100 likes | 269 Views
July 2003. Risk Document Draft version - Summary Progress & Developments MICE preparations Tracker Choice (for KL) Absorber/Coils 1 st Review RF Systems WBS – document to Steering group Common Fund. Risk Document. Skills & Staff Resources
E N D
July 2003 • Risk Document • Draft version - Summary • Progress & Developments • MICE preparations • Tracker Choice (for KL) • Absorber/Coils 1st Review • RF Systems • WBS – document to Steering group • Common Fund
Risk Document • Skills & Staff Resources • staff skills for installation – RF, cryogenics in particular? • Financial • does the scope of the experiment match the financial resources? • impact on MICE of the outcome of the UK funding discussions? • Technical • how do safety consideration affect the performance of MICE? • can the RF cavity operate in a magnetic field? • Time scales • What happens if ISIS shutdown moves forward? • Risk to ISIS • can MICE installation/operations affect ISIS running? • At Risk from ISIS • does ISIS (e.g. shutdowns) affect MICE?
Progress • PPD have officially released the hall • upgrade to crane (should) now be complete • alerted “stakeholders” to decommissioning • hazard assessment written – I need to look at SHE • CMS • understand time to get noise solved • need to determine if they have to be / can be moved • ISIS/KEK/ANL Cavity collaboration • keen to help clear out (WAM)
Tracker Choice • Baseline: SiFi (UK/US/J) Scintillating fibre detector • Alternative: TPG (It/Ch) Time Projection chamber with GEM–readout • Referees: Gregoire(UCdeL) & Summers(UM-O) • Criteria in discussion – not yet agreed • Set of measurements expected of each team • Expected deadline - October collaboration meeting @RAL • Sensitivity to cavity-generated X-ray background • Sensitivity of detector and its electronics to RF noise • Tracking performance
Tracker: schedules SciFi schedule
Criteria • Other factors will influence the choice • Experienced design • Safety and integration • Cost • Schedule • Ease of operation • Funding opportunities • Goals: • Choose appropriate technology • Emerge with a single tracker team stronger that either of the present teams on their own
Absorber Review • Agreed on a design choice • simplification to design & integration • Separation of coils & absorber – can be built & tested separately prior to integration • progress in understanding ways to make things safe • Organising internal review • likely to be end of this year • likely to be at FNAL • MICE selected set of (independent) experts • RAL review will be more encompassing – not yet timely
RF Progress • Specification • 8 cavities • >1 MW peak power each • Low (0.1%) duty cycle • RC: RAL RF Expert • original system (2x4MW) not up to spec. - accepted • Proposed one system per cavity (8x1MW) - Baseline design • Simplification; flexible; can be staged; phase & amplitude controlled • Review of equipment – visit to CERN • Potential for as many as 6 x 1.5 MW systems • Cost of (8x) system approaching 60% of “new” • There is more to investigate – low power kit
WBS • IPRP report – WBS to level 4; External MICE review • WBS = Work Breakdown Structure • Task Tree Analysis – each task comprises a set of lesser steps • Improves cost & effort estimates • Outline document to MICE (with Blondel for first comments) • Involves some organising of the iMICE structure • Advice needed: • Timescales for Gateway 1 & For external review
Common Fund • Incidental costs for RAL to host MICE? • accommodation – request to ADT for office space in R76 • transport • electricity • beam – live off “lost beam” • Consumables (e.g. LN2) • Other overheads • using example of RIKEN agreement • Non-parallel complication for MICE – UK, EU, US, J collaboration • Negotiations for additional support to B&I • cf PSI solenoid - cryogenic system for MICE