Presentation on theme: "P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 1 P5 ILC Review - Americas Region Report ART ProgramART Program –FY08 status –FY09 proposal ILC Construction Project."— Presentation transcript:
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 1 P5 ILC Review - Americas Region Report ART ProgramART Program –FY08 status –FY09 proposal ILC Construction Project ScenariosILC Construction Project Scenarios –Total Cost in a US Metric –Timelines & Critical Decisions –US Host, non-host scenarios –Funding profiles
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 2 Americas Region FY08 status Recent omnibus spending bill capped US FY08 ILC funding at $15M. Since we were 3 months into the fiscal year with a $60M guidance this was tantamount to a cease work for the balance of FY08. All spending was halted ~ 1 Jan and a count of funds remaining at the labs indicated an unobligated balance of ~ $2.5M under the cap. FY08 priorities then became: –GDE common fund ($400K) –GDE core support (Barish, Harrison, Ross, Carwardine) –CESR TA (electron cloud R&D) –+ MDI (?) –+ ……..
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 3 Americas Region - History The chart shows the time evolution of ART funding - actuals + projected. Since Aug of last year the projected FY09 funding has fallen from $95M -> $60M -> ~$30M. This tends to make detailed planning difficult.
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 4 Americas Region FY09 planning After discussions with OHEP it was decided to present an FY09 budget at roughly 50% of the former one. After discussions with OHEP it was decided to present an FY09 budget at roughly 50% of the former one. Should be robust and thus easily defensible. Should be robust and thus easily defensible. Given the FY08 situation then only top down planning possible for the near term. Given the FY08 situation then only top down planning possible for the near term. No detailed ART multi-year program yet but it is conceptually compatible with the new GDE plan. No detailed ART multi-year program yet but it is conceptually compatible with the new GDE plan. Strategic goals: Preserve collaborative commitment to the GDE Provide contributions to the ILC R&D program which are unique to the US Support the value engineering effort in the medium term Maintain US presence in ILC SRF R&D
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 5 ART/GDE Collaboration - Management & Conceptual Engineering FY09 reduction of effort ~50% i.e. scaling with program size though not linearly. Mid level management pushed back into the technical programs.FY09 reduction of effort ~50% i.e. scaling with program size though not linearly. Mid level management pushed back into the technical programs. –Preserves international and national management & engineering roles, travel, contingency, etc.. –Management/Engineering (GDE) Barish, Harrison, Ross, Carwardine + travel etc. –GDE common fund - $400K –Management ART/GDE (Garbincius, Kerby) + travel etc. –System integration - (Paterson) –Communications - (~ 50% of an FTE) –Contingency ~ $2M
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 6 ART ILC Systems - FY09 Impact ElectronsElectrons –20% reduction PositronsPositrons –US efforts eliminated Damping RingsDamping Rings –All effort eliminated except e-cloud R&D at CESR-TA (with NSF) RF systemsRF systems –All hardware deliverables eliminated (40% reduction) - preserve R&D at SLAC in HLRF Beam Delivery SystemBeam Delivery System –10% reduction Accelerator physics/Global systemsAccelerator physics/Global systems –50% reduction Conventional FacilitiesConventional Facilities –No bid to host or site categorisation –Maintain value engineering
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 7 ART ILC Systems - Cavities & Cryomodules Reduction of ~50%Reduction of ~50% –Maintain US presence in the GDE SRF program but no lead role. No industrialization. No systems tests. The effective reduction is much larger due to the loss of the so-called generic infrastructure support. Here we play the global card relying on work in Asia and the EU to provide the majority of the ILC SRF technology development. String test in KEK 2011 at the same time the XFEL is producing 1 cryomodule per week. –Minimal gradient program at JLAB & Cornell –Cryomodule prototyping at Fermilab (cryomodule engineering, cryomodule parts, testing etc….. $20M over 4 yrs) –Note: cryomodule development assumes some Fermilab infrastructure (horizontal test stand, cryomodule assembly facilities, cryomodule test stand)
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 8 ART Program Summary Stop work for the balance of FY08Stop work for the balance of FY08 Reduction of ~ 50% in FY09 (with the tacit assumption of constant effort for the out years)Reduction of ~ 50% in FY09 (with the tacit assumption of constant effort for the out years) Effort more focusedEffort more focused –GDE collaboration/management –CESR TA –Beam Delivery & MDI –HLRF R&D –Cryomodule development –Value engineering Pull back on SRF technology - gradient & full system string testsPull back on SRF technology - gradient & full system string tests
