Report from MICE project teams

1. Report from MICE project teams Feedback from PPRP MICE funding: various scenarios Issues Financial year 2003/04 iMICE common fund

2. Feedback from PPRP: 1 • The Panel endorsed the science case for an eventual neutrino factory … • The Panel recognised that muon cooling is an important technology milestone on the path to a neutrino factory, and that the proposed MICE facility is capable of achieving the first major step in demonstrating it. • The Panel noted that, …, the opportunity to host MICE at RAL would allow the UK to take a strategic lead in developing neutrino factory technology … • The Panel considered the proposed timescale for MICE to be aggressive, but acknowledged the enthusiasm of the proponents and their desire to maintain momentum for the project. • The Panel … endorsed the recommendation … that an independent technical and cost review should take place at the earliest opportunity. • The Panel noted the current estimate of 21.7M for the UK contribution and … encouraged the proponents to investigate mechanisms for reducing [it] … • The Panel recognised that a minimal work programme in FY03/04 thatinvolved clearing the experimental hall, procuring the shielding blocks,and preparing to drill a hole in the ISIS vault wall would provide apositive indication of  a UK enthusiasm for MICE. The Panel recognisedthat, without such a programme, the project would be delayed by roughlya year and external funding could be jeopardized.

3. Feedback from PPRP: 1 • The Panel acknowledged the vital roles that the UK groups are playing in the MICE experiment, namely the scintillating fibre detector R+D and the design of the solenoid focus coils. Assuming that funding is available, the Panel agreed that it was essential that the proponents contribute to the experiment in addition to providing the MICE beamline. • The Panel appointed … referees and to work with the proponents to arrive at a minimal cost to allow these activities to proceed in the first year of the project, in FY03/04. • The Panel encouraged the Director RAL-PPD to investigate whether a mechanism for providing costs for the first year programme could be negotiated with CLRC. The Panel agreed to consider the level at which it could fund such a minimal programme at the June meeting. • The Panel therefore requested that the proponents submit a detailed proposal and justification for the FY03/04 funding request, which should include the work programme and costs, whilst keeping in mind the overall scope and priorities for the project.'

4. Summary of MICE-UK costs

5. Cost to the UK by work package Possible funding scenarios • Scenario 1: £7.5M • Scenario 2: £10M • Scenario 3: £12.5M • Scenario 4: £15M

6. WP1: B&I: profile and total Cost of construction of decay solenoid (PSI solenoid unacceptable) Work package 1: profile excluding cost of replacement solenoid

7. Interim conclusions/comments • Scenario 1: £7.5M • UK can afford to do ‘most’ of beam and infrastructure project but nothing else! • Would imply loss of UK leadership in any area of experiment • Would jeopardise viability of iMICE • iMICE would look for alternative home laboratory • Scenario 2: £10M • UK can afford to do beam and infrastructure project and attempt to mount an analysis effort • Would imply loss to UK of focus-pair and instrumentation projects. Funds for modest software activity could perhaps be found if additional savings or international contributions to B&I could be found • Would jeopardise viability of iMICE • iMICE would be likely to consider an alternative home lab • Consider scenarios 3 and 4 below assuming: • Risk that PSI solenoid will not perform as required is low and that therefore cost may be removed from base-line (pursue ‘gentleman’s’ agreement with PSI) • Seek additional contributions (e.g. iMICE common fund)/savings

8. WP1 large-cost items, WP2-4 WP 1: B&I: with all ‘savings’: £8,445k (including VAT, inflation and contingency)

9. UK contributions to MICE Focus coil assemblies Trackers in and out • Chosen because: • Crucial contributions at heart of cooling channel and instrumentation • Well matched to expertise of UK groups

10. Scenarios 3 and 4 • Scenario 3: £12.5M • UK can do beam and infrastructure project and either focus-pair or instrumentation/software projects • Assumes contribution from iMICE common fund and contribution in kind for RF system • UK could loose one key system of the experiment • iMICE would need to redistribute cost or find additional collaborators  risk to iMICE • Scenario 2: £15M • UK can do beam and infrastructure project as well as focus-pair and instrumentation/software projects • Assumes contribution from iMICE common fund and contribution in kind for RF system • UK will remain at the heart of both the MICE cooling channel and the MICE instrumentation • Strong support +ve impact on likely success of iMICE

11. Issues • Financial year 2003/04: • ISIS have indicated that MICE work scheduled for 2004 shutdown can not be guaranteed unless work can start mid- to late-June  some resources must be committed • Focus-pair conceptual design urgently needs ED effort. Conceptual design work gradually being compromised. • Construction of prototype SciFi tracker reaching critical phase where items have to be purchased. Risk of compromising tracker-technology decision milestone. • iMICE has initiated discussion of common fund. Goal is to conclude along with conclusion of charter discussions at the October MICE collaboration meeting • UK position?

13. Scenarios:

14. WP1: B&I: profile and total cf scenario 1 Cost of construction of decay solenoid (PSI solenoid unacceptable) Work package 1: profile excluding cost of replacement solenoid

15. WP1: B&I: profile and total cf scenario 2 Cost of construction of decay solenoid (PSI solenoid unacceptable) Work package 1: profile excluding cost of replacement solenoid

16. Summary of MICE-UK costs: excl. solenoid Investigate large-cost items WP1 alongside WP2, 3 and 4

17. WP1: large-cost items 1: cryogenic system • Cryogenic system: model for capital cost • Assume 40% for beamline; 60% iMICE common fund • UK takes 33% share of common fund

18. WP1: large-cost items 2: RF system/beamline • RF system: • UK contribution in kind rather than capital? • Beam line: • CCLRC contribution?

19. Focus-coil assembly, instrumentation, s/w • Focus-coil assembly • Spectrometer instrumentation Excludes exploitation and travel • MICE software

20. MICE-UK costs – assuming all savings