muon accelerator program overview michael s. zisman center for beam physics accelerator & fusion...

January 15, 2010 MAP Overview - Zisman 1

Muon Accelerator ProgramOverview

Michael S. ZismanCenter for Beam Physics

Accelerator & Fusion Research DivisionLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

NFMCC Meeting—University of MississippiJanuary 15, 2009

January 15, 2010 MAP Overview - Zisman 2November 10, 2009 Muon Collider Complex: Zisman 2

Introduction•At urging of DOE, Fermilab is setting up joint organization based on NFMCC and MCTF— both organizations will be brought under common leadership— Program Director will report to Fermilab Director

•New organization named Muon Accelerator Program (MAP)

•Interim co-directors have been designated by Fermilab— Geer and Zisman

•Charged with preparing revised proposal for submission to DOE and organizing its subsequent review— draft proposal sent to MUTAC for comment on December 7

o comments conveyed on December 21— updated proposal submission hoped for this month


Organization•New organizational structure was requested by DOE

— more project-likeo Program Director makes final decisions

– subject to oversight of Fermilab Director MCOG will remain, probably expanded a bit

•Interim Co-Directors have developed an upper level organization consistent with DOE requirements— and populated it— L1 managers have now populated L2 assignments as well

•We expect organization to be the final one— but, formally, assignments are all interim, as are ours

o “interim” probably means through end of FY10– just a guess, however


Upper Level Organization•Patterned after successful NFMCC model


L1 Manager Responsibilities (D&S)

•Coordinate Design & Simulation tasks for MAP— esp. those needed for MC DFS and NF IDR/RDR

o includes “site-specific” design activities— ensure that MDI tasks are given proper attention and coordinated

with Physics and Detector Study program

•Develop L2 organization to accomplish tasks— identify L2 managers, in concurrence with Program Director

o to extent practical, organization should reflect population of MAP– national labs, universities, SBIR partners

•Develop and maintain plan to execute D&S L2 tasks— plan should include milestones and deliverables

o also effort and M&S needs for each participating institution

•Manage effort to accomplish L2 tasks within budget and schedule guidelines

•Participate in preparations for MAP review


L1 Manager Responsibilities (TD)•Coordinate Technology Development tasks for MAP— esp. those needed to demonstrate feasibility and cost range for

items that form technical basis of MC and/or NF designs



•Develop and maintain plan to execute TD L2 tasks— plan should include milestones and deliverables





L1 Manager Responsibilities (ST)•Coordinate System Test tasks for MAP

— esp. those needed to show feasibility and cost range for cooling systems that form basis of MC (6D cooling experiment) and NF (MICE) designs

o assume Step 6 of MICE for planning purposeso plan for 6D bench test, and prepare proposal for actual experiment



•Develop and maintain plan to execute ST L2 tasks— plan should include milestones and deliverables





Second-Level Organization•In consultation with Program Co-Directors, L1 leaders have created L2 organization


Management Council (1)•To aid in “day-to-day” management of MAP, created Management Council— advises and assists Co-Directors— comprises three L1 leaders plus selected others

o first “other” is Bob Palmero also want someone from MC Physics and Detector Study to participate – want to stay coordinated with this effort

such coordination was very beneficial in ISS and now in IDS-NF

•Duties:— give advice on

o progress toward MAP milestoneso priorities and resource allocationo issues crossing L1 boundarieso weekly meeting agendaso items for TB, or IB


Management Council (2)•Tasks thus far

— help prepare budget for 7-year program (and later the review)— revitalize (presently moribund) Thursday-Friday meetings

o proposal is to have only one meeting per week (Friday)– L1 managers responsible for rotating program– every 4th week, they will all give status reports (3 x 20 min)


Institutional Board (1)•Want institutional representatives to advise Program Director from institutional perspective— serve as points of contact between institutions and MAP

