1. M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 1Aug 7 th, phone Schedule and resources  SPIDER has been streamlined to cover:  1) 1 submission ‘small pixel’ ISIS (vertexing/tracking - LCFI) test chip  2) 1 optimised CMOS pixel detector optimised for vertexing/tracking  3) 1 submission large TPAC (CALICE) test chip Note – This will be investigated for use by FAIR (Nuclear Structure)  4) Calorimeter stack  Costs have been reviewed and reduced by (sequentially)  1)Minimising submissions  2)Reducing the infrastructure requirements  3) Detailed bottom-up evaluation of requirements  4)…and ???  Schedule optimisation consists of adjusting timing to take account of:  1) An early start needed by TPAC to be able to complete the full stack test  2) Smooth out the design and test-load

2. M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 2Aug 7 th, phone Proposed schedule

3. M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 3Aug 7 th, phone Resource usage  Things to note:  Top chart shows design effort  Work starts early (thanks to Renato)  Project needs 1-3 designers over most of the project  Bottom chart shows test tasks  (continuation of LCFI & CALICE)

4. M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 4Aug 7 th, phone Corrections v01  V2  Add in corrections 1.Update Bristol effort (+1.45fte) & contribution to ISIS 2.Update & reprofile RAL effort (+0.6fte) 3.Reschedule ISIS effort earlier 4.Update TPAC to include PC boards, assembly +£20K 5.Review DCAL program  Move Some effort earlier  Move £50K from TPAC  Add £40K for Tungsten, cooling, cables 6.Move resources from Year-2 to Year-1 or Year-3 where possible  ISIS submission & PC boards (£105K) to Year-1  TPAC Effort & PC boards to Year-1  Some WP3 consumables to Year-1  Contingency - £60K into Year-3

5. M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 5Aug 7 th, phone What next?  The following tables show the resources broken down by year, WP, group and device  For each device the material costs and effort are shown separately  In final column share the overheads (management, working allowance, contingency) evenly between devices  The current cost estimate is £3.45M  £1.33M (38%) Yr-1, £1.25M (36%) Yr-2, £0.87M (25%) Yr-3  We need to reduce the cost by £450K especially in the first 2 years  The breakdown between people and material costs  People ~£2.4M and Material ~£1.0M  We need to reduce people by 20% or material by 50%  The distribution of effort between groups is:  Birmingham has 5 names on proposal (4.8fte) – DCAL+TPAC  Bristol has 6 names on proposal (5.5fte) – ISIS + CHERWELL  IC has 3 names on proposal (4.4fte) – DCAL + TPAC + CHERWELL  Oxford has 5 names on proposal (4.8fte) – ISIS + CHERWELL  RAL has 7 names on proposal (9.9fte) – ISIS + TPAC + CHERWELL + DPAC  Further cuts in any group would be painful – could maybe gain ~ £100K?

6. M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 6Aug 7 th, phone What next?  Question – What if we drop one of the research strands?  Assume we keep all of the people  ISIS save £270Ki.e. still missing £180K  TPAC save £245Ki.e. still missing £205K  CHER save £157Ki.e. still missing £293K  DCAL save £378Ki.e. still missing £ 72 K

7. M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 7Aug 7 th, phone Resource breakdown – Table-i

8. M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 8Aug 7 th, phone Resource breakdown – Table-ii

9. M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 9Aug 7 th, phone How to reduce cost of Spider by ~£0.5M 1. No RAS?Reduces cost by £482K but  Can institutes deliver on work-packages? Which institutes would remain? 2. Descope/delay TPAC+DCALReduces cost by ~£450K (see next slide)  Requires a reduction of 1 RA or technical support  Could Spider program be reduced to 2 years and followed by a 2 year DCAL program? 3. Delay CherwellReduces cost by ~£430K (see next slide)  Requires reduction of an engineer and 2RAs or technical support Which institutes would remain?

10. M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 10Aug 7 th, phone Resource breakdown – Table-ii

11. M. Tyndel, SPIDER proposal 11Aug 7 th, phone Scenario – To reduce cost of Spider by ~£0.5M After a detailed look at our cost model, I can see only one option to fit within the £1M pa cash limit. This is to redefine the TPAC and DCAL program so that it extends over a longer period. In the current 3 year period we would concentrate on proving that a sensor for digital calorimetry can be produced with the required performance. We should anticipate a 2nd 2 year research program to produce and evaluate a full stack. This could and probably should be done in the framework of a larger collaboration. Modified scheme: 1.Evaluate TPAC 1.1 and measure its response to both min-I particles and low energy photons. Compare measurements to simulation to get expected energy resolution. 2.Radiation test TPAC 1.1 3.Evaluate high resistivity version of TPAC1.1 4.Design TPAC2.0 to be the foundation of a scalable system. Issues to be addressed:  Develop a stitchable design to eliminate the need for complex PC boards (currently the cost of the PC boards and assembly exceeds the cost of sensors)  Develop a defect tolerant design to ensure high yields (this might require a test structure)  Revisit architecture to minimise the dead area  Minimise the number of IO pads to allow ‘simple’ assembly’ 5.Production of a large area demonstrator 6.Evaluation of large area demonstrator in a min-I and EM shower beam