Proton Source Task Force

1. Proton Source Task Force Mu2e Working Group Meeting (WGM) on Wednesday, Jul 21 William Pellico

2. Introduction • The Proton Task Force was initiated in February 2010 and established in April 2010. The request from Roger Dixon and supported by Fermilab management was to form a task force in an effort to plan for running the Proton Source and additional 15 years. The following charge was the initial guidance used in the formation of the task force:

3. February 19, 2010 • R. Dixon • Draft Proton Source Task Force Charge • Background: The Linac and Booster will have to supply protons to the Main Injector and to the 8-GeV physics program until Project X and its follow on is available to the physics program. It is now estimated that this is not likely to happen for at least 15 years. Meanwhile both the H- sources and the low energy Linac are becoming more difficult to maintain due to outdated electronics and the expected difficulty of acquiring spare tubes for the modulators and amplifiers. The reliability of this machine has already become an issue. Meanwhile the 8-GeV Booster is also expected to have increasing reliability issues with time just as the physics program demands better performance. To simultaneously support the 8-GeV physics program and the high energy neutrino program it will be necessary to run the Booster at 15 Hz. This requirement will necessitate a substantial upgrade of the RF power system in the Booster, in addition to improvements in the control of beam losses, shielding of the accelerator enclosures, and improved reliability. • The charge to the Proton Source Task Force is: • Determine the vulnerabilities of each major subsystem in the Proton Source system including the: • The H- sources and pre-accelerators • The low energy drift tube Linac • The RF System for the low energy Linac including power amplifier tubes and other associated tubes • The 8-GeV Booster magnet systems • The 8-GeV vacuum system • The 8-GeV RF cavities and modulators • The controls and interlocks of all Proton Source systems • Review the planned, but unfunded upgrades of the H- sources, the Booster RF system, and the 15Hz upgrade. Identify weaknesses

4. Charge continued • Identify all systems that need to be upgraded or replaced in order to maintain both high energy neutrino and 8 GeV physics programs. Suggest possible upgrades or replacement solutions while taking into account the development of Project X.

5. The charge was broad and was intended not to be limited but inclusive of all systems in the Proton Source. After a period of two months, allowing for an initial investigation, several small modifications were made to the original charge that enabled names of individuals to be listed along with systems identified as critical. The following list was submitted and approved: • Task Force Candidates: Linac • Larry Allen (AD/PS) (Modulator) • Trevor Butler (AD/PS) (Modulator) • Howie Pfeffer (AD/EE) (Modulator) • Al Moretti (APC) (New Low Energy) • Paul Czarapata (AD/HQ) (New Low Energy) • Ken Quinn (AD/PS) (High Energy Reliability) • Peter Prieto (AD/Inst.) (High energy Reliability) • Mike Kucera(AD/Ctrls) (Linac Ctrls) • Bob Goodwin(AD/Ctrls) (Linac Ctrls) • Steve Hays (AD/EE) (Linac Power Distribution) • Bob Slazyk (AD/MS/Water Group) (Linac LCW Systems) • David Hixson (AD/MS/Water Group)(Linac LCW Systems) • Ben Ogert (AD/MS) (Linac Vacuum) • David Augustine (AD/MS) (Linac Vacuum) • Task Force Candidates: Booster • George Krafczyk (AD/EE)(Pulsed Systems) • John Reid (AD/RF) (High Level RF systems) • Jim Lackey (AD/PS) (Pulsed Systems, Magnets) • Dave Augustine (AD/MS) (Vacuum System) • Craig Drennan (AD/PS) (Booster LL system) • Peter Kasper (AD) (Booster Shielding) • Davis Hixson (AD/MS) (Booster LCW Systems) • Sharon Lackey (AD/Ctrls) (Booster Controls)

6. Example Breakdown of System • High Energy: • Present Klystron System • Klystrons • PFN systems • Controls (High Level, Low Level and Interface systems) • Utilities • Quadrupoles and related systems • Controls: This includes system interface as well as beam control and diagnostics • Injector Control System • Low Energy Control System • High Energy Control System • Utilities: • Power Distribution • Feeders • Transformers • Line Power Distribution • Water systems • Vacuum Systems

7. The report is divided into three parts.Part 1: • The first part has data tables of each reviewed system. The table type can be divided into two types replacement or liability. The replacement table shows the recommended replacement and cost for the particular system. The liability table is used to examine a system that has no present replacement.

8. Part 2: • In the second part of the report, systems that were listed as a high concern get further reviewed. The review discusses the concerns, possible solutions and cost (sometimes including labor estimates.)

9. Part 3: • The final section is an attempt to create a funding profile. With individual items or systems are grouped accordingly and then prioritized a yearly cost can be given. The funding profile is only one possible outline and is expected to be just a starting point.

10. Conclusion • A conclusion will be given by the authors and several reviewers.

11. Example Table

12. Final Report • The report will be given to management by the end of the month. • The report is not going to end the task force work. • Sections/Systems that require more detail will continue to be investigated • Cost estimates will continue to be investigated • Issues regarding intensity and proton throughput are still being discussed.