1 / 9

DOE Review Recap

DOE Review Recap. Mark Palmer Fermilab August 15, 2014. Major Thrusts of the Review. The review was a management and technical review to determine a path forward given the P5 recommendations We presented 3 activities: Our plan to achieve MICE Step V Both its strengths and its weaknesses

guadalupea
Download Presentation

DOE Review Recap

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DOE Review Recap Mark Palmer Fermilab August 15, 2014

  2. Major Thrusts of the Review • The review was a management and technical review to determine a path forward given the P5 recommendations • We presented 3 activities: • Our plan to achieve MICE Step V • Both its strengths and its weaknesses • 2 activities that we proposed for GARD consideration • The MTA experimental effort • A design and simulation effort towards advanced muon and neutrino sources

  3. The Context FY15 funding plan will be determined by DOE based on the recommendations of this review committee Directions for FY16 and onwards will be determined by DOE based on the recommendations of the HEPAP Accelerator R&D Sub-Panel chaired by Don Hartill Please understand that the P5 recommendations require a ramp-down of MAP Given the tight budget environment, we were given very little (if any) leeway to propose “continuing” activities

  4. The Committee and Observers • Review Committee • Erk Jensen (CERN) • Dave McGinnis (ESS) • Claus Rode (JLAB) • Mike Syphers (MSU) • Tom Taylor (CERN) • Mark Thomson (STFC/RAL) • Ian Robson (STFC) • Howard Gordon (BNL) • Leigh Harwood (JLAB) • Observers • Charlotte Jamieson (STFC) • Mike Procario (DOE-OHEP) • LK Len (DOE-OHEP) • Bruce Strauss (DOE-OHEP) • Don Hartill (Cornell, Accel R&D Sub-Panel)

  5. A Summary of the Response • The committee had mixed responses to moving muon-specific activities into GARD • We will need to carefully lay the groundwork for what happens in FY16 • The committee strongly supported completing a demonstration of muon cooling with RF re-acceleration • HOWEVER, had serious concerns about a 3-year ramp-down plan that did not include a clear plan for commissioning and supporting the experiment in FY18 • Specifically noted the potential for US laboratory priorities to make this option unviable • Urged us to outline a plan where we could have MICE Step V operational on the 3 year timescale – even if that meant sacrificing Step IV

  6. Special Comments • I especially want to thank ALL of those who made presentations at the review • The US MAP team • The MICE International Project Office team • I know that some folks were discouraged at the end • HOWEVER, this was a SUCCESSFUL review! • The preliminary guidance I now have from DOE is VERY promising!

  7. Addressing the Committee’s Concerns • Yesterday we presented to the committee 2 scenarios: • Putting more resources, up front, into the existing MICE Step V plan • A plan which still violated various “boundary conditions” • Re-baselining the project to utilize an IDS-NF style RF + magnet section which can be built with our two existing focus coils and the RF cavities on hand a this option was well-received! • Relieves pressure on the US budget • Provides a better opportunity to ramp down the overall program because of the reduced budget pressure • Everyone should say a special thanks to • Dan Kaplan for his insight in initiating a coherent response in this area • The MICE optics team (Victoria Blackmore, Chris Rogers and Jaroslaw Pasternak) for staying up late on Wednesday to do sanity checks • Peter Garbincius, as well as Alan Grant and Roy Preece from the UK, who stayed up late to verify the plan made both budgetary and schedule sense • We have now been given exactly 1 month to fully validate scenario 2 • And then move forward to a successful conclusion of a re-baselined MICE • Most importantly, this result now provides a path to a graceful ramp-down of the program!!!

  8. Near-Term Guidance from DOE • I have a preliminary FY15 budget to work from… • Will support a MICE emittance cooling with re-acceleration demonstration • Will protect our young researchers • Will require continued operation of the MTA • We will need to prepare a plan for the conclusion of this effort • But there is time and funding to do this properly • Will enable a graceful ramp-down of our other MAP activities • Some activities will be discontinued in FY15 • I will work with the MAP Executive Committee in a way to do this that minimizes negative impacts • For instance, • Various members of our team are desired for other projects in FY15 • A number of the efforts were leveraged so there is an existing reservoir of funding for researchers to work from • Our design and simulation team must be prepared to move into GARD-supported activities in FY16 • The transition year in FY15 should focus on completing key MAP deliverables • But also on laying plans for future activities to propose to GARD • I believe it provides a “cooling off” period from the P5 report

  9. Conclusion • The committee that was assembled carries significant weight with DOE • Thus their recommendations will ensure that we can move forward • Our presenters did a fabulous job • They achieved something that was far from guaranteed, because the deck was stacked against us • MAP management will be in touch with all of you in the coming weeks to go over the plan as we move forward

More Related