1 / 4

History of Project Support in the AD

History of Project Support in the AD. Run II The definitive document on Run II was the “Run II Handbook”. In retrospect, little egregiously wrong, but overly optimistic at every level, leading to very unrealistic expectations. Culminated in an extremely negative review in 2001

whitchurch
Download Presentation

History of Project Support in the AD

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. History of Project Support in the AD • Run II • The definitive document on Run II was the “Run II Handbook”. • In retrospect, little egregiously wrong, but overly optimistic at every level, leading to very unrealistic expectations. • Culminated in an extremely negative review in 2001 • Run II “Project” • Began in ~2002 • Used standard tools (i.e. MS Project) to formalize tracking of activities related to luminosity • Emphasis placed on realistic estimates in delivered luminosity, and this was used to prioritize activities. • Since then, things have gone much better • In addition to helping organize activities, the project model has proved an invaluable tool in explaining activities. • Neutrino Program • It was realized that MiniBooNE and NuMI were headed down the same path as Run II • Experiments conceived based on “back of the envelope” calculations (without the envelope) • LOTS of loose ends • Rather than reinvent the wheel, it was decided to exploit the expertise that was gained in the Run II exercise • “Project Support” was born • The “Proton Plan” was their first client.

  2. “Project” vs. “Campaign” • Project • A set of self-contained, dedicated activities, with a well defined goal, as well as a well-defined end. • Generally includes a significant number of dedicated personnel and other recources • Examples: • Main Injector • NuMI • NoVA • Campaign • A set of activities with a specific goal, but organized within the existing operational structure and in the context of the ongoing activities of the Division. • Generally built out of partial FTE’s. • Examples: • Run II • Proton Plan • ANU (now part of NoVA) • Tracking methodology exactly the same, but… • Campaigns viewed as “operational activities” by the DOE, so there is less oversight. • Givent he scale of this effort, it’s to our advantage to keep it a “campaign”

  3. Scope? • I think we agree that we want to separate the effort to get protons to the Debuncher from the actual experiment, but how far should this effort go? • Momentum-stacked protons into the Debuncher? • Rebunched? • Slow extracted? • Transported? • Choose option which maximizes probability of approval • Should probably solicit some guidance from Steve H.

  4. Proposed Structure • Protons2Debuncher: • Extraction from Recycler • Transport to Accumulator • Beam manipulation in Accumulator • Transfer and beam manipulation in Debuncher • Extraction from Debuncher (?) • Radiation Safety • How to proceed • Schedule a series of meetings with all interested parties in a room with Ken Domann • Edit MS Project real time to flesh out details

More Related