MICE NEWS MICE VC 158

1. MICE NEWS MICE VC 158 Agenda Overall schedule Status of things Magnetic field mitigation review Actions from MPB/RLSR

2. Upcoming Agenda Upcoming MICE VCs Thursdays: 11 July 8 August 5 September Will feature magnetic mitigation issues in high place 10 October Next collaboration meeting 6-8 November (dates confirmed) Can have a software workshop 4-5 November. -- 13 November RLSR -- 14 November MPB -- 15 November FAC

3. Provisional MICE SCHEDULE update: June 2013 m Run date: STEP I EMR run Oct 2013 (possibly w/o field: Q2 2014) Q1 2015 to Q1 2016 STEP IV Under construction: STEPVI Target date Q3 2019 Step V run possible 2018 Resource Loaded Schedule -- MIPO’s hard work! Slip since october 2012 = 2 months

6. Where are we now? • 0. MICE RF AMPLIFIER 1 reached 2 MW! • Spectrometersolenoid SS2 isnowreadyfor shipping.  • 2. SS1 see S. Virostek’spresentationcoolling& training • 3. Focus coil FC1 has reached full field in solenoid mode  • 4. Present MOM isChris Rogers, then Victoria, Ray, Victoria • 5. EMR construction progressingwell • EMR runwillbe in user runin october. • main objective: check deviceworks and integrate in MICE DAQ/controls • +Scan momentum (mostly pion beams) to establish range/momentum relation • + momentum distribution settings (muon beams) polarization (Rogers)

7. Important decision points -- September 2013: installation of return yokes for step IV Leaning towards return yoke (also smoothly prepares for step V/VI solution) why not decide now? --original motivation of baseline plan is to run step IV before Q3 2014-gone -- it is not certain that the tracker readout can be properly shielded (cryocooler, electronics) without return yoke + what else? -- the cost and schedule implications of yoke implementation need to be understood internal MICE decision in early september and review in 2d half september -- Around summer 2015 : -- decision point for possible step V stop-over in 2017-2018 -- implementation of full return Yoke for step V/VI

8. Magnetic field mitigation review panel set up: (Andy) Tom Taylor, CERN – Chair (limited to 23/24th Sept) or 1/2nd October Jim Clarke, AsTec – magnet group Division Head, (alternative chair to above) Mark Hatch, CERN – experience of integration, services and safety in ATLAS Ken Bell, STFC – Experience of CMS field mitigation problem on electronics and hardware John Thomasson, STFC – newly appointed Head of ISIS Accelerator Division, replacing David Findlay Mike Glover, STFC – Head of ISIS Electrical engineering Martin Hughes, STFC – experience of ISIS electronics hardware Vladimir Kashikin, FNAL – S/C magnet expert

9. Report from RSLR See the slides by Robson that I sent. Here are ‘recommandations’ and ‘actions’ Automn 2013 is likely to be around November 13-15 2013 • Outcomes from the RSLR Review –Recommendations (my explanatory comments) • Who is responsible for answering + who must be consulted • Develop a risk-cost-benefit decision tree that shows how decisions regarding performance/cost-schedule trade-offs might be taken, for the next round of oversight meetings in the autumn 2013. Garbincius & Preece+ Grant/Long/Palmer/Bross/Gourlay • Complete the financial analysis presented in the meeting of the savings of not proceeding beyond Step V by the autumn. (NB. this question was asked as the meeting with the reply that step VI is typically 20% of cost-to-completion in US, 30% in UK; most risk is in the first RFCC, see comment later) Garbincius& Preece+ Grant/Bross • Perform a cost-benefit analysis to support the final decisions on potential delays to key staff appointments by the autumn. • Preece+ Grant/Bross • Establish a set of criteria for the demonstration of the successful conclusion of Step IV for the autumn. (NB these are acceptance criteria of the constructed apparatus) • Blondel+ Analysis group

10. Update the project schedule to present the best, most probable and worst-case dates for Steps V and VI by autumn. • Preece & Krull+ Grant/Bross/Garbincius • Identify a set of appropriate intermediate milestones as a means of monitoring and reporting progress by autumn. • Preece & Bross+ Grant/Krull

11. Outcomes from the RSLR Review –Actions (these are essentially orders) • Undertake an analysis of the cost of risk mitigation to the same level on both sides [of the Atlantic, i.e. UK+US] to determine the potential impact on schedule and cost-to-completion by the autumn round of meetings in 2013. • (NB at the moment there is no contingency included in the UK project) • Preece& Grant + Long • Identify and recruit appropriate external specialists as members of the review panel assessing the stray magnetic fields in the MICE Hall that will be held at RAL in August/Sept 2013. Planning for the review should be starting now (NB this was decided and started already by MICE but we are ordered to do it)Nichols

12. Conclusions and recommandations of MPB (I) OVERVIEW Recommendation 1. Create a living, accessible and regularly updated one-page "dashboard" summary of milestone achievements demonstrating the evolving status of deliverables (eg magnets), initially focusing on Step IV, as soon as possible. (would like a dynamic presentation of the data normally contained in Gail’s Milestone table) Preece & Rogers + Bross/Blondel/Hanson Recommendation 2. Produce a one-page specification for the operation of the MICE International Project Office and present at the next MPB meeting (Andy Nichols has drafted some terms of reference – needs to figure out with all parties how this can work)

13. Conclusions and recommandations of MPB (II) SUPERCONDUCTING MAGNETS Recommendation 3. Investigate the potential reasons for the slow and unusual training of Spectrometer Solenoid 2 (and Focusing Coil 1). Check the protocols (eg travelers) for the Spectrometer Solenoids and Focusing Coils, to establish the level of quality assurance and to seek explanations for slow training. Present results at the next MPB meeting. (see next slide why this is relevant for MICE long term) Gourlay & Bradshaw + Prestemon/Cobb/Watson Recommendation 4. Re-evaluate the possibility of proximity shielding (partial yoke) that takes into account the detailed situation of the present infrastructure in the MICE hall and present a plan for future work at the mitigation shielding review at RAL in August/September. (NB this is one for Magnetic mitigation group. the committee felt that the approach was perhaps too ‘manichean’ – a middle solution combining a lesser yoke and some proximity shielding might be more optimal) Tarrant & Witte + Nichols/Plate RF SYSTEMS Recommendation 5. Prepare a plan to test a prototype Low Level RF system with the RF Coupling Coil at the Fermilab MTA, and present the plan at the next MPB meeting. Bross & Ronald + Stanley /Pasquinelli

14. A running schedule unknown +-225 A FLIP ++114 A SOLENOID We plan to run both configurations will the AFC magnet need re-training, and how long should we allow for this?

15. COMMISSIONING, CONTROLS & OPERATIONS Recommendation 6. Present an integrated plan for all aspects of the control system at the next MPB meeting. (for Controls team) Hanlet & Griffiths Recommendation 7. Present the requirements and design of the MICE timing system at the next MPB meeting, with particular emphasis on absolute calibration by particle arrival phase measurement. Karadzhov & Ronald + Rogers Recommendation 8. Explore the potential to achieve synergistic economies of scale in the maintenance and operation of the liquid hydrogen system by working with the ISIS moderator cryogenics team, and present at the next MPB meeting. (that one is for Andy) Andy Nichols + Watson Recommendation 9. Develop an on-site support plan for day-today operations, maintenance and repair of the MICE hardware, and present at the next MPB meeting. ( MICE operations group) Linda Coney + Preece/Bross