1 / 13

Antares OM: cost and possible evolution towards the KM3

Antares OM: cost and possible evolution towards the KM3. WP3-4-5 meeting, Paris, 15-16/10/2008. Contents. Antares OM cost Possible improvements KM3 OM cost Conclusion. Antares breakdown cost. Optical modules cost 2435 k €* , 11% of the detector cost (investment)

corneliar
Download Presentation

Antares OM: cost and possible evolution towards the KM3

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. Antares OM: cost and possible evolution towards the KM3 WP3-4-5 meeting, Paris, 15-16/10/2008

  2. Contents • Antares OM cost • Possible improvements • KM3 OM cost • Conclusion

  3. Antares breakdown cost Optical modules cost 2435 k€*, 11% of the detector cost (investment) * Not included pressure test, transportation

  4. Components cost OM price dominated by: • PMT • Sphere • penetrator

  5. Full costs without manpower Full cost includes: R&D, assembly tools, test benches…

  6. Full costs with manpower Manpower: 1996-2007 Cost dominated by manpower and components

  7. Production costs only with manpower Only with CEA manpower during the OM production at Saclay (2004-2005) To be compared to 4 k€ with full assembly subcontracted (tender quotation) and CEA manpower to manage and follow the production

  8. Antares OM cost vs photocathode surface in €/(cm2xQ.E.),with 500 cm2 forphotocathode surface and 24% of QE Production part of Antares OM (components and man power): ~40 €/(cm2xQ.E.)

  9. Construction time In an ideal scenario…. without problem

  10. Lessons from Antares Possible improvements • Remove internal LED • Remove vacuum port on the sphere • Reduce the diameter of the sphere (13’’ instead 17’’) • Remove the mu-metal cage • Change the gel • Pressure test of the assembled OM • Reduce the number of wires in the cable (penetrator size, less connections…) • Use space inside the OM for electronics What to keep? • Visual indication of the sphere pressure • OM test after assembly and closure What to investigate? • OM failure (especially dead OMs and water ingress)

  11. OM cost for KM3 • The proposal is to calculate the OM price per ‘’cm2‘’ of photocathode • vs QE • R&D and preparation production are funded by FP6 and FP7, • so only production costs must be included • But the OM cost is not the only parameter, the final configuration of the • OM has impact on the number of OM, mechanics, electronics and read out

  12. Estimated cost of KM3 OM Components price - Save 40% by: • removing mu-metal shielding, vacuum port on sphere and internal led • Decreasing the number of wires • Increasing Q.E. • Keep competition between supplier (PMTs, spheres…) Assembly time - Reduced by 25% the time construction Total - Gain of ~25% on equivalent Antares OM with assembly subcontracted but without KM3 man power: KM3 OM=~30 €/(cm2 x Q.E.)

  13. Conclusion • Antares OM cost dominated by components cost and man power • We can decrease the OM price by ~25% from Antares • Cost comparison of different OMs for KM3 is not simple (impact on • mechanics, electronics…) • We need to have a cost model to compare OM solutions

More Related