doug michael apr 10 2003 l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Doug Michael Apr. 10, 2003 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Doug Michael Apr. 10, 2003

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 5

Doug Michael Apr. 10, 2003 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

MINOS Involvement in Proton Intensity Work What has happened. What is planned Doug Michael Apr. 10, 2003 Overview of a Process Identify the need and issues: By mid-2001, MINOS collaborators could see a potential problem with the lab being able to deliver our expected protons in 2005.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Doug Michael Apr. 10, 2003' - Mia_John

Download Now 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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
doug michael apr 10 2003

MINOS Involvement in Proton Intensity Work

What has happened. What is planned

Doug Michael

Apr. 10, 2003


Overview of a Process

  • Identify the need and issues:
    • By mid-2001, MINOS collaborators could see a potential problem with the lab being able to deliver our expected protons in 2005.
    • At our request, a joint Fermilab/MINOS study committee was formed with charge from Steve Holmes. Report issued in August 2002.
      • Established and characterized a baseline of MI operations.
      • Identified many (not all) specific technical improvements required to deliver 12e20 protons in a three year period starting in spring 2005.
      • Identified a “reasonable” project resource investment profile to accomplish work, including manpower and money needs. Manpower needs far exceed the currently available Booster and MI personnel.
      • Directly and indirectly educate MINOS collaborators on proton intensity issues.
    • Five year running plan for MINOS being drafted by June, 2003. Nothing is now more urgent to our future success than increased proton intensity.
    • A new Off-Axis Experiment will clearly demand yet more investment.
  • Establish “beach-heads”
    • Get MINOS personnel started on a wide range of activities
    • Establish contacts with accelerator group personnel
    • Keep MINOS issues as close to the front burner as possible
  • Establish Funding/Resources/Management plan
    • Work together with Fermilab management at all levels to establish projects
    • Identify necessary resources (personnel and otherwise) and find the right people from Fermilab and outside to carry out the necessary work
    • Establish effective means for non-Fermilab groups to participate. Outside groups are not going to simply send people for Fermilab to assign for whatever purpose it deems of value. There needs to be some kind of joint management responsibility setup.
  • Increase Manpower to meet project need
    • Keep adding manpower as practical funding/supervision allow
    • Translate some large fraction of detector/beam construction manpower onto proton intensity over a few years
  • Keep it up over several years
    • This is going to require dynamic planning and execution.
    • Reality (last year) meant completion of the proposed program of work in 2007. It will now be later than that.

Future plan for MINOS involvement

  • The MINOS detector construction has established an excellent ability for our collaboration to work together with Fermilab managers to carry out a wide variety of construction tasks.
    • Usually much lower cost than the same work could be carried out purely in house at Fermilab (I estimate that the cost of the scintillator system was 60% of “in house”.)
      • Universities subsidize research construction in various ways
        • Low or zero overheads on manpower and purchases
        • Low or zero cost for machine shops
        • Low or zero cost for facilities and space
      • Universities have lower cost technical manpower which can be adjusted on a short-term basis as needed
      • Universities have students, postdocs, physicists who can contribute to key projects for free…
      • …IF groups view the work as attractive and critical to the experiment.
    • Possible to take on much more total work due to extended resources.
      • Several hundred FTE years of physicists and technicians were involved for MINOS
    • Fermilab managers ultimately are always in control, but well established mechanisms include non-Fermilab personnel in the management process and structure. A few “high level” outside managers make a big difference.
  • We would like to largely translate this experience to work on the accelerator complex to increase proton intensity
    • As detector and beamline construction come to an end, we are encouraging people to take on some role in proton intensity
    • We have recently established a residence requirement at Fermilab for PhD students. We anticipate that some sizable fraction of this effort will be directed towards proton intensity.
    • Our goal is to double the FTE participation from non-accelerator group MINOS personnel every 6-8 months for the next two years (a total of 8 times the current FTE level >25 FTEs/year).

What do we need from Fermilab?

  • Fermilab commitment to very significant investment in proton intensity
  • Clear project definitions so outside groups can understand and take responsibility for specific work
  • Top management commitment to assuring that such collaboration will be the expectation.
  • Shared Fermilab/non-Fermilab management responsibility (though everyone understands that ultimate management decisions will always rest with Fermilab)
  • What will work best:
    • Develop intellectual involvement by university groups and then assign the most complete project responsibility which is feasible.
    • Fermilab leveraging its funds and resources with lower cost university technical labor, resources and acquisition. If some outside funding can be found, all the better. But don’t count on it.
    • Making use of “distributed collaboration tools” to encourage effective communication.
  • What will not work:
    • University physicists working as gophers (or even significant modifications thereof) for BD personnel. Collaboration is the key.
    • University physicists working in general for “the good of Fermilab”