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 9 ILC Construction Project Scenarios - conversion to a US metric Start with the RDR Value Costs Total Value Cost (FY07) $4.80 B $FY07 Shared + $1.82 B $FY07 Site Specific K person-years (explicit labor = 24.0 M 1,700 hrs/yr) (Assume $100K/yr = $1.4 B) CFS is ~ $2.4B Direct Labour ~ $1.4B Balance ($4.22B) is what we call materials & services (M&S) US style estimates include R&D, contingency, escalation, design, and base salaries (SWF). Note ILC CFS costs were estimated in the same way as we would in the US but only for what we would term the construction phase. Correct translation to US metric requires a bottoms-up. In lieu of that look at ITER & RHIC Caveat - what follows is obviously not an official GDE based (or DOE for that matters) costing or scheduling exercise. It should be taken by P5 in the spirit in which it is offered
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 10 ILC Construction costs - Value estimate to US style, example of ITER
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 11 ILC Construction costs - Value estimate to US style, example of ITER
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 12 ILC Construction costs - Value estimate to US style, example of ITER Total - escalation = $925M / Value $503M = Multiplier of 1.84 for value -> US Note no conventional facilities & contingency only 15%. We assume 30% thus multiplier is 2.12
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 13 ILC Construction costs - Value estimate to US style, example of RHIC The total RHIC machine costs were $371M in $AY -> (~ $750M in FY07 ). Note no CFS, thanks to Isabelle. Break down M&S 59% SWF 32% Direct Labour 5% Indirects 4% Thus a value estimate would have included 64% of the RHIC costs. Hence a multiplier based on RHIC would suggest % contingency => 2.03
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 14 ILC Construction costs - Conventional Facilities US style estimate but only for the construction costs thus we need to add in the PED phase scope (Title I & II) - A/E of 10% While the estimate includes the standard construction contingency like items such as errors & omissions it is a so-called 50% estimate. DOE likes a 90% estimate. This adds an additional 20%
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 15 ILC Construction costs - US Estimate So the ILC costs in a US metric (constant dollars) is given by: CFS -> 1.1 * 1.2 * Value Accelerator Systems -> 2.07 * Value Hence total is $2.4B * 1.1 * $5.62B * 2.07 = $14.9B (TEC, $FY07)
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 16 ILC Construction costs - Strawman Project timeline The US system (413.3A) requires critical decisions: CD0 - Mission need - a.k.a. LHC physics results ~ 2011 CD1 - Cost Range - a.k.a. Site selection (Host or not) ~ 2013 CD2 - Performance baseline - a.k.a. International scope agreement ~ 2014 CD3 - Construction Start - ~ 2016 CD4 - Start of Operations - ~2023 Again the caveat that this does not represent any official GDE planning scenario
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 17 ILC Construction Funding Profile - RDR 2007 Value costs only
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 18 ILC Project - US Role & R&D phase The concept of the requirements for an ILC host has been relatively stable for the past few years. The host would be expected to provide ~50% of the total cost. This is made up of the site specific costs together with contributions summing to 33% of the remaining value costs. The host would also be expected to donate any land needed by the Project. In order to construct and operate the machine successfully the host would need to have wide ranging involvement in all the various technical elements of the program; with the SRF systems prominent. As a Non-Host then depending on the number of collaborating countries the contribution would probably lie in the range of 10-25%. Technical involvement does not need to be across the board and targeting specific sub-systems for contributions will be necessary. A program at the anticipated level of FY09 lacks the resources to provide a broad-based R&D program consistent with a host scenario. In defining the R&D phase I have assumed that it will cover the programmatic funding phase i.e. up to and including FY12. I assume that it starts at ~$30M in FY09 and ends up in FY12 at a level needed to avoid funding discontinuities defined as a year on year increase of > factor of 2. This is evidently a highly top down approach.
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 19 ILC Construction costs (TEC) With the long lever arm we are sensitive to assumptions on inflation. A change of 0.5% = $1.2B AY Totals do not include programmatic funding
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 20 Near-term ART R&D Program Assume FY09 $30M –Host scenario would suggest FY11 $86M, FY12 $148M hence FY10 ~$60M thus we need starting in FY08 15->30->60->86->148. –Total R&D costs $339M out of ~$10B; low compared to the typical 6-8%. –Non Host scenario would suggest FY11 $34M, FY12 $59 hence FY10 $32M thus we need 15->30->32->34->59. –Total R&D $160M out of $4B would indicate that we are still low compared to a 20% non-host contribution but O.K. for 10-15% one.
P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 21 ILC Construction Project - Conclusions Conclusions: –on any relevant time scale we cant get from here to there with a $30M-ish program if there for the US is hosting an ILC in the foreseeable future. –we are (just) consistent with a non-host role (15±5%) at this funding level for the next couple of years. The elements of the ART program may not be the correct ones since a non-host role will have specific technical contributions. –A little stability in the funding (actuals & projected) would help to get the most from the available resources.