HAWC A Wide-Field Gamma-Ray Telescope

Jordan GoodmanHAWC Review - December 2007

HAWCHAWC A Wide-Field Gamma-Ray TelescopeA Wide-Field Gamma-Ray Telescope

Jordan A. GoodmanJordan A. Goodman

University of MarylandUniversity of Maryland


HAWC BudgetHAWC Budget

• Total Project $9.1MTotal Project $9.1M– Hardware/Construction Cost $7.4M

• This dominated by the tank subsystem $4.6M• The remaining $2.8M is half site infrastructure

– The Mexican contribution will $1.5M mostly covering the site infrastructure costs

– In addition, this budget includes US project Management and technical support ($1.7M)







Quote

Catalog

INAOE

Milagro




Instrumentation & Electronics $1.13M

Trigger, 145k 14%

Scaler System, 56k 6%

High Voltage, 78k, 8%

Calibration, 221k, 22%

Water-Cooling for Electronics, 19k 2%

PMT refurbishing, 115k 11%

DAQ System, 107k 11%

Front End Electronics Upgrade,



Existing Milagro ComponentsExisting Milagro Components

Totals 2,005,125

2.1 PMT's Unit Cost 1,174,5002 PMT's 900 $1,000 $900,0002.1a PMT Base PC board 900 each $40 $36,0002.1b 3" PVC anchor/ lexan lidSCH 40PVC 900 each $40 $36,0002.1c HV connection 900 each $25 $22,500

encapsulation and testing 900 $200 $180,0002.2 DAQ System 830,6252.2a Multihit TDCs V1190A CAEN 3 each 8,945 26,8352.2c VME crate 6023/611 Wiener 2 each 6,895 13,7902.2d Frontend Boards 1200 Channels 500 600,000

Water System Components 150000



HAWC Deployment Timeline four years

1-Jun 1-Oct 31-Jan 1-Jun 1-Oct 31-Jan 2-Jun 2-Oct 1-Feb 1-Jun 1-OctFunding Year 1 2 3 4

Road constructionLeveling AreaPower installationCommunicationTank InfrastructureSupport BuildingAC / UPS /water-coolingDrilling WellWater delivery systemWater filtration systemRefurbish PMT'sFEB upgradeShipping L.A. partsWater Tanks distrib. SystemTank installation total 100 250 600 900

PMT installation total 300 750 900 900

TDC/ Trigger / ScalersHV SystemHV cablesLightning ProtectionsCalibrationSite ComputingOffline ComputingStorm Water Collec. System


HAWC Funding Timeline four years

1-Jun 1-Oct 31-Jan 1-Jun 1-Oct 31-Jan 2-Jun 2-Oct 1-Feb 1-Jun 1-Oct1 2 3 4

Road constructions 48

Leveling Area 75

Power installation 100

Communication 10

Tank Infrastructure 40 40 40 20 20 20 20 45 45

Support Building 84

AC / UPS/water-cooling 62

Drilling Well 100

Water delivery system 300 100

Water Filtration Syst. Install. 10 10

Refurbish PMT's 90

FEB upgrade 80 82

Shipping L.A. parts 20 30

Water Tanks distrib. System 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 10

Tank purchase 80 400 200 300 300 500 300 500 1000 235

TDC/ Trigger / Scalers 156 50 107

HV System 40

HV cables incl. connectors 30 158

Lightning Protections 10 30 30 32 18

Calibration 55 50 40 20 30 25

Site Computing 30 30

Offline Computing 30 40 40 80

Storm Water Collec. System 20 40 42



Contingency (DoE rules from D0 rebaseline)Contingency (DoE rules from D0 rebaseline)

• 0% on items that have been completed, • about 10-15% on items that have been ordered, but not delivered (this accommodates change orders, delivery costs, etc.), • about 15-45% on items that can be readily estimated based on quotes for a detailed design, • about 45-65% on items for which a detailed conceptual design exists, but which may vary due to scope changes such as channel count, and • about 65-85% on items for which there does not yet exist a detailed conceptual design, but which is an item required for the Project.


Contingency CalculationContingency Calculation• Tanks -Tanks -

– 25% (we have a bid)• InstrumentationInstrumentation

– 15% (we have significant experience and built in some contingency)

• ComputingComputing– 10% contingency as most computation is in later years where

costs typically drop significantly• Site Infrastructure (excluding water)Site Infrastructure (excluding water)

– 25% Our estimate is based on a LANL engineering design where US labor rate was used so there is internal contingency

– 25% On other estimates come from LMT experience– The road/electrical is being done for $83k less than estimated

• WaterWater– Add cost of local well to total with 25% contingency– Use cost of piped water system as a source of contingency

funds


ContingencyContingency# System Item Category

Total Total Contingency1 TANKS 4,679,126 25% $1,169,7811.1 Water Tanks 3,815,000

2 INSTRUMENTATION 1,133,816 15% 170,0722.1 PMT refurbishing 115,990

3 COMPUTING 286,415 15% 42,962

4 SITE INFRASTRUCTURE 1,396,088 $214,3784.1 Site Preparation 654,602 25% 116,651

4.2 Water supply 496,031Local Well Scenario 145,456 25% 36,364Distant Well Scenario 443,567

3.3 Support Building 98,964 25% 24,741

4.4 Milagro Trailer Upgrade 73,491 25% 18,373

4.5 Shipping 73,000 25% 18,250

5 USA LABOR 1,640,669

6 SUBCONTRACT COST 62,500

7 ContingencyAll items excluding Tank Subsystem $427,413Tank Subsytem $1,169,781Contngent funds from Water System/Site Prep $433,575Total Contingency Deficit $1,163,619Contingency Deficit excluding Tanks -$6,162


