1

KM3NeT

ESFRI/PSE-WG meeting, 3 December 2013, BrusselsMaarten de Jong & Paschal Coyle

on behalf of KM3NeT

The next generation neutrino telescope in the Mediterranean

2

Introduction

• Discovery and subsequent observation of high-energy neutrino sources in Universe– interface between astrophysics and particle physics

• pillar of multi-messenger approach

– synergy with Earth & Sea sciences

• KM3NeT is a new Research Infrastructure– cabled network of neutrino telescopes– located in deep waters of Mediterranean Sea

3

Multi-messenger astronomy

p, He, ..

n

g

?

cosmic rays

gamma rays

neutrinos– Supernova Remnants– Active Galactic Nuclei– Gamma-Ray Bursts– ...

!

4

KM3NeT

Architecture

neutrino telescope

shore station

remote accessto data

remoteoperationon off

computercenter

5

Technology (I)~

600 m

Optical moduleLauncher vehicle

‒ 31 x 3” PMTs‒ low-power HV‒ LED & piezo inside‒ FPGA readout‒ DWDM

‒ rapid deployment‒ autonomous unfurling‒ recoverable

6

Technology (II)

Multiplicity

Rate

[Hz]

PMT orientation [deg.]

Atmospheric muons+ data (M ≥ 7)

Atmospheric muons K40 random coincidences+ data

Rate

[a.u

.]

photon counting directionality

7

Costs (I)

Total investment 220–250 M€– stable since ESFRI roadmap (2006) and conform with TDR– includes contingency of 10%, provided no VAT– actual prices conform with cost model

Operational costs << 5% of total investment per year – conform with ESFRI roadmap update and TDR

Personnel– conform with TDR

Operation– ≥ 10 years

8

Costs (II)

€ KM3NeT string ~ ¼ of € Antares string

9

Site

Before:One large Research Infrastructure• interest from France, Italy and Greece to host complete infrastructure

Now: Strong case for distributed Research Infrastructure• agreement that France, Italy and Greece host part of infrastructure

“Advantage of additional funds and human resources resulting from using the three available sites significantly outweighs any

financial or scientific advantage from using one of the sites.”

10

Organisation (I)

EU funded Design Study 2006–2009– Conceptual Design Report– Technical Design Report

EU funded Preparatory Phase 2008–2012– Administrative Standing Committee

• endorsed technology decision• supported phase-1

– Scientific Standing Committee• review science & technology

Technology

Governance

Site decision

11

Organisation (II)

KM3NeT phase-1 January 2013 established collaboration

– 40 institutes, more than 220 persons elected central management set up project organisation

– prototyping, cost review, planning, QA/QC drafted Memorandum of Understanding

– investments, facilities, human resources, access policy set up Resources Review Board set up Scientific & Technical Advisory Committee

December 2013

12

Spending profile phase-1 (I)

spent/committed ≤ 2013

item costs [M€]

R&D 3,750

Infrastructure-Fr 4,850

Infrastructure-It 8,805

Deployments 1,950

Total 19,355

13

Spending profile phase-1 (II)S

exp

endi

ture

s [M

€]

months1-9-2013

prototypingstring 1string 2–25string 26–31total

14

Construction schedule phase-1

months

strin

gs

¶ in string-equivalent units

integrated modules¶

integrated strings

installed strings

1-1-2014

15

Phased implementation

Phase Total costs[M€]

Primary deliverable

1 31 Proof of feasibility of network of distributed neutrino telescopes

1.5 80–90 Measurement of neutrino signal reported by IceCube

2 220–250 Neutrino astronomy

16

ERIC

• establishes KM3NeT as a legal entity– streamline procurement and financial management

– avoid VAT for total investment

• collaboration agreed to host ERIC in the Netherlands– Amsterdam Science Park is ideal

• Resources Review Board supports ERIC for phase 1.5– start process when phase-1 is positively reviewed (i.e.

before it is completed)

17

Funding requests (I)• France

– 25 M€ (ERDF + national + local)• to be matched with 25 M€ from other countries

• Greece– 54.7 M€ (ERDF)

• construction of neutrino telescope at Pylos site

• Italy– 10 M€/year between 2015–2019 (national)

• part of upgrade program of existing Research Infrastructures in less favoured regions

18

Funding requests (II)

• the Netherlands– announced future request for 4.3 M€ (national)

• construction, real-time computing, T-sensor array

• Romania– ? M€ (national)

• intention to set up production line for optical modules (negotiations on-going)

• Interest from groups in Germany, Spain and UK– no requests in near future

19

Global Neutrino Network

MoU signed by KM3NeT

20

21

Replies (I)

1. Engage with funding agencies and governments; Likelihood and timetable for funding versus phase-1; VAT.

– MoU phase-1 submitted to Resources Review Board– preparation of funding request on-going– invited to submit Letter of Intent for phase-1.5– VAT exempt for hardware deployed in deep-sea

2. Governance structure; Earth & Sea sciences.– preferred governance structure compliant with ASPERA

guidelines and successfully applied in Antares– Earth & Sea sciences

• membership (full or observer)• MoU foreseen with ESS institutes and/or EMSO

22

Replies (II)

3. Management; Cooperation between groups; Consensus-building path.– established single collaboration with central management – major decisions taken (sites, technology, governance, etc.)

4. Three sites versus management plan; ERIC & Procurement.– evaluated merits of single versus multi-site

• three sites solution is favoured by funding and human resources

– management plan phase-1 exist• site managers are member of central management team

– ERIC will be pursued for next phases• facilitates procurement• avoid VAT for total investment

23

Replies (III)

5. Ethics Board; Impact marine environment.– role and implementation defined in MoU Annex 4– environmental impact studies made

• conclusions: no significant impact

– decommissioning• costs worked out• financed through common fund

6. Cost review; Structural funds versus project management.– costs reviewed

• actual prices conform cost estimates

– significant fraction of available budget spent or committed and various tenders on-going

24

Replies (IV)

7. Resources Review Board;Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee.– RRB and STAC are in place

• first meetings on 18 and 19 November 2013, respectively• precursor of RRB existed since Preparatory Phase (ASC)

8. Activity plans; Budgets; KPI; Earth & Sea sciences.– viable long-term plan with KPIs exists for neutrino

astronomy• budgets committed

– recent observation by IceCube consolidates field of research– synergy with Earth & Sea sciences have exploratory nature

25

Replies (V)

9. KM3NeT – EMSO.– formalisation of already active collaboration started

• memberships defined• MoU prepared