FP7 Design study proposal

Michele Punturo

Harald Lueck

2

Previous history

• This is our second attempt, in our recent history, to present a design study to the EU– In the FP6 we submitted the EGO DS proposal

(unsuccessful) and the N5+JRA3 (STREGA) activities (successful)

– The network activity permits to be here and inside N5 the WG3 (devoted to the future developments) has been appointed to realize the FP7-DS proposal

– We sent around the draft of the proposal to have a feedback about the agreement on the philosophy we are implementing

3

EU calls plan• First point:

– It is necessary to understand the importance of catching this opportunity NOW, otherwise the next time window will be in 2010

4

FP7 Call• The amount of

money available is almost ridiculous:

– 29M€ for all the disciplines for all the Europe

– The size of a project should be of the order of 3M€, but this is not the main subject of this meeting

– The success probability follows the rare events statistics

5

Proposal timeline

6

Meeting aim

• The aim of this meeting is:– Confirm and elaborate the philosophy of the project

we defined– Set-up the team that must converge to a proposal

within the specified time• We need four coordinators (= four WPs) that must write the

WP content in a coordinated way in the WG3 group• We need a contact person for each institution that will appear

in the project– This contact person must react and solve all the bureaucratic

problems

– Find a name for the proposal and identify a project coordinator (EB session?)

7

Proposal Philosophy• Conceptual design of a 3rd generation GW

detector• Any technological demonstration must be realized

in activities parallel (but external) to the project– This is also foreseen in the new FP7 call

• Minimize the deliverables related to experimental activities

– Result of the project must be the realization of a series of reports that are collected in a conceptual design

– The most detailed result is the definition of the infrastructure needed for the 3rd generation GW detector

» This requires the “a posteriori” selection of the detector topology and geometry

8

… Proposal Philosophy

• Hence, the main target for the money should be:– Few fellowships devoted to the project– Travel expenses for the coordination of the

activities– Project administration

9

Project description• Duration:

– DS projects can have a duration between 24 and 60 months

– Piling up the different activities we arrived to a duration of 40 months, still compatible with the possibility to apply to the next step in the FP7 framework

• Structure– The project is organized in 4 technical working

packages and 1 administration WP• Tasks have been inserted in these WPs, but the role of the

writers will be to complete this operation

10

WP1 – site identification

• The WP1 must define the infrastructures needed for a 3rd generation GW detector– Obviously it is interconnected with all the

other WP– The first answer asked to the WP1 is the “site

level”:• Underground or not?• Obviously the answer can arrive only by analyzing

the seismic+newtonian+control noise requirements

11

WP2 – suspension requirements definition

• Definition of the requirements that a suspension must satisfy to be compliant with a 3rd generation detector– Thermal noise requirements

• Test masses and suspension itself

– Thermal conduction requirements– Seismic filtering properties– Cryogenic suspension conceptual design

12

WP3-topology identification

• Current and future technologies investigation

• Detector topology modeling

• Detector geometry modeling– Main information supplier of the WP1 and

WP2

13

WP4 – Astrophysics requirements

• Must define the detection capabilities of a 3rd generation detector– What means to make GW astronomy?– Where it is better to tune the detector

sensitivity• Large bandwidth or tuned detector?

• It supplies the info to all the other WPs– Also computation requirements must be

addressed

14

WP5 - Management

• Define the review periodicity– Verify the

accomplishment of the objectives

• Summarize the results and organize the final report to the institutions

Project Coordinator

WP1 coordinator WP2 coordinator WPn coordinator

Administration secretary

Task responsible Task responsible

15

Coordinators-Writers selection• We need to select now the writers

– Duties of the writers• complete the project structure filling the tables 1.3c of the

project• Identify the milestones and fill the table 1.3e• Collect the contribution offers from the institution, select the

right balance, identify the real man power contribution that each institution can give and fill the table 1.3d

• The weakness of the FP6 proposal has been the lack of homogeneity of the project

• We must avoid it– All the outcomes of the activities of the writers must

be agreed with the proposal coordinator(s) in order to have an unique scenario

• Names?

16

Project coordinator

• It must interface the consortium with the EU

• It must do the real coordination job

• It must follow the design activity of the different WP

• It is both a Scientific and Administrative coordinator– In the last activity it is supported by a secretary

• Names (EB decision?)

17

Contact persons

• Decide the contact person for each institution– They must solve all the bureaucratic problems– They must fill the section 2.2 of the document

• Names?

18

Consortium structure• We must describe the consortium structure• At least three institutions of different European

countries must participate at the proposal• Two possibilities for budget sharing

– Centralized management• More homogeneous project handling • Difficulties in attributing the fellowships to the different

institutions– “A priori” money subdivision

• Easier use of the money (fellowships) • Because of the restricted amount of money available it will be

really difficult to make “everybody happy”

• Honestly I prefer the first solution

19

Time line

• End of February– Declare to the EU our “intention” to submit a proposal

• Name of the proposal, Coordinator, institutions

• Middle March– Circulate a second version (completely filled) of the proposal– Ready for the end of March APPEC meeting

• Beginning of April– Pass through the GEO-VIRGO executive boards

• Middle April– To have a final version, ready for the last reading

• End of April– Proposal submission

20

Evaluation Criteria

21

Maximum Reimbursement rate