Proton Improvement Plan: View from the Directorate (and the DOE)

1. Stuart Henderson PIP Meeting Jan 3, 2012 Proton Improvement Plan: View from the Directorate (and the DOE)

2. Slides from the Proton Source Retreat Dec. 7-8, 2010

3. My Thoughts on this Effort • If we make a commitment to the physics program, we must deliver on that commitment • Conversely, we should not make plans for the experimental program if they’re not supported by plans for delivering the beam • Failure to deliver on today’s programmatic commitments jeopardizes tomorrow’s plans • This planning process serves very important functions of 1) developing a path to achieve the program goals we have already signed up for, 2) providing a basis for realistic planning going forward • Therefore • I view the completion of the PIP, and our execution of it as an urgent, extremely high-priority activity • I have made the completion of the PIP a priority for AD management • I will commit to working at the Directorate level to funding a plan of reasonable scope. Stuart Henderson, Proton Source Retreat, Dec. 7-8, 2010

4. Objectives • Develop a plan, the Proton Improvement Plan (PIP), to meet the goals for Proton Source throughput, while maintaining good availability and acceptable residual activation • The plan shall include the required scope, cost, schedule and human resource requirements needed to deliver • the required proton throughput • good availability • acceptable beam loss • The plan therefore should address the necessary hardware modifications both for increased repetition rate and improved beam loss, while ensuring viable operation of the proton source through 2025. Stuart Henderson, Proton Source Retreat, Dec. 7-8, 2010

5. Goal for The Proton Improvement Plan • The Proton Improvement Plan, when executed, should enable Linac/Booster operation capable of • delivering 1.8E17 protons/hour (at 12 Hz) by May 1, 2013 • delivering 2.25E17 protons/hour (at 15 Hz) by January 1, 2016 while • maintaining Linac/Booster availability > 85% • and maintaining residual activation at acceptable levels and ensuring a useful operating life of the proton source through 2025. In addition, the plan should • identify remaining vulnerabilities at the completion of the plan, and articulate backup plans for those vulnerabilities • identify “hard limits,” beyond which it will become very costly to proceed Stuart Henderson, Proton Source Retreat, Dec. 7-8, 2010

6. Proton Source Throughput Goals NOvA Shutdown LBNE 120 GeV Mu2e g-2 8 GeV S. Henderson, Accelerator Advisory Committee, Nov. 7-9, 2011

7. Money In spite of the difficult DOE/HEP/Fermilab funding climate, we have carved out a substantial amount of money in this and future years to carry out PIP M&S Funding approved by Directorate, proposed to DOE Total: $44.4M Staff costs are in addition to this

8. How does PIP fit into the larger Vision?

9. S. Henderson, Accelerator Advisory Committee, Nov. 7-9, 2011

10. Ten-Year Goal #1: Fermilab is the world leader on the Intensity Frontier We will develop a world-leading intensity frontier program based on a unique and powerful world-class accelerator complex Therefore we will… • Get the most from our Accelerator Complex in the near-term: • Ensure that the Accelerator Complex delivers on its commitments to the experimental program • Increase the repetition rate, throughput and life expectancy of the 8 GeV proton source through the Proton Improvement Plan • Double the beam power from the Main Injector • Modify the accelerator complex to enable a muon program based on the 8 GeV proton source (Mu2e and g-2) • Build LBNE and begin to take data • Build a world-class facility in the mid-term • Work toward Project X construction start in 2016 • Develop plans for the long-term evolution of FNAL accelerator complex (NF/MC) based on Project X S. Henderson, Accelerator Advisory Committee, Nov. 7-9, 2011

11. DOE’s View • I presented the plan for PIP at DOE early March 2011. • We presented a “Preliminary Analysis of Scope and Funding” document to DOE end of March 2011 • Bill presented the PIP plan at the OHEP Institutional Review in June 2011 • COMMENTS • The future of any Fermilab beam based program depends on the linac and booster and related systems until they are replaced (i.e., Project-X), therefore this program must be given priority • Key people are nearing retirement, Fermilab should have succession plans • RECOMMENDATIONS • Maintain PIP as high priority to ensure a robust 8 GeV source.

12. DOE’s View, cont’d • We have funding to get started and to fully develop the plan • Given the money involved, DOE expects us to “run this like a project” in the sense that we have a well-defined scope, cost, schedule (not that we become a DOE O413 Project). • It is therefore urgent that we develop a “Technical Design Report” that outlines the plan, as if this were a formal construction project • DOE is expecting to see this “early this year”

13. Finally • Is PIP important? • Absolutely • Is PIP really going to happen? • You bet • Is there money? • Yes, we have carved out of the lab’s flat funding a substantial amount of money to do it • Is the Directorate supportive • Very much so • Is DOE supportive • Yes. But they need to see a well-prepared plan. Let’s do it!