1. Muon Accelerator Program Overview Michael S. Zisman Center for Beam Physics Accelerator & Fusion Research Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory NFMCC Meeting—University of Mississippi January 15, 2009

2. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman2November 10, 2009Muon Collider Complex: Zisman2 Introduction At urging of DOE, Fermilab is setting up joint organization based on NFMCC and MCTF —both organizations will be brought under common leadership —Program Director will report to Fermilab Director New organization named Muon Accelerator Program (MAP) Interim co-directors have been designated by Fermilab —Geer and Zisman Charged with preparing revised proposal for submission to DOE and organizing its subsequent review —draft proposal sent to MUTAC for comment on December 7 o comments conveyed on December 21 —updated proposal submission hoped for this month

3. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman3 Organization New organizational structure was requested by DOE —more project-like o Program Director makes final decisions –subject to oversight of Fermilab Director  MCOG will remain, probably expanded a bit Interim Co-Directors have developed an upper level organization consistent with DOE requirements —and populated it —L1 managers have now populated L2 assignments as well We expect organization to be the final one —but, formally, assignments are all interim, as are ours o “interim” probably means through end of FY10 –just a guess, however

4. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman4 Upper Level Organization Patterned after successful NFMCC model

5. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman5 L1 Manager Responsibilities (D&S) Coordinate Design & Simulation tasks for MAP —esp. those needed for MC DFS and NF IDR/RDR o includes “site-specific” design activities —ensure that MDI tasks are given proper attention and coordinated with Physics and Detector Study program Develop L2 organization to accomplish tasks —identify L2 managers, in concurrence with Program Director o to extent practical, organization should reflect population of MAP –national labs, universities, SBIR partners Develop and maintain plan to execute D&S L2 tasks —plan should include milestones and deliverables o also effort and M&S needs for each participating institution Manage effort to accomplish L2 tasks within budget and schedule guidelines Participate in preparations for MAP review

6. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman6 L1 Manager Responsibilities (TD) Coordinate Technology Development tasks for MAP —esp. those needed to demonstrate feasibility and cost range for items that form technical basis of MC and/or NF designs Develop L2 organization to accomplish tasks —identify L2 managers, in concurrence with Program Director o to extent practical, organization should reflect population of MAP –national labs, universities, SBIR partners Develop and maintain plan to execute TD L2 tasks —plan should include milestones and deliverables o also effort and M&S needs for each participating institution Manage effort to accomplish L2 tasks within budget and schedule guidelines Participate in preparations for MAP review

7. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman7 L1 Manager Responsibilities (ST) Coordinate System Test tasks for MAP —esp. those needed to show feasibility and cost range for cooling systems that form basis of MC (6D cooling experiment) and NF (MICE) designs o assume Step 6 of MICE for planning purposes o plan for 6D bench test, and prepare proposal for actual experiment Develop L2 organization to accomplish tasks —identify L2 managers, in concurrence with Program Director o to extent practical, organization should reflect population of MAP –national labs, universities, SBIR partners Develop and maintain plan to execute ST L2 tasks —plan should include milestones and deliverables o also effort and M&S needs for each participating institution Manage effort to accomplish L2 tasks within budget and schedule guidelines Participate in preparations for MAP review

8. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman8 Second-Level Organization In consultation with Program Co-Directors, L1 leaders have created L2 organization

9. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman9 Management Council (1) To aid in “day-to-day” management of MAP, created Management Council —advises and assists Co-Directors —comprises three L1 leaders plus selected others o first “other” is Bob Palmer o also want someone from MC Physics and Detector Study to participate –want to stay coordinated with this effort  such coordination was very beneficial in ISS and now in IDS-NF Duties: —give advice on o progress toward MAP milestones o priorities and resource allocation o issues crossing L1 boundaries o weekly meeting agendas o items for TB, or IB

10. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman10 Management Council (2) Tasks thus far —help prepare budget for 7-year program (and later the review) —revitalize (presently moribund) Thursday-Friday meetings o proposal is to have only one meeting per week (Friday) –L1 managers responsible for rotating program –every 4 th week, they will all give status reports (3 x 20 min)

11. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman11 Institutional Board (1) Want institutional representatives to advise Program Director from institutional perspective —serve as points of contact between institutions and MAP Director —bring to Director’s attention policy matters that affect their institution Duties: —advise Program Director on proposed changes to MAP institutional membership —bringing to attention of Director any policy issues that affect general MAP membership —advising Program Director on ways to improve communication and outreach —providing IB secretary with publication information to produce annual MAP publication list

12. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman12 Institutional Board (2) Membership (interim) still being finalized —ANL: tbd —BNL: Ilan Ben-Zvi —FNAL: Vladimir Shiltsev —LBNL: Steve Gourlay —ORNL: Van Graves —Jlab: tbd —Cornell: tbd —IIT: tbd —Princeton: Kirk McDonald —UCB: Jonathan Wurtele —UCLA: David Cline —UCR: Gail Hanson —U-Miss: Don Summers Joint meeting of NFMCC EB and MAP IB was held Wednesday

13. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman13 Institutional Board (3) There are other required tasks that might be handled by a separate group or possibly by a subcommittee of the IB —this choice will be deferred until permanent Program Director is on board Duties: —scheduling and organizing MAP workshops and meetings —advising on distribution of talks among the MAP membership —advising on MAP publication policies and Q/C process for MAP-supported publications —managing the selection process for MAP-supported post-docs

14. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman14 Technical Board Advisory to Program Director —interim membership to be the same as NFMCC Technical Board o Bross, Fernow, Green, Hartill, Jansson, Kaplan, Kirk, McDonald, Norem, Rimmer —meetings called and chaired by Program Directors o secretary will be appointed to take minutes of meetings TB will advise on —support needed to accomplish MAP milestones —progress toward accomplishing annual milestones —process(es) to make choices among alternative technical options —changes required to MAP R&D plan in response to new results

15. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman15 Program Management Office Provides support for the administrative and organizational tasks of the Program Director —budget monitoring and planning —web-site development —document database development and maintenance —parameter list development and maintenance

16. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman16 Budget Approach Based on guidance, building nominal plan for ~$15M per year —also will propose “augmented” plan at peak of ~$18M —both versions lower than originally submitted plan that peaked at $22M Integral increased somewhat compared with earlier plan Rough profiles in $M (subject to change) are: FY09Y1Y2Y3Y4Y5Y6Y7 Nominal 91115 Augmented __11151718 __

17. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman17 Status Re-profiling effort and M&S to fit with new plan —a non-trivial exercise o some tasks can stretch, some can shift, and some must stay as is —redefined main “deliverables” to be consistent —collection of updated milestones from various groups ongoing o both for nominal and augmented scenarios

18. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman18 To Do Arrive at self-consistent and defensible budget that corresponds to the proposed activities Revise proposal incorporating feedback from MUTAC —then submit to DOE, with informational copy to NSF

19. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman19 Issues “Y1” of our plan is FY10 —we need to have a first-year M&S and effort profile consistent with what we actually have this year o not as easy at it sounds, but we are close Budget corresponding to our proposed tasks is larger than can be supported within the funding guidelines —even if we interpret budget guidance as $15M flat (not flat-flat), we must collectively lower our sights a bit —“augmented” plan will help, but we need a nominal plan first MUTAC still concerned about down-selection coming late —a legitimate concern in view of budget issue We are still depending on NSF support to reach our goals —esp. for MICE, but also for SRF program —we have encouraged DOE to enter into a dialog with NSF on MAP

20. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman20 Down-Selection Process to handle down-selection and configuration control are defined —In consultation with management group, the cognizant Level 1 leader will define a set of technical criteria against which to judge the alternative approaches. —After formal approval by the Program Director, these criteria will be made available to the proponents of the approaches under consideration and posted for all MAP participants to see. —At a time compatible with the milestones in Table 1, the Program Director will appoint an internal review group to evaluate the alternatives against the agreed-upon criteria and make a recommendation. —The Program Director will make the final decision on which approach to accept. —Such decisions will be communicated formally to MCOG. At MCOG’s option, the decision can be reviewed by an external review committee, either MUTAC or an ad hoc group selected for this task. —The above procedure will subsequently be used to formalize the baseline design for the MC that will be described in the DFS report.

21. January 15, 2010MAP Overview - Zisman21 Final Comment We (SG and MZ) appreciate the continued support from the MCTF and NFMCC during this period —your help and cooperation are making a difficult task possible Questions??