Director— bring to Director’s attention policy matters that affect their

institution

•Duties:— advise Program Director on proposed changes to MAP

institutional membership— bringing to attention of Director any policy issues that affect

general MAP membership— advising Program Director on ways to improve communication

and outreach— providing IB secretary with publication information to produce

annual MAP publication list


Institutional Board (2)•Membership (interim) still being finalized

— ANL: tbd— BNL: Ilan Ben-Zvi— FNAL: Vladimir Shiltsev— LBNL: Steve Gourlay— ORNL: Van Graves— Jlab: tbd— Cornell: tbd— IIT: tbd— Princeton: Kirk McDonald— UCB: Jonathan Wurtele— UCLA: David Cline— UCR: Gail Hanson— U-Miss: Don Summers

Joint meeting of NFMCC EB and MAP IB was held

Wednesday


Institutional Board (3)•There are other required tasks that might be handled by a separate group or possibly by a subcommittee of the IB— this choice will be deferred until permanent Program Director is

on board

•Duties:— scheduling and organizing MAP workshops and meetings— advising on distribution of talks among the MAP membership— advising on MAP publication policies and Q/C process for MAP-

supported publications— managing the selection process for MAP-supported post-docs


Technical Board•Advisory to Program Director

— interim membership to be the same as NFMCC Technical Boardo Bross, Fernow, Green, Hartill, Jansson, Kaplan, Kirk, McDonald, Norem, Rimmer

— meetings called and chaired by Program Directorso secretary will be appointed to take minutes of meetings

•TB will advise on— support needed to accomplish MAP milestones— progress toward accomplishing annual milestones— process(es) to make choices among alternative technical

options— changes required to MAP R&D plan in response to new results


Program Management Office•Provides support for the administrative and organizational tasks of the Program Director— budget monitoring and planning— web-site development— document database development and maintenance— parameter list development and maintenance


Budget Approach•Based on guidance, building nominal plan for ~$15M per year— also will propose “augmented” plan at peak of ~$18M— both versions lower than originally submitted plan that peaked

at $22M

•Integral increased somewhat compared with earlier plan

•Rough profiles in $M (subject to change) are:FY09 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y6 Y7

Nominal 9 11 15 15 15 15 15 15

Augmented

__ 11 15 17 18 18 18 __


Status•Re-profiling effort and M&S to fit with new plan

— a non-trivial exerciseo some tasks can stretch, some can shift, and some must stay as is

— redefined main “deliverables” to be consistent— collection of updated milestones from various groups ongoing

o both for nominal and augmented scenarios


To Do•Arrive at self-consistent and defensible budget that corresponds to the proposed activities

•Revise proposal incorporating feedback from MUTAC— then submit to DOE, with informational copy to NSF


Issues•“Y1” of our plan is FY10

— we need to have a first-year M&S and effort profile consistent with what we actually have this year

o not as easy at it sounds, but we are close

•Budget corresponding to our proposed tasks is larger than can be supported within the funding guidelines— even if we interpret budget guidance as $15M flat (not flat-flat), we

must collectively lower our sights a bit— “augmented” plan will help, but we need a nominal plan first

•MUTAC still concerned about down-selection coming late— a legitimate concern in view of budget issue

•We are still depending on NSF support to reach our goals— esp. for MICE, but also for SRF program— we have encouraged DOE to enter into a dialog with NSF on MAP


Down-Selection• Process to handle down-selection and configuration

control are defined— In consultation with management group, the cognizant Level 1 leader

will define a set of technical criteria against which to judge the alternative approaches.

— After formal approval by the Program Director, these criteria will be made available to the proponents of the approaches under consideration and posted for all MAP participants to see.

— At a time compatible with the milestones in Table 1, the Program Director will appoint an internal review group to evaluate the alternatives against the agreed-upon criteria and make a recommendation.

— The Program Director will make the final decision on which approach to accept.

— Such decisions will be communicated formally to MCOG. At MCOG’s option, the decision can be reviewed by an external review committee, either MUTAC or an ad hoc group selected for this task.

— The above procedure will subsequently be used to formalize the baseline design for the MC that will be described in the DFS report.


Final Comment•We (SG and MZ) appreciate the continued support from the MCTF and NFMCC during this period— your help and cooperation are making a difficult task possible

Questions??

muon accelerator program overview michael s. zisman center for beam physics accelerator & fusion...

Documents