drawings qualified by external expert 2. 4 1 st estimation of neutrino beam intensity 2 2 24 Report qualified by external expert

WP 1 Milestones • Not possible to do yet • Will use the most recent results from WP 6 • Hence, preliminary physics only comparison

This Meeting • Very important! • Preparation for technical review…… • ……. . but plenty of science as well • Welcome to the 2 nd annual EUROnu meeting!