Contingency (continued)Contingency (continued)

• How would we handle a 25% tank contingency ($1.16M)How would we handle a 25% tank contingency ($1.16M)– Several possibilities (all assuming other contingency is full

used)• Get more money

– 15% supplement from NSF in last year– Ask the Mexicans– Get other groups to join

• Reduce number of tanks - @ $5k/tank we would have to cut back to 650 tanks

– This means twice as long to 5 – Could populate 250 tanks with two tubes for better low

energy sensitivity– Or deploy 170 outriggers we already have for better high

energy sensitivity

• Go to smaller tanks - 3.7m tanks are available from many vendors at $4k (before bulk pricing)


MRI ProposalMRI Proposal

• MRI development proposal from MarylandMRI development proposal from Maryland• Proposal is $2M development proposalProposal is $2M development proposal

– 30% Match required• $450k funding from Maryland• $150k Mexican contribution

• HAWC core array of 256 countersHAWC core array of 256 counters– Mostly complete (installation, electronics, etc)– No personnel

• Proposal is competing on campusProposal is competing on campus







• Significantly better than MilagroSignificantly better than Milagro• Probably move some outriggers (~100)Probably move some outriggers (~100)• Can be built in 2 yearsCan be built in 2 years


HAWC Org ChartHAWC Org Chart

Executive Committee J. Goodman & A. CarramiñanaJ. Goodman & A. Carramiñana

B. Dingus & M. GonzalezB. Dingus & M. Gonzalez

Construction Manager, Working

Groups heads

Institutional Reps

Facilities Working Group Analysis Working Group

US Funding Agencies

Members of the Collaboration

Mexican Funding Agencies

External Advisory Committee


Institutional ResponsibilitiesInstitutional Responsibilities

Project management: MD, INAOE

Data Man. Software: MD, UNAM

Construct Management: LANL BUAP, INAOE

Electronics: MSU, UTAH, UNAM

Calibration & Monitoring: UNM, LANL, BUAP


Project ManagementProject Management

• Collaboration SpokespeopleCollaboration Spokespeople– During construction they will be Jordan Goodman and During construction they will be Jordan Goodman and

Alberto Carramiñana, the PIsAlberto Carramiñana, the PIs

– When the project begins operations, two spokespeople will When the project begins operations, two spokespeople will be elected by the collaboration to staggered two-year be elected by the collaboration to staggered two-year terms.terms.

• Institutional Representatives Board Institutional Representatives Board – a representative from each institutiona representative from each institution

– This board will make decisions such as collaboration This board will make decisions such as collaboration membership and authorship of papers.membership and authorship of papers.

• Project Management BoardProject Management Board – Role will be directing construction and operation of HAWC. Role will be directing construction and operation of HAWC.

– The two spokespeople, the US construction manager The two spokespeople, the US construction manager (Brenda Dingus), and the analysis coordinator (Magda (Brenda Dingus), and the analysis coordinator (Magda González). González).


Project ManagementProject Management

• Maryland will manage all NSF construction and Maryland will manage all NSF construction and operations funds (a role we had in Milagro)operations funds (a role we had in Milagro)– Jordan Goodman will be PIJordan Goodman will be PI– Subcontracts from Maryland will fund construction Subcontracts from Maryland will fund construction

activities at other US institutionsactivities at other US institutions• DoE funds will flow through Los AlamosDoE funds will flow through Los Alamos

– Brenda Dingus will be PIBrenda Dingus will be PI• The Mexican contribution from CONACyT will be The Mexican contribution from CONACyT will be

managed by the lead institutions in Mexico (INAOE, managed by the lead institutions in Mexico (INAOE, UNAM and BUAP)UNAM and BUAP)– Alberto Alberto Carramiñana will be PICarramiñana will be PI– He will coordinate Mexican fundingHe will coordinate Mexican funding


HAWC Operations CostsHAWC Operations Costs

• Milagro Ops budget was ~$800k/yr ($560k to UMD)Milagro Ops budget was ~$800k/yr ($560k to UMD)– $260k went to Los Alamos through Maryland`– Scott and Michael were paid through UCI & UCSC

$240k– Of the remaining $300k a significant amount went

to computing and data archiving– Some went to filters and maintenance– Los Alamos contributed significantly

• Electricity etc…• We anticipate that HAWC will cost the NSF We anticipate that HAWC will cost the NSF

approximately the same to operate as there will be approximately the same to operate as there will be Mexican technical support and monetary support (like Mexican technical support and monetary support (like LANL did for Milagro)LANL did for Milagro)


Personnel at Site During Initial ConstructionPersonnel at Site During Initial Construction

• From US (~4 FTE)From US (~4 FTE)– Brenda Dingus (project manager) 50%– Michael Schneider (project engineer) 50%– Scott DeLay (engineer) 25%– Jordan Goodman 25%– Andy Smith 25%– Gus Sinnis 10%– One postdoc, one/two students 100%– Other Scientists (~10-15%) as needed

• From Mexico (~5 FTE)From Mexico (~5 FTE)– Three technicians 100%– Two faculty 50% each– Four faculty 25% each

Documents

HAWC A Wide-Field Gamma-Ray Telescope