1. Proposed LCLS-II SCU Schedule Soren Prestemon (LBNL) SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting December 16, 2014

2. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 Considerations that set the stage Aggressive schedules (but not fantastical…) – Assume funding is there when we need it – Assume we can access the right people: We have considered resource needs, but did not attempt to develop a true resource loaded and leveled schedule – Success-oriented schedule: Each stage of the project is sufficiently successful to proceed to the next stage Some risk mitigation integrated into schedule – Sub-component prototyping early in project – Introduce vendors early in the project – Multi-lab collaboration

3. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 Example of possible work flow Many parallel efforts can be done by industry Two final assembly lines and test stations at Laboratories We take advantage of DOE Lab capabilities: expertise and infrastructure Cryostat line 1 Cryostat line 2 Cold-mass test and tune: station 1 Cold-mass test and tune: station 2 Final assembly station 1 Final assembly station 2 Final test: Calibration and fiducials: Station 1 Final test: Calibration and fiducials: Station 1 Final test: Calibration and fiducials: Station 2 Final test: Calibration and fiducials: Station 2

4. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 Aggressive SCU schedule FY14FY15FY16FY17FY18FY19FY20FY21FY22 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Cold-mass prototype complete [funded] 3x1.5m test & tune complete Critical Decision: baseline selection Production readiness review Project complete Prototyping First articlesProduction Installation CD-2/3 Review PDRFDR Start production First Undulator delivered Last Undulator delivered Design production undulator and interfaces Fabricate pre-production unit Assembly Testing Material lead time 1st article fabrication Production delivery to SLAC Install in tunnel Integration & test Design

5. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 FY14FY15FY16FY17FY18FY19FY20FY21FY22 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Q1Q1 Q2Q2 Q3Q3 Q4Q4 Schedule uncertainty – possible scenario 5 Cold-mass prototype complete [funded] 3x1.5m test & tune complete Critical Decision: baseline selection Production readiness review Project complete Design First articles Production Installation CD-2/3 Review PDRFDR Start production First Undulator delivered Last Undulator delivered Design production undulator and interfaces Fabricate pre-production unit Assembly Testing Material lead time 1st article fabrication Production delivery to SLAC Install in tunnel Integration & test 2 nd prototype Prototyping

6. Roll-up of detailed schedule 6 Calendar year

7. Highlights of built-in risk mitigation efforts 7 Multi-lab collaboration – provides project with flexibility to access critical resources – leverage existing infrastructure Vendors identified and performance demonstrated early – Use design&prototyping phase to identify and qualify vendors ✤ components, long-lead items; winding and VPI setups Develop & prototype subcomponents early – Identify critical subcomponents; prove them early (cold BPMs,…) Invest in critical infrastructure early – Test facilities for 1.5m cold-masses – Test facilities for complete cryomodules – Planning for final cryogenic system Qualification of two parallel production lines – Provides redundancy in case of issue with one line

8. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 Recap of critical assumptions to hold schedule Funding starts now - and at appropriate level Project depends critically on early, aggressive design and prototype development Resources are identified and made available when needed DOE Labs must be committed to providing resources and infrastructure Project progresses well (no contingency in the schedule shown) Holding to a success-oriented schedule requires parallel mitigation efforts, e.g. funds and resources to develop and test subcomponents Critical decisions are made at appropriate times

9. SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting, Dec. 16, 2014 Issues & alternative scenarios LCLS-II project needs to continue with current baseline technical approach Schedule, critical decisions Proposed SCU schedule depends critically on immediate and full funding towards prototype Alternatively, SCU progress requires continued investment to bring to a state of technology readiness for future BES facilities: Need to maintain, and build on, current momentum of the teams