Agenda for the MECO Presentation

1
Agenda for the MECO Presentation

• 215 Introduction and Overview W. Molzon
• 230 RD Progress Except for Magnets M. Hebert
• 320 Magnet Acquisition Panel and Procurement W.
  Molzon
• 340 Coffee Break
• 355 Progress and Plans for Magnets B. Smith
• 430 Schedule for Construction Readiness M.
  Hebert
• Due to the short time available for
  presentations, we have limited the number of
  talks. It should be apparent that our progress
  has been achieved only through the active
  participation of a very large fraction of the
  collaboration. Experts on a few systems are here
  to answer questions.

2
Introduction and Overview

• W. Molzon
• NSF RSVP Review Panel
• January 20, 2003

• Outline
• How we have used the RD money.
• What we have accomplished, both on- and
  off-project.
• Difficulties we have encountered that deserve
  attention.
• Collaboration issues that need attention.
• Contents of CD

3
MECO Collaboration

• Boston University
• J. Miller, B. L. Roberts, O. Rind
• Brookhaven National Laboratory
• K. Brown, M. Brennan, G. Greene, L. Jia, W.
  Marciano, W. Morse, Y.
  Semertzidis, P. Yamin
• University of California, Irvine
• M. Hebert, T. J. Liu, W. Molzon, J.
  Popp, V. Tumakov
• University of Houston
• E. V. Hungerford, K. A. Lan, B.
  W. Mayes, L. S. Pinsky, J. Wilson
• University of Massachusetts, Amherst
• K. Kumar

Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow V. M.
Lobashev, V. Matushka, A. N.
Toropin New York University R. M. Djilkibaev, A.
Mincer, P. Nemethy, J.
Sculli, A.N. Toropin Osaka University M. Aoki,
Y. Kuno, A. Sato University of Pennsylvania W.
Wales Syracuse University R. Holmes, P.
Souder College of William and Mary M. Eckhause,
J. Kane, R. Welsh
4
The MECO Apparatus
Straw Tracker
Muon Stopping Target
Muon Beam Stop
Superconducting Transport Solenoid
(2.5 T 2.1 T)
Crystal Calorimeter
Superconducting Detector Solenoid (2.0 T
1.0 T)
Superconducting Production Solenoid (5.0
T 2.5 T)
Muon Production Target
Collimators
Proton Beam
Heat Radiation Shield
5
How and When Have We Spent RD Money?
6
RD Accomplishments

• Magnet CDR and plan for acquisition
• MIT Conceptual design, management
• UCI Performance verification, optimization,
  management
• BNL Interfaces, cryogenics
• Tracking Chamber
• Houston Chamber prototypes, electronics
  development
• Osaka Chamber prototypes, seamless resistive
  straw development
• UCI Leak testing, software simulation,
  optimization
• NYU Studies of alternate geometry (simulation)
• Syracuse Review
• Calorimeter
• NYU Prototypes of crystals and electronics
• Cosmic ray shield
• Wm.Mary Scintillator studies
• Muon beamline
• BNL Vacuum system design
• BNL Safety and infrastructure consulting
• UCI Muon beam-stop design optimization
• UCI Transport optimization (simulation)

off projecton project
7
Structural and Management Difficulties

• Some issues have introduced delay or
  inefficiencies into the MECO project effort
• Work has stopped on some critical path items due
  to lack of money, this despite our ability to
  forward-fund roughly one year of current funding
  level. This will become apparent in talks by Brad
  Smith and Mike Hebert.
• Choices on allocation of funds has been difficult
  and had adverse impact on some groups that have
  not received funds, particularly at BNL. Physics
  Department personnel are not getting support
  (e.g. for postdocs) and AGS permanent physics
  staff are not getting adequate time available to
  make timely progress. This same problem affects
  other institutions (see transparency on
  Collaboration issues). At BNL it is different in
  that some jobs are sensibly done only at the Lab.
  
• Difficulty with negotiating contract terms at BNL
  has been costly in time and effort the contract
  that is in place is very simple and for a very
  small amount and may not be a guarantee that a
  larger, more complicated contract will be easily
  negotiated.
• Getting NSF sub-award approval introduced delay
  in magnet industrialization awards. This is a new
  requirement, some of the delay was our fault, and
  we are optimistic that the bugs have been worked
  out and quick approval will be forthcoming on
  future sub-awards.

8
Collaboration Issues

• Project uncertainty is an ongoing problem
• DOE funded institutions are having difficulties
• Institutions funded by DOE Nuclear Physics are
  being told MECO is not in their plan, that it is
  either NSF or DOE High Energy
• Institutions funded by DOE High Energy are at
  risk of losing grant support. Grants were cut
  last year, not restored this year, and appeared
  to be at serious risk of substantial cuts this
  year.
• NSF funding for groups traditionally funded by
  nuclear physics has also been problematic
• NSF Nuclear Physics views MECO as an EPP program
  and discourages requests for support
• BNL collaborators do not have time available to
  make good progress (see last transparency).
• All collaborators are concerned that they are not
  making the most productive use of their
  professional lives.
• All that being said, we have not lost any
  significant effort, and activity many
  institutions has increased
• University of Massachusetts is becoming more
  active in electronics and DAQ
• Boston is more active in electronics development
• Syracuse is contributing to tracking chamber
  development
• Osaka has done significant tracking chamber RD

9
Contents of MECO CD

• The presentations to this Panel
• The Microsoft Project file for the schedule for
  getting to construction readiness
• Magnet Documents
• Drawing package
• Conceptual design report
• Overview drawing
• Sample interface document
• Final CDS review documents
• Charge
• Report
• MECO proposal to BNL
• RSVP proposal to NSF
• MECO Draft Management Plan
• MECO Draft Technical Proposal
• MECO Reference Design
• Procurement documents
• December 2000 agreement on procurement plan
• MECO MAP Report
• Letter to BNL Procurement and Property Management