Doug Michael

1
MINOS Involvement in Proton Intensity Work
What has happened. What is planned

• Doug Michael
• Apr. 10, 2003

2
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

3
Current and Near Term MINOS Involvements
4
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 gt25 FTEs/year).

5
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 dont 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