1. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 Linac Coherent Light Source Project Update Recent progress Enhancements of capability Conventional facilities cost

2. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 Linac Coherent Light Source 1.1 Management, Global Controls 1.2 Injector 1.3 Linac 1.3 e-Beam Transport 1.4 Undulator Near Experiment Hall Far Experiment Hall ( underground) 1.5 X-Ray Transport/Optics/Diagnostics 1.6 Endstation Systems 1.9 Conventional Facilities

3. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005

4. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 1.2 Injector RF Gun Load Lock Transverse RF Cavity Laser Heater DL1 Bend Straight Ahead Spectrometer L0-1 & L0-2 3-m SLAC Sections Gun Diagnostics 10/2005 Shutdown -Laser transport tubes -RF waveguide to injector Gun fabrication in process

5. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 LCLS RF Gun Fab. In SLAC Klystron Dept. Courtesy L.Xiao Dual Feed Suppresses the time dependent dipole kick Matching phase for 2 feeds by holding mechanical tolerances on both arms Z-coupling (instead of  -coupling) Pulsed heating reduced + easier machining Racetrack shape compensates for stronger quadrupole mode Overcoupling  =2 15 MHz mode separation adopted Push-Pull deformable tuners Replace plungers Shaping of RF pulse for reducing average power 4kW -> 1.8 kW ; cooling channels designed for handling 4kW Reduce reflected power from gun Gun fabricated at SLAC RF design complete Mechanical model in progress 120Hz heat calculations under way LCLS-TN-05-3.pdf L. Xiao, et al., “Dual feed RF gun for the LCLS”, SLAC-PUB-11213, May 2005, http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/11000/slac-pub-11213.html ; to be published in the proceedings of the 2005 Particle Accelerator Conference, 16-20 May 2005, Knoxville, TN; also to be published at the Joint Accelerator Conference Website ( http://www.JACOW.org ) http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/11000/slac-pub-11213.htmlhttp://www.JACOW.org

6. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 Injector Laser Chosen - Thales Delivery expected in May LLNL (Brent Stuart, et al.) Studying temporal pulse shaping ANL ( Yuelin Lee) Studying transverse pulse shaping Bill White, LCLS Laser Group Leader Group will support facility lasers

7. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 Architecture Thales Laser System 1.5mx3.75m footprint (~4.5’x11.5’) Spectra Physics MILLENIA Vs Femtolasers Oscillator Femtosource Scientific 20s (chirped mirrors) JEDI #1 100 mJ,120 Hz JEDI #2 100 mJ,120 Hz Amplifier 2-pass Bowtie CompressorTHG Pre-Amp 4-pass Bowtie RGA Regen Amp StretcherDAZZLER 20 mJ, 120 Hz 80 mJ, 120 Hz 100 mJ, 120 Hz 119MHz 400mW 5W, 119MHZ 150ps 80mW 119MHz 1mJ, 120Hz >20mJ, 120Hz >40mJ, 120Hz >25mJ, 120Hz>2.5mJ, 120Hz To cathode Amplifiers are not cryo-cooled IR stability <1%rms (short term)

8. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 1.3 Linac LCLS Klystron Injector Quad BC-1 Dipoles Fab Complete first article ordered measured

9. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 1.4 Undulator Systems Progress, Changes Magnet BlocksAwarded Magnet Poles Awarded StrongbackAwarded Assembly, first articlesAwarded Undulator Measurement Lab designed RFP issued for room On track for complete delivery of undulators by June 2007 Design Changes Electromagnet quadrupoles Aluminum surface in undulator vacuum chamber Fixed supports in ANL scope Planning production prototype tests Shim incorporated in undulator design – permits K reduction (significant shutdown required)

10. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005

11. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 1.4 Baby Pictures (cont’d) Magnetized blocks Magnet Poles

12. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 1.9 Conventional Facilities Sector 20 Injector Magnet Meas. 2/28/06 Completion

13. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 FFTB Shielding Sector 24 Stairs

14. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 Next Steps Construction manager Cost estimate Construct road? Construct tunneling portal? Plan FFTB decommissioning Date will be between April and June

15. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 ~30m GAS ATTEN SOLID ATTEN STOP COLLIM Offset Mirrors STOP 1.5 New layout of FEE Incorporates Offset Mirrors 7 ft Fe 3 ft concrete 4 ft Fe

16. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 1.6 XES instrumentation effort Old Plan: XES to build a generic set of instrument components (infrastructure PPS, MPS, network) New Plan: XES builds one instrument for soft x-ray Atomic Physics studies Experiment infrastructure, laser, chambers, PPS Pixel array detector spec’ed for cluster imaging

17. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 1.6 - Since the Last Review Scope modifications Soft X-Ray Atomic Physics Experiment Deletion of generic optics Re-program to functional near hall station Pixel Array Detector Specs address single molecule imaging

18. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 20ft tunnel 30ft transition 46ft tunnel 212ft 28x33ft hutch 29x33ft hutch 36x33ft hutch 10ft passage below beam pipe Fire door 10ft 6ft Toilets Future tunnel to other stations Entrance 14ft tunnel Sliding hutch door 15x25ft control cabin 1.9 New FEH design in baseline

19. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 Recent Events SSRL User Meeting, 17 October 2005 Pat Dehmer presentation, 2007 Budget LCLS has high priority, high visibility, high likelihood of full funding BES must get funding above its “line” to do LCLS without shutting down some facilities BES is prepared to do this for LCLS IF we are ready

20. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 Wouldn’t Be a Project Without Some Challenges… Conventional Facilities High bids Sector 20, Magnet Measurement Facility, Construction Management Jacobs Title-II (30%) estimate for future work is 50% above Title-I Electrical, Mechanical disciplines are 100% above Title-I Jacobs expects increased escalation

21. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 De-Scopes Undulator Hall A/C redesign ~$3.5M savings Other CF Economies - $ 7.5M Still looking for $5M further CF reductions might yield $1M-$2M Flipping Mirrors - $2M More to go, emphasis on: Reversible No impact on commissioning and early operation

22. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 2 nd Undulator Line 3 rd Undulator Line Near Expt. Hall XR tunnel shortened from 250m to 230m

23. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 Central Lab Office Complex (CLOC) Capacity >260 78,000 GSF Total 150-Seat Conference Room Leave 3 rd floor unfinished Delete 3 rd floor?

24. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 Continuing Resolution No slowdown unless CR extends past December CF, undulator assembly must go forward to stay on schedule Will ask for help.

25. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 Response to Comments/Recommendations Members of the FAC had minor concerns about the organization chart as having a baroque appearance in that on the surface, lines of authority don’t appear to be that clear. However, throughout the course of the FAC meeting clear lines of responsibility and authority were in evidence and only a few issues on communication (notably between the physics requirements on the conventional facilities and the operations configurations and approaches) were apparent. Response: The LCLS organization chart has been revised to clarify roles and responsibilities.

26. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 LCLS Project Organization (Sep05)

27. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 The project should incorporate those risk or trade-off items identified in this and previous FAC meetings into the Project Risk Registry to ensure adequate tracking and resolution. The project may wish to also incorporate any such risk items cited in official DOE reviews as well. Response: The LCLS organization continues to use the Risk Registry on a monthly basis as a key management tool to proactively address its known risks. The undulator floor stability risk has now been retired as it has now been shown that expected stability issues can be addressed with the alignment systems and BBA at acceptable intervals. https://www-lcls- internal.slac.stanford.edu/projectspace_L2/Project_Office/Risk_Registry_Document s/LCLS_risk_registry_September_05.pdf

28. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 The project is entering into its boost phase where it is undergoing its maximum gradient: staffing, effort and procurement. During this phase, the timeliness of decisions often becomes critical and delays can quickly accumulate that can impact the overall progress of the project without specific attention. This is a concern to the FAC as the decision making process is not transparent and may need to accelerate to ensure avoiding unnecessary delays. Response: The decision making process has been made more transparent with the Change Control Board (CCB). With the CD-2b (Approve Performance Baseline), LCLS has enacted the CCB to deal with technical, cost and schedule issues on a timely basis. The CCB forum ensures that decisions are communicated uniformly across the project and formally documented in a manner consistent with good configuration control. Since CD-2b (April 2005), LCLS has approved 77 changes to the project and allocated ~$7M of contingency to the baseline cost of the LCLS.

29. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 The critical path of the project, likewise, may be extremely fluid during this phase and near critical paths can quickly become critical paths, and so those efforts which at present are not on the critical path, must understand that they can quickly become the pacing activities. Response: The LCLS has significantly increased its staffing since April 2005 and with that some time for assimilation of new staff into the project is required. The LCLS is now nearly complete on its staffing plan so the inefficiencies due to assimilation can be expected to drop off. Critical path is monitored regularly and has not shown any appreciable degradation since established at 215 days.

30. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 …However, an insightful planning exercise is to evaluate all activities for early starts up to the point where all of the budget authorization (BA) in each fiscal year would be used. In addition, exceeding this optimistic BA plan by 5 to 10% would also be helpful in evaluating potential resource demands. This planning assures that there are “swing items” identified in order to accomplish other work if planned activities are delayed. If the project doesn’t have swing items identified to work in the available time and with the available BA, the CD-4 milestone may be at greater risk than necessary. “Swing procurements” are procurements that can be advanced should budget become available due to delays in other areas. This is of primary importance between FY06 and FY07. Since civil construction sets the critical path, LCLS will plan to use its budget flexibility in this area to best advantage, based on advice from the Construction Manager.

31. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 A useful plot that can illustrate this phenomenon, and serve as both a leading and lagging indicator, is the contingency as a percent of the estimate to complete (ETC) budget as a function of the percent of the project complete. Generally, this should be roughly a horizontal line above 20%. Early in the project life it would likely start out at a higher number and depending upon the remaining risks within a project, the percentage can also be less than 20%. Response: Currently, the LCLS holds ~32% contingency on work remaining. This number may fall lower as the conventional facilities estimates become more mature and LCLS approaches the start of construction.

32. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 There is a need for a central database containing and controlling the complete configuration of the LCLS project. Work has begun on defining the detailed needs of the central database effort for the LCLS project. An IT Manager (Andrea Chan from the SLAC SCS group) has been hired into the LCLS Division and bringing significant experience in setting up databases in a project environment. At the same time Sergei Chevtsov in the LCLS Controls Group has been looking at the relational database needs for the control system, in particular the RDB requirements for online modeling for the accelerator.

33. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 The LCLS Project should consider giving the FAC access to the LCLS internal website. This would allow the FAC to view other reviews and important work that can have an impact on the scope and details of FAC meetings. It will also allow the LCLS Project to exploit the full potential of the FAC. LCLS is in the process of exploring a different data management system, which would make access control but the system is not likely to become operational in this calendar year. At present, LCLS is working with Kem Robinson to do it the hard way now or wait until the simpler solution is in place.

34. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 Charge to Committee Consider responses to last review Consider planned/proposed scope changes to accommodate conventional facilities costs

35. John N. Galayda LCLS Facility Advisory Committee galayda@slac.stanford.edu 27 October 2005 End of Presentation