1. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson1 DES Management  Survey Organization  Survey Deliverables  Proposed funding model  Reviews and Status  Request and Conclusions

2. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson2 Dark Energy Survey Organization

3. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson3 Project Organization  Two projects: The DES Instrument (DECam) and Data Management  Each project has a separate Set of requirements and deliverables Work Break Down Structure and budget Project manager and project team Schedule and contingency management Formal change control process  Project Director oversees both through the Management Committee

4. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson4 Management Committee  The Management Committee coordinates the two projects and the Science Working Group Each institution has an institutional member The two project managers, Brenna Flaugher and Joe Mohr, are also members The Project Director is the Chair  The Management Committee is responsible for Developing the funding plan and funding proposals for submission to sponsors Assigning institutional responsibilities Serving as the highest level change control board  The Chair is the Project Executive

5. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson5 Survey Deliverables  A fully commissioned DECam mounted on the Blanco telescope that will: Meet the Survey requirements, Deliver raw data to NCSA for processing, Enable the Collaboration to meet the DES science goals.  A DES Archive that will: Deliver processed images and catalogs to the collaboration and then to the community Enable the Collaboration to carry out the science of the key projects

6. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson6 Benefits for the NOAO users  DECam Opportunities for Blanco users: If DECam is used with the same regularity as Mosaic II it will be available to the CTIO user community during the time it is not used by the DES collaboration. It will cover nearly ten times the area/hour that Mosaic II covers.  DES Archive Opportunities for astronomers: It will provide a deep four band map of the SGC. The DES archive will be a valuable asset for the astronomy community that will enable many science projects beyond the DES key projects.  The DES Collaboration would like to host a workshop in the Chicago area in order to explore the opportunities that DECam and the Archive could provide to the astronomical community.

7. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson7 Funding Model for DECam  The estimated cost of DECam, exclusive of overhead and scientist salaries, is $18.4 M and $11.4 M of this amount is for hardware (M&S funds) and $7 M is for labor at Fermilab.  We propose that Fermilab provide $7.4 M of the M&S funds through its DOE base budget because Fermilab is the lead institution for DECam.  We propose that Fermilab support its $7 M technical labor through its DOE base budget and that UIUC, Chicago, and CTIO support their efforts primarily through institutional resources.  We propose to obtain the remaining $4 M of M&S funds through proposals to the NSF, cash contributions from the current university partners, and in-kind and cash contributions from new partners.

8. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson8 The remaining M&S Funds for DECam  In view of the likely possibility that the NOAO community will use DECam extensively we plan to submit a proposal to the NSF in October that includes a request for $4 M for DECAm.  We have received assurances from the UIUC and Chicago that each will provide about $400 K to seed the project and support the FY05 development work.  We are actively seeking one or two additional partners that could provide in-kind contributions and/or cash that will reduce the amount of M&S funds that we need to obtain from the NSF by $1.5 to $2 M.

9. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson9 Funding model for Data Management  We propose that NSF support the Data Management leadership at UIUC/NCSA because UIUC is the lead institution for Data Management. Our proposal to the NSF will include a request for $1.2 M for support during build and commissioning phases of Data Management.  NCSA and UIUC have agreed to make significant contributions to this effort, but they need to be augmented with NSF funds.  The Fermilab contribution to Data Management will be supported through its DOE base budget without an increase in staff or a cost to NSF.

10. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson10 Fermilab reviews and outcomes  The Collaboration submitted the DES proposal to Fermilab on March 11.  The Fermilab PAC reviewed it in April and again in late June, following a preliminary Director’s review in early June.  The outcome of the preliminary Director’s review was positive. The PAC found the science provided by the DES to be exciting and well-worth the estimated cost assuming that it can be carried out on a timescale of the new proposed schedule. The PAC recommended Stage I approval.  The Director found the science compelling and well suited to our [Fermilab] mission and gave DES (E-939) stage I approval.

11. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson11 Stage I Approval Stage I approval for DES provides:  Continuing technical support to complete the DECam design, cost estimate and schedule  A commitment to initiate the FY05 development work in partnership with LBNL, UIUC and Chicago  An M&S budget profile that allows observations to start in the fall of 2009 and is acceptable to Fermilab. It is subject to approval by the DOE Division of High Energy Physics  Authorization to submit the revised proposal for Blanco observing time to NOAO

12. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson12 Expectations of the Fermilab Director  One condition for stage II approval is that the estimated cost of DECam not increase. Fermilab has urged the Collaboration to review their requirements and consider descoping (10 to 20%) as a means of controlling M&S costs if it does not impact the science goals.  A second condition for stage II approval is that survey observations should start in the fall of 2009. A modest reduction in the M&S cost could provide schedule contingency, since the schedule is limited by the pace of M&S funds.  The Collaboration will obtain commitments for the other funding to gain stage II approval.

13. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson13 DES Request  We request that NOAO commit to award the DES Collaboration 30% of the observing time on the Blanco for the five year period between 2009 and 2014, concentrated between September and February, in exchange for providing DECam and the public archive.  This will enable the DES to begin to take the next steps toward obtaining stage II approval from Fermilab, thereby releasing the resources to build DECam and the archive.

14. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson14 The next steps for DES and NOAO  Draft the URA-AURA MOU that defines the arrangements between the DES collaboration and NOAO and submit the draft to NSF and DOE for concurrence.  DES submits a proposal to NSF Astronomy and Physics on October 15 to fund the build and commissioning phases of DECam and the archive, which includes the draft URA- AURA MOU.  DOE accepts Fermilab’s request to include the DES (E-939) in their FY05 program guidance letter.  DES collaboration begins the FY05 development effort at Fermilab with financial support from Fermilab, UIUC, and Chicago.  The last three steps are contingent on an MOU that is acceptable to all parties.

15. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson15 Conclusions  Our Collaboration is talented and up to the tasks of building a large camera for astronomy, distributing the DES archive, and achieving our science goals.  We made substantial progress on the technical design, cost and schedule for DECam in a very short amount of time.  We have a close collaboration with the South Pole Telescope project. They need good redshifts and we can provide them.  We can present our first results on the four key projects and deliver the survey data to the community in 2012.

16. John Peoples for the DES Collaboration BIRP Review August 12, 2004 Tucson16 Steps for DES after October 04  December 04- January 05: Internal review of the DECam design, cost and schedule in preparation for the baseline review.  February 05- March 05: Baseline review of DECam conducted by Fermilab/DOE.  April 05: Fermilab includes DES in its FY06-08 budget request to DOE.