MICE Status (with a UK slant)

1. MICE Status(with a UK slant) Paul Drumm, MICE CollaborationUK-NF June 2003

2. Proposal Status • International Peer Review of Proposal • Jan 2003 Interrogation & homework • May 2003 Blondel, Drumm & Long • Report out ? • Strong Endorsement …. • …equates to Scientific Approval • …some advice to RAL

3. Management Issues • RAL Management interface to MICE • Local Technical Team Leaders • Understand Costs • Independent Review • effort requirements e.g. during installation • capital costs • common fund discussion • Constitution under discussion

4. Proposal Status & UK Funding • PPARC/PPRP review of UK Proposal • May 2003 – accepted science case • there is an understanding of the importance of MICE both internationally • and of the importance & strength of the UK contributions • Strenuous discussions are taking place…

5. UK Funding • for the remainder of 2003/4 • there is a minimal programme of work to avoid loss of rôle (intellectual leadership) and to avoid further delays to the MICE programme • pparc/pprp & cclrc have to find funds to enable this years work to take place • Referees – (Willke, Froudivaux, Brook) • to scrutinise work plans for 2003/4 • expect an answer before end of June (PPRP next week?)

6. 2004/…. • OST budget line to be bid for in collaboration with PPARC & CCLRC in 2004/….  Gateway • Total UK Cost estimate is £21.7M • indications are that £7.5M is available through OST • £10M may be a realistic target for OST/PPARC • other sources of funding need to be accessed

7. This is preferred option of JPB Risks associated with Solenoid taken by PSI  Cryogenic infrastructure shared with MICE RF contribution taken in kind scenarios… • £7.5M • not enough for beam line • £10.0M • gets beam line – ~no UK involvement in MICE • £12.5M • involvement suffers • £15.0M • can achieve all goals if • £21.7M

8. Gateway Process • Gateway 0 – Strategic Assessment: Assessment of business need; Assessment of risk; initiation of an independent review team; review of the objectives and planned delivery; review of management structure and resource plans; • Gateway 1 – Business Justification: Assessment of the business case for MICE; review of risk management plans; review delivery plans; • Gateway 2 – Procurement Strategy: confirm procurement strategy; full funding availability; appropriate resources are in place; delivery plans, financial and management controls are in place and are realistic; • Gateway 3 – Investment Decisions: confirm that the procurement strategy has been followed; review and agree procurement decisions; review risk management & change control procedures; • ….4 & 5 GW 1 Papers with Wood & Halliday to take MICE to RCUK GW 1 Review in July Success implies approval for MICE

9. Gateway Process • Gateway 0 – Strategic Assessment: Assessment of business need; Assessment of risk; initiation of an independent review team; review of the objectives and planned delivery; review of management structure and resource plans; • Gateway 1 – Business Justification: Assessment of the business case for MICE; review of risk management plans; review delivery plans; • Gateway 2 – Procurement Strategy: confirm procurement strategy; full funding availability; appropriate resources are in place; delivery plans, financial and management controls are in place and are realistic; • Gateway 3 – Investment Decisions: confirm that the procurement strategy has been followed; review and agree procurement decisions; review risk management & change control procedures; • ….4 & 5 GW 2 Funding plans must be shown to be secure.

10. & Elsewhere • US submitted its MICE proposal in 2002 • no decision as yet • MuCool contribution for R&D • Italians made request (and obtained) funds for TPG work (? for solenoid) • elsewhere require formal approval from CCLRC

11. Despite the lack of funds…. • so far much progress has been achieved…. • absorber, coils & safety • beam line • RF power system • tracker choice

12. …absorber & coils integration • Moved away from original scheme in favour of a solution which decouples the coil & absorber bringing them together for final assembly - no sparks! • first review under discussion • where - states (FNAL?) • who - WG members + non - MICE panel • when - probably (my guess) start of 2004

16. …Beam Line • limited options at RAL (3 quads & 2 dipoles) • beam line layout drawn up • matching – potential solution seeking resources • front end fixed (in synchrotron room) • shortly proceed to clear hall (small step forward) • smaller hole to be cut in 2004

19. RF Power System • Scheme Draw up in outline • Single 1MW drive per cavity • flexible • advantage of phase & amplitude control • cost effective (despite 8 systems) • possible to upgrade to deliver 4MW to one cavity • Demonstrated 1.6 MW from “old” ISIS tubes • inventory of what can be reused RAL/CERN/? • Difference Schemes are similar in cost

20. RAL Scheme TH 116 ex RAL Tubes 10mW >1MW 5kW Low Level Control & RF Source SS Driver ex SPS 100 kW Cavity Roy Church

21. RAL RF Tube Tests • Stock of ~ 12 retired tubes • trial tube operated comfortably at 1.25 MW (~300 ms pulse at 50/32 Hz) • (peaks at ~1.6 MW) 260 ms IA ~110 A Field

22. Tracker Choice • Referees appointed – Grégoire & Summers • Criteria published • list of measurements & performance figures • to be agreed by proponents • Time Scale defined • October collaboration meeting

23. Conclusion • Strong Statement from IPRP (Astbury) • Funding Discussion in progress • signs are promising • Many Technical Issues still to be addressed – good progress • MICE is a strong collaboration & with our best endeavours MICE will succeed!