Eric Prebys

LARP Program Director

4/8/09

All meetings will take place in Chardonnay room (partitioned for parallel sessions).

Wireless available SSID: hhonors Login key with your check-in information (see me if you didn’t get it)

Speakers, please upload your talks to the web page prior to your session Instructions on the web site See me if you have problems

Evening discussion session (with refreshments) tonight, after afternoon meetings. Out in the “happy hour” area. Wear your conference badge!!!

Conference dinner tomorrow, here at Rings $40/pp in advance. See Allison about arrangements, if you haven’t done so

already. See Sam about $15/pp bulk wine deal, if you’re interested.

Lunch Available through hotel for ~$10-$12/pp Many restaurants in the area, but please return on time!!

4/8/09E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction 2

LARP continues to do good work, which is recognized by CERN 3 invited orals + 3 contributed orals + 33 posters for

PAC09 Strong solicitation to help with PS2 work

Lumi monitor on track for 2009 start up Experience with lumi has shaped some future policy

Federal budget has restored full $13M to LARP!!! $1.6M -> $2.6M contingency

4/8/09E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction 3

In the wake of the lumi situation Avoid large deliverables Implement better base line tracking for any deliverable

LARP is an “R&D” program The magnet program largely defines LARP, and should

produce a “six year plan” which results in a prototype sufficient to be a viable choice for the LHC phase II upgrade.

Other R&D LARP activities should plan around this time scale. At the end of this time, LARP will either be redefined or

disappear into accelerator R&D core programs at the various labs.

Budget DOE views LARP+APUL as one pot The overall budget will grow, but they envisions the LARP

component shrinking after the next year or so. The only way we might prevent this is to have a solid,

defensible, multi-year plan.

4/8/09E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction 4

Original plan $2.5M Finished in FY07

Currently Spent $3.6M FY09: ~$800k more Finished in FY09??

Bottom line These sorts of overruns are not unusual in real projects! LARP contingencies are far from sufficient to cover

overruns in significant deliverables. More about this shortly…

4/8/09 5E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

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 APL 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 Recovered when the budget went through, but will

probably use it all.

4/8/09 6E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

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.

4/8/09 7E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

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

4/8/09 8E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

This number has increased by ~$1M

4/8/09 9E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

4/8/09 10E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

4/8/09 11E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

4/8/09 12E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

Primary input Reevaluation of magnet systems costs Shortfalls in crystal collimation program Labor overruns Taking advantage of incrased budget to relieve straing on SLAC’s

core program

Working to make up for BNL overrun in next request4/8/09E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction 13

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.

4/8/09 14E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

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. Bottom line:

LARP’s role in crab cavities will necessarily be limited If crab cavities are to succeed, it must be through a

significant coordinated effort.

4/8/09 15E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

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

Project X Involvement “scalable” Our involvement both desired and assumed by CERN

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? We will handle this effectively like “new initiatives”

4/8/09 16E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

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

4/8/09 17E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

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

4/8/09 18E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

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

4/8/09 19E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

Official LARP change control policies essentially ignored.

No consistent rules for dealing with burdens at different labs

Budget and schedule not integrated Earned value reporting must be done by hand, if it’s done

at all No systematic way of dealing with different types

of contingency “deliverables” should have significant assigned contingency R&D projects should have “scope contingency”, possibly

adjusted by an uncommitted unassigned contingency pool. No formal accounting for “off books” contributions

from member labs. Developing future budget profile a nightmare.

4/8/09 20E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

From LARP “Management Plan”:

Problem LARP doesn’t even have an informal base line Large changes can sneak in at the annual budget without

being noticed Example: in order to see the budget and schedule

problems with the lumi monitor, it’s necessary to forensically examine old task sheets.

4/8/09 21E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

Reminder: the entire AS + MS budget is $3M+$5M, which is ~10+20 FTE’s or so.

We get a significant amount of additional scientific effort contributed in two ways: Explicit LHC work supported through the unassigned

“core” program ~6 FTE’s at SLAC ~6 FTE’s at FNAL Some CBP time from LBNL

Time which benefits LARP through common interest ~2 FTE’s at BNL working on RHIC projects which benefit

the LHC as well This is primarily for the AS, for which it is a large

part.

4/8/09 22E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

Put LARP budget and schedule into a single MS Project file

Define burdens and labor rates correctly for the four member labs Eg, “BNL engineer”, “SLAC scientist”, etc…

For every labor category, have an equivalent “off books” category with an appropriately PC name (“common effort”?), which is not included in the normal roll-up, but can be rolled up separately.

Progress is updated monthly by designated L2 and L3 managers.

Implement formal change control and change logging.

Project used to formulate long term plan and budget profile.

4/8/09 23E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

Ken Domann has translated the currrent WBS chart, as well as other information, into a fully loaded MS Project file.

Budget expenses will be charged against rolled project line items Need to identify FNAL person to do this once a month

For each subtask, a responsible person will be identified. Ken will email him an Excel spreadsheet each month on

which he will report progress on his tasks and milestones Ken will generate standard earned value reports on

a monthly basis. For schedule or budget changes beyond those

specified on 3.4, we will generate proper CR’s which must be approved by the Executive Committee(?)

4/8/09 24E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

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. Choose from remaining AS activities based on a risk

reward analysis4/8/09 25E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction

4/8/09E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction 26

Our goal is to have a six year plan by our June DOE review, which will form the basis of our FY10 budget.

All discussion this week should focus on multi-year schedule and deliverables.

Immediately following this meeting, we will begin intense project planning sessions will Ken. Be ready

4/8/09E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction 27

Sam Vanecek Martha Condon Joe Chew Steve Gourlay Allison, Sherri and the Embassy Suites staff

4/8/09E. Prebys,CM12 Introduction 28