MICE Status(with a UK slant)

Paul Drumm,

MICE CollaborationUK-NF June 2003

Proposal Status

• International Peer Review of Proposal – Jan 2003 Interrogation & homework– May 2003 Blondel, Drumm & Long– Report out ?– Strong Endorsement ….– …equates to Scientific Approval– …some advice to RAL

Management Issues

• RAL Management interface to MICE

• Local Technical Team Leaders

• Understand Costs – Independent Review– effort requirements e.g. during installation– capital costs– common fund discussion

• Constitution under discussion

Proposal Status & UK Funding

• PPARC/PPRP review of UK Proposal– May 2003 – accepted science case

• there is an understanding of the importance of MICE both internationally

• and of the importance & strength of the UKcontributions

• Strenuous discussions are taking place…

UK Funding

• for the remainder of 2003/4– there is a minimal programme of work to avoid

loss of rôle (intellectual leadership) and to avoid further delays to the MICE programme

• pparc/pprp & cclrc have to find funds to enable this years work to take place

• Referees – (Willke, Froudivaux, Brook)– to scrutinise work plans for 2003/4– expect an answer before end of June (PPRP next week?)

2004/….

• OST budget line to be bid for in collaboration with PPARC & CCLRC in 2004/…. Gateway

• Total UK Cost estimate is £21.7M• indications are that £7.5M is available through

OST• £10M may be a realistic target for OST/PPARC• other sources of funding need to be accessed

scenarios…

• £7.5M– not enough for beam line

• £10.0M– gets beam line – ~no UK involvement in MICE

• £12.5M– involvement suffers

• £15.0M– can achieve all goals if

• £21.7M Risks associated with Solenoid taken by PSI Cryogenic infrastructure shared with MICERF contribution taken in kind

This is preferred option of JPB

Gateway Process• Gateway 0 – Strategic Assessment: Assessment of business need;

Assessment of risk; initiation of an independent review team; review of the objectives and planned delivery; review of management structure and resource plans;

• Gateway 1 – Business Justification: Assessment of the business case for MICE; review of risk management plans; review delivery plans;

• Gateway 2 – Procurement Strategy: confirm procurement strategy; full funding availability; appropriate resources are in place; delivery plans, financial and management controls are in place and are realistic;

• Gateway 3 – Investment Decisions: confirm that the procurement strategy has been followed; review and agree procurement decisions; review risk management & change control procedures;

• ….4 & 5

GW 1

Papers with Wood & Halliday

to take MICE to RCUK

GW 1 Review in July

Success implies approval for MICE

Gateway Process• Gateway 0 – Strategic Assessment: Assessment of business need;

Assessment of risk; initiation of an independent review team; review of the objectives and planned delivery; review of management structure and resource plans;

• Gateway 1 – Business Justification: Assessment of the business case for MICE; review of risk management plans; review delivery plans;

• Gateway 2 – Procurement Strategy: confirm procurement strategy; full funding availability; appropriate resources are in place; delivery plans, financial and management controls are in place and are realistic;

• Gateway 3 – Investment Decisions: confirm that the procurement strategy has been followed; review and agree procurement decisions; review risk management & change control procedures;

• ….4 & 5

GW 2

Funding plans must be shown to be secure.

& Elsewhere

• US submitted its MICE proposal in 2002– no decision as yet– MuCool contribution for R&D

• Italians made request (and obtained) funds for TPG work (? for solenoid)

• elsewhere require formal approval from CCLRC

Despite the lack of funds….

• so far much progress has been achieved….

–absorber, coils & safety–beam line–RF power system–tracker choice

…absorber & coils integration

– Moved away from original scheme in favour of a solution which decouples the coil & absorber bringing them together for final assembly - no sparks!

– first review under discussion• where - states (FNAL?)• who - WG members + non - MICE

panel• when - probably (my guess) start of 2004

…Beam Line

– limited options at RAL (3 quads & 2 dipoles)– beam line layout drawn up

• matching – potential solution seeking resources

– front end fixed (in synchrotron room)• shortly proceed to clear hall (small step forward)• smaller hole to be cut in 2004

RF Power System

– Scheme Draw up in outline– Single 1MW drive per cavity

• flexible• advantage of phase & amplitude control• cost effective (despite 8 systems)• possible to upgrade to deliver 4MW to one cavity

– Demonstrated 1.6 MW from “old” ISIS tubes– inventory of what can be reused RAL/CERN/?– Difference Schemes are similar in cost

RAL Scheme

>1MW

100 kW

5kW

10mW

TH 116 ex RAL Tubes

ex SPSSS Driver

Low LevelControl& RF Source

Roy Church

Cavity

RAL RF Tube Tests

IA

~110 A Field

• Stock of ~ 12 retired tubes

• trial tube operated comfortably at 1.25 MW (~300 s pulse at 50/32 Hz)

• (peaks at ~1.6 MW)

260 s

Tracker Choice

• Referees appointed – Grégoire & Summers

• Criteria published– list of measurements & performance figures– to be agreed by proponents

• Time Scale defined– October collaboration meeting

Conclusion

• Strong Statement from IPRP (Astbury)

• Funding Discussion in progress– signs are promising

• Many Technical Issues still to be addressed – good progress

• MICE is a strong collaboration & with our best endeavours MICE will

succeed!