1 / 11

Project X: News & Strategy

Project X: News & Strategy. Steve Holmes Project X Working Group Meeting November 19, 2009. Outline. DOE Briefing AAC Meeting Strategy FY2010 Plan CD-0/Director’s Review. DOE Briefing. October 29 in Germantown Fermilab : SH, EMcC , JK, SN, Phone: PO, Y2K

starbuck
Download Presentation

Project X: News & Strategy

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. Project X: News & Strategy Steve Holmes Project X Working Group Meeting November 19, 2009

  2. Outline • DOE Briefing • AAC Meeting • Strategy • FY2010 Plan • CD-0/Director’s Review PX Working Group Meeting, 11/19/09 – S. Holmes

  3. DOE Briefing • October 29 in Germantown • Fermilab: SH, EMcC, JK, SN, Phone: PO, Y2K • DOE: Dennis K, Dan L, Mike P, Bruce S, Ted L, Kurt F, Pepin C • Presentations • IC-2 technical description – Sergei • IC-2 and IC-1 estimates – Jim • CD-0 strategy – Steve • Reactions • Good appreciation of what we described • Dennis asked what an initial phase that only included the CW linac would save off the initial cost? Answer: saves $0.5B • Discussed strategies for broadening the customer base, beyond HEP and NP • Discussed how to get the mission need of Phase 1 validated • Probably requires going back to HEPAP/P5 • Informed us that FY12 is earliest PED funding, FY15 is earliest construction start PX Working Group Meeting, 11/19/09 – S. Holmes

  4. AAC Meeting ICD-2 Primary messages • Believe IC-2, with a CW linac operating in the range 2.6-3.0 GeV, will meet the requirements outlined for the rare processes program. • Need a more detailed performance specification for the CW linac and splitting facility from the physics people. • Either IC-1 or IC-2 will meet the needs of LBNE • IC-2 does not have an associated R&D plan nor is it aligned with the SRF and HINS programs. • IC-2 is dependent upon a beyond-state-of-the art beam chopper. • Recommend a pursuit of a two stage chopping scheme • Recommend utilization of the HINS facility for chopper development • There is no complete concept for marrying a pulsed linac to a CW front end. • The IC-2 linac has not been optimized relative to: types and numbers of cavities, frequencies, transition points, cavity gradients, operating temperature, cryogenic segmentation. • RCS is feasible but challenging • Injection into the RCS is primary technical challenge, but also e-cloud, instabilities, etc. • Utilization of Project X as the front end of a muon facility is best aligned with IC-1 and second best aligned with IC-2 with a pulsed linac substituting for the RCS. • The RCS is not particularly useful in a muon facility Suggestions/Recommendations • Get a more detailed performance specification from the physics group. • Complete testing of CM1 asap • Look at a SC RFQ • Optimize the entire linac system with regard to frequencies, beta transition points, gradients, and operating temperature. • Need to look at HOM requirements and impacts through entire linac • Update the RD&D plan for IC-2, including integration with other programs PX Working Group Meeting, 11/19/09 – S. Holmes

  5. AAC Meeting HINS Primary messages • Integrate directly within Project X and align with Project X needs • Better aligned with IC-1 than IC-2 • HINS will not be the IC-2 front end. • Primary value to IC-2: • Chopper development • Diagnostics development • Both strongly supported by the committee • As a test facility, may be of interest to broader community • Question the need for continued development on: • Solenoidal focusing • FVMs • Pulsed SSRs • Continue SSR development but morph into CW. Suggestions • Develop HINS as a test facility aligned with specific PX development issues. Primary focus should be on chopper and instrumentation development. • Need to go beyond 2.5 MeV, but only as far as rf capture • Need to tailor instrumentation to facilitate this new mission • Evaluate the impact of Q degradation from fringe fields. • Suggest two stage chopping PX Working Group Meeting, 11/19/09 – S. Holmes

  6. CD-0 Strategy(DOE Briefing) • Strategy • Complete ICD-2 and associated estimate: mid-October • Project X Physics Workshop: November 9-10 • White paper • PAC discussion of physics: November 12-14 • AAC technical evaluation of IC-2: November 16-18 • Director's Review of cost estimate range: Jan/Feb 2010 • Validate IC-2 estimate • Validate a cost range • DOE observers • OHEP/OPA briefing on cost range: February 2010 • Submit Mission Need (CD-0) document: winter/spring • Are recommendations from IC-1 review still applicable PX Working Group Meeting, 11/19/09 – S. Holmes

  7. Cost Range Strategy(DOE Briefing) • Cost Range Strategy • Goal is to understand how to work downward from $1.5B: • Cost reductions, that do not change performance goals • Review assumptions on fabrication costs/learning curves of big ticket items • Assess possible reductions from the RD&D program • Value engineering, e.g., • Cavity Q, operating temp., rf power options, etc. • Examine strategies on overheads, both at Fermilab and the participating laboratories • Secure space bank offsets • Identify international in-kind contributions PX Working Group Meeting, 11/19/09 – S. Holmes

  8. Cost Range Strategy(DOE Briefing) • Cost Range Strategy • Cost (scope) reductions, that do change performance goals • Other operating scenarios, e.g., • 0.5 mAcw (JLab upgrade configuration: IC-2) • Mix and match IC-1 and IC-2 • CW front end with pulsed linac into Recycler/MI • Pulsed linac front end with RCS into Recycler • Direct injection into the Main Injector (IC-1) • Lower Main Injector injection energy (IC-1) • Caveats (Director’s Review): • Escalation, schedule, and scope all hold PX Working Group Meeting, 11/19/09 – S. Holmes

  9. Next Steps PX Working Group Meeting, 11/19/09 – S. Holmes • Develop an estimate for a 3 GeV CW linac operating at 1.5-2 MW • Identify (cost) break points (with respect to beam power) on the rf system and cryogenics distribution system • Complete optimization study on the linac configuration: cavity types, cavity frequencies, and transition points • Retain RCS within the estimate but limit work to the critical technical issue(s) • Injection • Archive ICD-1 and associated cost estimate • Shelve Director’s Review recommendations that are not applicable to IC-2 • Proposed strategy for CD-0 • Attempt to get cost of 3 GeVlinac at or below $1.0 B • Carry along RCS to support an upper end of the cost range that would enable 2 MW to LBNE

  10. Working Timeline • FY2009 • Complete Initial Configuration Documents (ICD-1 and ICD- 2) and preliminary cost estimates • Develop Upgrade Concepts for 2-4 MW at 8 GeV • Form RD&D Collaboration • Establish Project Management team • Revise RD&D plan and initiate work • FY2010 • CD-0 • Initiate work on Conceptual Design Report • Request PED funds for FY2012 • Develop NEPA strategy • Initiate permitting documentation • Draft of all CD-1 documentation PX Working Group Meeting, 11/19/09 – S. Holmes

  11. Working Timeline • FY2011 • CD-1 • FY2013 • CD-2/3a • FY2014 • CD-3: Initiate Construction • ~FY2015~2018 • Construct PX Working Group Meeting, 11/19/09 – S. Holmes

More Related