report from mice project teams feedback from pprp mice funding: various scenarios issues financial...

Report from MICE project teams

• Feedback from PPRP• MICE funding: various scenarios• Issues

Financial year 2003/04iMICE common fund

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.

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.'

Summary of MICE-UK costs

010002000300040005000

6000700080009000

10000

2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9

Continguency

Inftation

VAT

Staff Cost (£k*†):

Spend (£k*)

Cost to the UK by work package

Work package Staff yearsStaff cost

(£k) Capital (£k)

Total (including

continguency, VAT and

inflation) (£k)

Beam-line upgrade and infrastructure 26.5 2057 6783 14036

Focus-coil assembly 10.4 728 1750 3953

Spectrometer instrumentation 13.0 802 837 2495

MICE software 8.9 594 100 1007

Total 58.7 4180 9470 21491

Possible funding scenarios

• Scenario 1: £7.5M

• Scenario 2: £10M

• Scenario 3: £12.5M

• Scenario 4: £15M

WP1: B&I: profile and total

Cost of construction of decay solenoid (PSI solenoid unacceptable)

Work package 1: profile excluding cost of replacement solenoid

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

WP1 large-cost items, WP2-4

WP 1: B&I: with all ‘savings’: £8,445k (including VAT, inflation and contingency)

UK contributions to MICE

Focus coil assemblies

Trackers in and outChosen because:

• Crucial contributions at heart of cooling channel and instrumentation

• Well matched to expertise of UK groups

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: £15MUK 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

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 meetingUK position?

Scenarios:Scenario 1 7.5 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 TotalTotal 0.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 7.5Without continguency 0.3 0.4 1.5 2.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 5.8Staff contribution 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.3Spend contribution 0.6 0.2 0.9 1.4 0.9 0.0 0.0 3.5Total (incl. VAT and inflation) 0.4 1.5 2.3 1.5 0.0 0.0 5.8

Scenario 2 10.0 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 TotalTotal 0.5 3.0 4.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 10.0Without continguency 0.3 0.4 2.3 3.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 7.7Staff contribution 0.4 0.2 0.9 1.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 3.1Spend contribution 0.6 0.2 1.4 1.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 4.6Total (incl. VAT and inflation) 0.4 2.3 3.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 7.7



WP1: B&I: profile and total cf scenario 1



WP1: B&I: profile and total cf scenario 2



Summary of MICE-UK costs: excl. solenoid

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9

Continguency

Inflation

VAT


Spend (£k*)

Investigate large-cost items WP1 alongside WP2, 3 and 4

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

WP1: large-cost items 2: RF system/beamline• RF system:

UK contribution in kind rather than capital?

• Beam line: CCLRC contribution?

Focus-coil assembly, instrumentation, s/w• Focus-coil assembly

• Spectrometer instrumentation

• MICE software

Exc

lud

es e

xplo

itat

ion

an

d t

rave

l

MICE-UK costs – assuming all savings

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2003/4 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9

Continguency

Inflation

VAT


Spend (£k*)

report from mice project teams feedback from pprp mice funding: various scenarios issues financial...

Documents

uk contribution

summary of mice

mice experiment

uk groups

uk costschart1248511

mice project teamsfeedback

mice beamline

year programme