[Rsidis-mgmt] FY25 running

[Rolf Ent]

Hi all,

not unexpected that we get all kind of turmoil from the year-long continuing resolution situation coupled with uncertainty for FY26. Do the five weeks solely come from R_SIDIS, i.e., what does it mean for how many calendar days or PAC-equivalent days we can assume? And the issue may also be the alignment of energies, presumably for most of our time Hall A is at the highest energy and we have some choice.

Overall, we should just get some complete scans for R_SIDIS, as whatever we get is new and the world is in eager anticipation. Plus the recent theory calculations start hinting that R_SIDIS may be higher than the naive R_DIS assumption, so we will gather interesting results either way. So that is my view, we should be pragmatic and make sure we prioritize to always get some R scans out. Same with R_SIDIS in nuclei. Something is better than nothing.

I am sure we can stare at the various kinematics tables to figure something out. But we do need to know the rough idea of days and flexibility in energies?

Best regards,  Rolf

________________________________
From: Rsidis-mgmt <rsidis-mgmt-bounces at jlab.org> on behalf of Dave Gaskell <gaskelld at jlab.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 8:55 AM
To: rsidis-mgmt at jlab.org <rsidis-mgmt at jlab.org>
Subject: [Rsidis-mgmt] FY25 running

Hi all -

Douglas Higinbotham announced at the 7:45 meeting this morning that
budget guidance to the lab has arrived, and that the lab will need to
reduce the running for FY25 from 25 to 20 weeks.  No word on how this
will be divided amongst experiments, but we should look into options for
reducing needed beam time for R-SIDIS.

Regards,
Dave

_______________________________________________
Rsidis-mgmt mailing list
Rsidis-mgmt at jlab.org
https://mailman.jlab.org/mailman/listinfo/rsidis-mgmt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/rsidis-mgmt/attachments/20250327/03619d23/attachment.html>