1 / 16

Summary of the Final Report for the Operational Readiness Review

Summary of the Final Report for the Operational Readiness Review. Doug Glenzinski 04 March, 2013 All Experimenter’s Meeting. Status. Charged by Head of Program Planning ( S.Geer)in January 2013 (MINOS+, NOvA , MINERvA,SeaQuest )

aletta
Download Presentation

Summary of the Final Report for the Operational Readiness Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Summary of the Final Report forthe Operational Readiness Review Doug Glenzinski 04 March, 2013 All Experimenter’s Meeting

  2. Status • Charged by Head of Program Planning (S.Geer)in January 2013 (MINOS+, NOvA, MINERvA,SeaQuest) • Review itself consisted of ~6h of presentations and discussion on 08 February 2013 • Follow-up questions and replies via email, phone, and face-to-face discussions • The Review Materials and Final Report are available: https://indico.fnal.gov/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=6314

  3. Charge • Paraphrasing: • Will the experiments be ready for data in June? • Do well defined commissioning plans exist? • Do well defined physics goals exist? • Does a well defined run plan exist consistent with the commissioning and physics goals? • Are the commissioning and physics goals consistent with expected accel. performance? • Do the resources exist to accomplish all this?

  4. Committee • Kevin Burkett (Fermilab) • Doug Glenzinski (Fermilab, chair) • Jaco Konigsberg (U. Florida) • Bill Louis (LANL) • Bob Tschirhart (Fermilab) • Julie Whitemore (Fermilab)

  5. Report • 13 pages • Introduction • Findings and Recommendations for each exp. • Summary • Appendices : Charge, Committee • In total: 59 Findings and 36 Recommendations • Summarize most important ones here

  6. In general • All four experiments • Are on track to be ready for data taking in June • Detectors will be ready • Online software will be ready • Offline software will be ready • Have well developed commissioning plans and well define physics goals • Have a run plan consistent with expected accel. performance that accomplishes these goals

  7. Personnel Resources • NOvA has the resources it needs • MINOS+ and SeaQuest have the resources they need, but with smaller margin • MINERvA has no margin • In all instances laboratory resources play important and critical roles • Nevertheless, areas of need were identified

  8. Recommendation Highlights

  9. NOvA • Accelerator performance critical to achieving project KPPs and to meeting near term physics goals. • AD should provide a realistic estimate of POT at NuMI as a function of time, for the coming 12 months • Project and Collaboration should use these projections to refine goals and schedules

  10. For NOvA • Project and collaboration need to remain vigilant regarding FD schedule • Project and collaboration should explore ways to accelerate ND schedule, which might otherwise limit physics sensitivity for Neutrino-2014 conference

  11. For MINOS+ • Develop an agreement with SCD/PREP that ensures continued support • Continue working with collaboration to fill last remaining service positions • Work with collaboration to ensure adequate resources are available for duration of experiment.

  12. For MINERvA • All stake holders should engage in a discussion of how to strengthen the collaboration • Work with collaboration to fill remaining service positions. Where shortfalls are identified engage PPD in a discussion of how they can help provide additional personnel resources for detector operations • Develop plan for test beam run sometime in FY2014

  13. For SeaQuest • Explore with AD the possibility of demonstrating (asap) that the intensity variations of 2012 have been mitigated • Explore ways to accelerate ST1 schedule while continuing to pursue fall-back plan • Develop agreement with SCD/PREP that ensures continued support • Communicate resource needs to lab (e.g. Survey/Alignment, Experimental Installation)

  14. For Laboratory • Work with the NuMI program to develop a plan that gives MINOS+ and MINERvA the special horn runs they need to understand the ME production spectrum and gives MINERvA the information they need to make a target decision • Work with the NuMI program to develop a plan that ensures the muon alcoves are commissioned for data taking and are maintained for the duration of the run

  15. Risks to physics capabilities • MINOS+ needs special horn runs • NOvA needs 4-6w of good data with ND • NB. This is relative to their physics goals for Neutrino-2014 conference. They need much more ND data to achieve full physics sensitivity. • MINERvA needs a test beam run • SeaQuest needs a duty factor >50% with limited intensity variations • All of these require lab resources to succeed

  16. From Summary “There   are   both   common   and   competinginterests   among   the   experiments,   particularly  within  the  NuMI  program.    In  addition,  the  resources  available  from  the   collaborations  and  from  the  laboratory  are  limited  and  stretched.    Given  these  facts,   the   laboratory   will   need   to   continue   working   with   all   the   stake   holders   to   further   develop   a   careful   and   coordinated   plan   that   optimizes   the   experiments’   collective   chances  for  success.”

More Related