Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 HAWC A Wide-Field Gamma-Ray Telescope Jordan A. Goodman University of Maryland

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 HAWC Budget Total Project $9.1MTotal Project $9.1M –Hardware/Construction Cost $7.4M This dominated by the tank subsystem $4.6M The remaining $2.8M is half site infrastructure –The Mexican contribution will $1.5M mostly covering the site infrastructure costs –In addition, this budget includes US project Management and technical support ($1.7M)

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 Quote Catalog INAOE Milagro

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 Existing Milagro Components

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 Contingency (DoE rules from D0 rebaseline) 0% on items that have been completed, about 10-15% on items that have been ordered, but not delivered (this accommodates change orders, delivery costs, etc.), about 15-45% on items that can be readily estimated based on quotes for a detailed design, about 45-65% on items for which a detailed conceptual design exists, but which may vary due to scope changes such as channel count, and about 65-85% on items for which there does not yet exist a detailed conceptual design, but which is an item required for the Project.

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 Contingency Calculation Tanks -Tanks - –25% (we have a bid) InstrumentationInstrumentation –15% (we have significant experience and built in some contingency) ComputingComputing –10% contingency as most computation is in later years where costs typically drop significantly Site Infrastructure (excluding water)Site Infrastructure (excluding water) –25% Our estimate is based on a LANL engineering design where US labor rate was used so there is internal contingency –25% On other estimates come from LMT experience –The road/electrical is being done for $83k less than estimated WaterWater –Add cost of local well to total with 25% contingency –Use cost of piped water system as a source of contingency funds

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 Contingency

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 Contingency (continued) How would we handle a 25% tank contingency ($1.16M)How would we handle a 25% tank contingency ($1.16M) –Several possibilities (all assuming other contingency is full used) Get more money –15% supplement from NSF in last year –Ask the Mexicans –Get other groups to join Reduce number of tanks $5k/tank we would have to cut back to 650 tanks –This means twice as long to 5  –Could populate 250 tanks with two tubes for better low energy sensitivity –Or deploy 170 outriggers we already have for better high energy sensitivity Go to smaller tanks - 3.7m tanks are available from many vendors at $4k (before bulk pricing)

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 MRI Proposal MRI development proposal from MarylandMRI development proposal from Maryland Proposal is $2M development proposalProposal is $2M development proposal –30% Match required $450k funding from Maryland $150k Mexican contribution HAWC core array of 256 countersHAWC core array of 256 counters –Mostly complete (installation, electronics, etc) –No personnel Proposal is competing on campusProposal is competing on campus

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 MRI Proposal

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 MRI Proposal

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 MRI Proposal Significantly better than MilagroSignificantly better than Milagro Probably move some outriggers (~100)Probably move some outriggers (~100) Can be built in 2 yearsCan be built in 2 years

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 HAWC Org Chart J. Goodman & A. Carramiñana Executive Committee J. Goodman & A. Carramiñana B. Dingus & M. Gonzalez Construction Manager, Working Groups heads Institutional Reps Facilities Working GroupAnalysis Working Group US Funding Agencies Members of the Collaboration Mexican Funding Agencies External Advisory Committee

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 Institutional Responsibilities Project management: MD, INAOE Data Man. Software: MD, UNAM Construct Management: LANL BUAP, INAOE Electronics: MSU, UTAH, UNAM Calibration & Monitoring: UNM, LANL, BUAP

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 Project Management Collaboration SpokespeopleCollaboration Spokespeople –During construction they will be Jordan Goodman and Alberto Carramiñana, the PIs –When the project begins operations, two spokespeople will be elected by the collaboration to staggered two-year terms. Institutional Representatives BoardInstitutional Representatives Board –a representative from each institution –This board will make decisions such as collaboration membership and authorship of papers. Project Management BoardProject Management Board –Role will be directing construction and operation of HAWC. –The two spokespeople, the US construction manager (Brenda Dingus), and the analysis coordinator (Magda González).

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 Project Management Maryland will manage all NSF construction and operations funds (a role we had in Milagro)Maryland will manage all NSF construction and operations funds (a role we had in Milagro) –Jordan Goodman will be PI –Subcontracts from Maryland will fund construction activities at other US institutions DoE funds will flow through Los AlamosDoE funds will flow through Los Alamos –Brenda Dingus will be PI The Mexican contribution from CONACyT will be managed by the lead institutions in Mexico (INAOE, UNAM and BUAP)The Mexican contribution from CONACyT will be managed by the lead institutions in Mexico (INAOE, UNAM and BUAP) –Alberto Carramiñana will be PI –He will coordinate Mexican funding

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 HAWC Operations Costs Milagro Ops budget was ~$800k/yr ($560k to UMD)Milagro Ops budget was ~$800k/yr ($560k to UMD) –$260k went to Los Alamos through Maryland` –Scott and Michael were paid through UCI & UCSC $240k –Of the remaining $300k a significant amount went to computing and data archiving –Some went to filters and maintenance –Los Alamos contributed significantly Electricity etc… We anticipate that HAWC will cost the NSF approximately the same to operate as there will be Mexican technical support and monetary support (like LANL did for Milagro)We anticipate that HAWC will cost the NSF approximately the same to operate as there will be Mexican technical support and monetary support (like LANL did for Milagro)

Jordan Goodman HAWC Review - December 2007 Personnel at Site During Initial Construction From US (~4 FTE)From US (~4 FTE) –Brenda Dingus (project manager) 50% –Michael Schneider (project engineer) 50% –Scott DeLay (engineer) 25% –Jordan Goodman 25% –Andy Smith 25% –Gus Sinnis 10% –One postdoc, one/two students 100% –Other Scientists (~10-15%) as needed From Mexico (~5 FTE)From Mexico (~5 FTE) –Three technicians 100% –Two faculty 50% each –Four faculty 25% each