Conclusions and Observations from the ET Design Study Workshop

Suggestions for discussion in plenum

  • Required software tools for further modelling
    • GWINC?
    • Logbook?
  • Should investigate single L?
  • Should investigate single broadband 120K design? (simpler , realistic on shorter times, while still good LF frequency potnetial). How much time and money can be saved if we go for single 120K detector.
  • Would is needed to get onto the ESFRI roadmap? technical design? Budget? Sensitivity? decision xylophone vs single detector?
  • Step 1) consolidate 120K design. 2) Form body (who? how? need people who understand international/european funding landscape) to decide key aspects (triangle vs L, surface vs underground). 3) People know what to design for and can start working.
  • Splitting of infrastructure and detector. Splitting of initial detector and facility limit.
  • Probably want to select wavelength for ET design early, as it has influences a lot of follow-on decisions, both design trade-offs but also investment decisions for R+D and prototypes

link for stan

 
/export0/wikidata/pages/et_update_2017/conclusions_and_observations_of_the_meeting.txt · Last modified: 2019/09/11 14:07 by stefan.hild
 
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
Recent changes RSS feed Donate Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki