July 2003• Risk Document

– Draft version - Summary

• Progress & Developments– MICE preparations– Tracker Choice (for KL)– Absorber/Coils 1st Review– RF Systems– WBS – document to Steering group– Common Fund

Risk Document• Skills & Staff Resources

– staff skills for installation – RF, cryogenics in particular?• Financial

– does the scope of the experiment match the financial resources?– impact on MICE of the outcome of the UK funding discussions?

• Technical– how do safety consideration affect the performance of MICE?– can the RF cavity operate in a magnetic field?

• Time scales– What happens if ISIS shutdown moves forward?

• Risk to ISIS– can MICE installation/operations affect ISIS running?

• At Risk from ISIS– does ISIS (e.g. shutdowns) affect MICE?

Progress

• PPD have officially released the hall• upgrade to crane (should) now be complete• alerted “stakeholders” to decommissioning• hazard assessment written – I need to look at SHE• CMS

– understand time to get noise solved– need to determine if they have to be / can be moved

• ISIS/KEK/ANL Cavity collaboration– keen to help clear out (WAM)

Tracker Choice• Baseline: SiFi (UK/US/J) Scintillating fibre detector

• Alternative: TPG (It/Ch) Time Projection chamber with GEM–readout

• Referees: Gregoire(UCdeL) & Summers(UM-O)– Criteria in discussion – not yet agreed– Set of measurements expected of each team– Expected deadline - October collaboration meeting @RAL

– Sensitivity to cavity-generated X-ray background– Sensitivity of detector and its electronics to RF noise– Tracking performance

Tracker: schedulesSciFi schedule

Criteria

• Other factors will influence the choice– Experienced design– Safety and integration – Cost– Schedule– Ease of operation– Funding opportunities

• Goals:– Choose appropriate technology– Emerge with a single tracker team stronger that either of the

present teams on their own

• Agreed on a design choice– simplification to design & integration

• Separation of coils & absorber – can be built & tested separately prior to integration

– progress in understanding ways to make things safe

• Organising internal review – likely to be end of this year– likely to be at FNAL– MICE selected set of (independent) experts

• RAL review will be more encompassing – not yet timely

Absorber Review

RF Progress• Specification

– 8 cavities – >1 MW peak power each – Low (0.1%) duty cycle

• RC: RAL RF Expert– original system (2x4MW) not up to spec. - accepted– Proposed one system per cavity (8x1MW) - Baseline design– Simplification; flexible; can be staged; phase & amplitude

controlled

• Review of equipment – visit to CERN– Potential for as many as 6 x 1.5 MW systems

• Cost of (8x) system approaching 60% of “new”– There is more to investigate – low power kit

WBS

• IPRP report – WBS to level 4; External MICE review

• WBS = Work Breakdown Structure– Task Tree Analysis – each task comprises a set of lesser steps – Improves cost & effort estimates– Outline document to MICE (with Blondel for first comments)– Involves some organising of the iMICE structure

• Advice needed:– Timescales for Gateway 1 & For external review

Common Fund

• Incidental costs for RAL to host MICE?– accommodation – request to ADT for office space in R76– transport– electricity– beam – live off “lost beam”

– Consumables (e.g. LN2)

– Other overheads– using example of RIKEN agreement

• Non-parallel complication for MICE – UK, EU, US, J collaboration

• Negotiations for additional support to B&I– cf PSI solenoid - cryogenic system for MICE