eric prebys larp program director jaunary 14, 2009

Eric Prebys

LARP Program Director

Jaunary 14, 2009

This year’s budget FY10 and beyond Making tough choices

Jaunary 14, 2009E. Prebys, LARP US/CERN meeting 2

Guidance from DOE $13M with a 6 month continuing resolution at 84%

.5*.84*13+.5*13 = $11.96M Separate money ($1-2M) found for APUL planning!

General breakdown (informed by Steve’s exit advice) Accelerator Systems: $2.9M Magnet Systems: $5.0M Program Management: $2.1M

Includes LTV and Toohig Fellows (of which we have 4) Contingency: $2M

In then end, had to give up some continency to increase Program Management

Jaunary 14, 2009 3E. Prebys, LARP US/CERN meeting

These budgets use US accounting rules, where labor is “fully loaded” FTE ~ $300k/year

We get significant contributions “off the books” in the form of scientific labor, particularly from the SLAC and FNAL core programs. Nevertheless, it eventually costs money to pay people to

“think about stuff”


Luminosity monitor was expected to be complete by end of FY08 Instead had significant overruns, and needs significant

funds on FY09 (original request $1M -> $800k) Still consider it absolutely vital for lumi to work!

Rotating collimators still a big budget item Still consider it important to complete a prototype this year

in time to at least be considered a solution by CERN. Strong feeling that LARP should take a leading role

in crab cavity development Led by Rama Calaga Support by CERN General feeling that “the train is leaving the station”.

Magnet program still has to funded at a level that will insure a working magnet for the LHC Phase II upgrade


Accelerator Systems Iterative process, primarily involving Wolfram, Tom, Alex,

and myself, to converge on the bottom line. Key component: relying on labs to contribute labor in

accordance with their core competencies (i.e. not charged directly to LARP)*

Key casualty: No real money for PS2, for which there was a great deal of excitement within LARP and at CERN Will continue with contributed labor while we decide

what to do for next year. Magnet Systems

Much more monolithic than AS L1 and L2 managers worked to stay within the budget


Not much leeway Management costs determined by historical usage Need to honor commitments to LTV’s and Toohig fellows Only discretionary is Programmatic travel, which I have

reduced by trying to include travel with the appropriate project.


Crab cavities Original request: $700k

Cavity design Cryomodule design LLRF

Budget: $300k Rely on “off books” help in cavity design from LBNL and

Jlab Defer cryomodule and LLRF work

PS2 Uli Wienands developed a number of plans under various

funding scenarios In the end, budgeted $100K, primarily for travel and M&S,

assuming that most scientific time would be contributed.


LARP FY09 budget version v0.1September 12, 2008 Total

WBS [$k] BNL FNAL LBNL SLAC UnassignedUS LHC Accelerator Research Program 11,960 2,242 2,979 3,629 1,467 1,6431 Accelerator Systems Markiewicz 2,901 380 311 1,005 1,2051.1 Instrumentation Ratti 925 50 35 800 401.3 Collimation Markiewicz 1,121 35 101 0 9851.4 Accelerator Physics Fischer 855 295 175 205 1802 Magnet Systems Wanderer 5,059 1,071 1,769 2,2192.2 Model Quadrupoles Sabbi 2,000 538.4 332 1129.82.3 Long Quadrupoles Ambrosio 2,128 374 1,116 6382.4 Materials Ghosh 931 159 321 4523 Programmatic Activities Prebys 2,357 791 899 405 2623.1 Administration Prebys 2,107 741 749 405 2123.2 Commissioning TBD 250 50 150 0 50Assigned Total 10,317 2,242 2,979 3,629 1,4674 Contingency E. Prebys 1,643 1,642.7

Labor+MTSC


Lumi and rotatable collimator should ramp down considerably, allowing concentration on other significant commitments

Candidates: Crab cavity effort

Crab cavities deflect the beam to compensate for crossing angle.

Potential to dramatically increase luminosity under most likely Phase II upgrade scenario

PS2 Activities CERN has requested LARP help in the design (white

paper study) of the PS2, which will replace the PS for the phase II upgrade.


