Linear Collider Research and Development Group

Information concerning the FY04 proposal documents

Note that the due date for new subproposals has been extended to October 24.

After incorporating changes based on advice from ALCPG working group leaders,
you MUST submit your proposals to DOE well before the review committees meet.


Both DOE and NSF have indicated there will be continued support for machine and detector R&D in FY04. DOE plans to support R&D at the $500k level for detector projects, and at the $400-800k level for accelerator R&D. NSF hopes to increase its FY03 funding (~$150k) considerably.

Groups that did not participate last year are welcome to participate in the FY04 proposal.

The procedure this year will be similar to last year's. We will assemble a combined UCLC/LCRD document which describes projects already underway as well as those which are newly proposed. This combined document will include the LCRD "subproposals" from proponents as well as the UCLC proposal to NSF, which has already been updated by UCLC.

As was done last year, ALCPG Working Group conveners will read the LCRD subproposals in order to strengthen them through suggestions, comments, and advice offered to the proponents. Revised subproposals will be assembled into a large document which will be reviewed by the Holtkamp and Gordon committees.

Later, the subproposals will be submitted by individual groups, either as requests for supplemental funding or as new grants, depending on whether the proposed work is an extension of efforts already underway (generally true for detector projects) or a new line of research (usually true when a detector group submits its first accelerator physics proposal).

Differences from FY03

Proposals for continued DOE funding will be handled with a procedure much like last year's. There are some important differences, however:

  1. Proponents are encouraged to outline up to a three year R&D program with a constant funding profile for the out years, if the project naturally extends over multiple years;

  2. Proponents who have already received funds in FY03 should include reports of progress in their proposals;

  3. Proposals should be approximately six pages in length. Please bear in mind that the review panels will be reading a large number of proposals! You may want to include more detail (in your progress report, for example) than space allows. In this case, please include additional information in an appendix at the end of your proposal. We will include it with the combined document, but you should not assumme that the Gordon and Holtkamp committee members will have time to read it. References to documents posted on the web can also be used to present additional information.

  4. Dave Sutter has asked that accelerator proposals address the present uncertainty in funding level this way:
The UCLC proposal to NSF, which has already been updated by UCLC, will be integrated into the proposal document for completeness.

Preparing your FY04 proposals

This is important. Please put a significant amount of effort into polishing the organization, clarity, and crispness of argument in your proposals. We heard a number of informal comments from both funding agencies expressing a desire for better exposition and clearer logic in this year's proposals.

Here's the schedule, which allows the combined proposal document to be delivered to the review committees at the beginning of December.

Here are answers to questions you may have

Back to LCRD home page