Pros Potentially a big impact on luminosity Lots of intellectual interest in US community Can be divided into well-defined tasks that are

straightforward to monitor. Cons

Barring a budget windfall, LARP will not have the resources to take a significant role in construction, so must coordinate with multiple labs/countries/funding agencies.

Current plan relies on SBIR grants If badly managed, potentially a black hole of resources

that never accomplishes anything.


Pros Lots of opportunities to make contributions Well aligned with US interests and expertise, particularly

Project X Involvement “scalable”

Cons Activity and goals not as well defined Danger of funding a lot of people to “think about stuff”

Potential areas of focus Injection issues Electron cloud Laser stripping?


Assume flat-flat budget over next year or so Will work on this, but don’t expect miracles ~$12-$13M/yr

Lumi and Rotating collimators will ramp down Would be naïve to assume they go to zero

Several things positioning to take their place Existing efforts (Ecloud, beam beam, jirs) New things (PS2, crab cavities)

Either PS2 or crab cavities could easily use out AS budget And it would be well spent.

Have to make tough choices Can’t do everything we want Probably can’t shrink MS budget and stay viable



LARP FY09 budget version v0.1September 12, 2008 Total

[$k] BNL FNAL LBNL SLAC UnassignedUS LHC Accelerator Research Program11,960 2,242 2,979 3,629 1,467 1,643 BNL FNAL LBNL SLAC change

Accelerator Systems 2,901 380 311 1,005 1,205 3,476 380 311 1,005 1,205Instrumentation 925 50 35 800 40 240 50 35 800 40

Phase IChromaticity feedback 0 -15 15 0 -15 15Luminometer 800 800 200 800 -600Schottky monitor 20 20 0 20 -20AC dipole 65 65 0 65 -65LLRF 40 40 40 40

Collimation 1,121 35 101 0 985 571 35 101 0 985Phase II

Rotatable Collimators 950 950 200 950 -750Crystal collimation 0

T980 96 10 76 10 296 10 76 10 200CRYSTAL 75 25 25 25 75 25 25 25

Accelerator Physics 855 295 175 205 180 2,665 295 175 205 180Studies

Electron cloud 300 300Simulations 50 50 50 50 Ecloud FB at SPS 80 40 40 80 40 40Grooved Chambers 25 25 25 25

Beam beam 300 300Simulation 110 110 110 110Wire compensation 50 50 0 50 -50Electron lens 40 20 20 0 20 20 -40

Crab cavities 300 200 20 40 40 800 200 20 40 40 500PS2 Studies 100 50 50 700 50 50 600discretionary 100 25 25 25 25 300 25 25 25 25 200

Labor+MTSC Preliminary FY10


LARP had a period of rapid growth in the earlier yeas, which led to some over- optimism

Get lumi monitor working prior to 2009 start up LARP reputation depends on it

Protect core magnet program Insure that LARP produces a prototype Nb3Sn magnet on a

time scale that makes it a viable choice for the Phase II upgrade.

Complete rotating collimator prototype This has been a significant LARP activity, and it’s

important that we produce a prototype on a time scale that will allow it to be part of the collimation solution.

Continue to support Toohig Fellows and Long Term Visitors Very important link to CERN LARP supported visitors making significant and well

received contributions. We need some help in prioritizing the rest!


Projects like the Schottky, AC Dipole, and tune tracker were a great success because LARP did R&D and then someone else (CERN in this case) contributed much of the actual hardware. Try to follow this model in the future.

Avoid deliverables as large as the lumi monitor Once the R&D is done, they should be separately

proposed or included in other construction packages. The life of LARP will logically end when the

magnet group produces a viable prototype for Phase II Need advice from CERN about the probable time scale for

this. Make our other plans accordingly, with mutli-year budget

profiles.


The lumi and rotatable collimator objectives must be met, but as these ramp down significant – but not unlimited resources – will be freed up.

How best should LARP allocate these resources among Ongoing tasks

Ecloud Beam beam (including electron lens) Various LLRF projects Crystal collimation Optics and commissioning (present, phase I, phase II)

New initiatives How realistic are crab cavities? How useful is our help in PS2


eric prebys larp program director jaunary 14, 2009

Documents

larp uscern meetinge

larp uscern meetingnot

larp uscern meetingjaunary

larp uscern meetingguidance

magnet program

contributed labor

form of scientific labor

significant funds