1 Getting Ready for the Climb HPS Project Overview HPS Collaboration Meeting at SLAC John Jaros September 10, 2012 John Jaros HPS Collaboration Meeting.

1

Getting Ready for the Climb

HPS Project OverviewHPS Collaboration Meeting at SLAC John Jaros September 10, 2012

John JarosHPS Collaboration Meeting Jefferson Laboratory June 4, 2013

HPS Project Overview living through the Kafka phases

HPS Direction Set Last Time at SLAC

• Chance to Run in FY2015Bob McKeown and Volker Burkert signalled an opportunityfor HPS to run in FY2015* Good chance, but no promises until JLAB’s Re-baselining Review* Good for Hall B, good for HPS* Quickest route to data on CEBAF 12

• Re-visiting the HPS Design This made us re-think just what full HPS is, and what we want to do with the commissioning run.* Simplify original HPS design to be ready in time for the scheduling opportunity * Use the new apparatus for both commissioning and production running* Maximize performance

• Begin preparations of new HPS Proposal for DOE* Needed to submit in time to get funds before FY2014* DOE HEP welcomed submission late January 2013* Re-enlisted the Collaboration for proposal writing 2

The New HPS Proposal

• Needed Additions to the Text* Update the Physics Motivation.* IncludeTest Run Analysis. Ideally, demonstrate performance good enough to search for A’s. * Demonstrate readiness for electron beams (even though the Test Run didn’t get a chance to run electron beams)* Improve budgeting, scheduling, and management.

• Begin the HPS Metamorphosis* Revisit SVT, SVT DAQ, and Ecal designs* Add a Muon System* Develop needed Slow Controls* Organize Software Effort

3

4

MetamorphosisPhase 1: Metamorphosis

It actually turned out betterthan this!

Original HPS -> HPS’ -> HPS

• PhilosophyStick close enough to HPS Test Run to be ready by Fall 2014Improve tracker performance, but stick with PS magnet and present Ecal configuration

• Fix shortcomings exposed by Test Run * Boost SVT Data Rate, SVT Module Stability and Acceptance * Add Trigger Improvements and Diagnostics * Repair Ecal, develop Calibration and Monitoring, explore upgrades

• Add Muon system

5

Tracker Simplified, Performance Maintained

6

Old HPS New HPS

New Muon System Boosts Reach

7

8

Phase 2: The Trial(s)

Seeking DOE HEP Approval• Wrote Proposal—thanks to many and editor Stepan!

* EST updated theory and expanded True Muonium section * New SVT design/ New SVT DAQ design incorporated * Ecal Upgrades explored and external funding sought * New trigger and trigger diagnostics planned * Expanded Test Run Results * New Muon System * Budget, Schedule, and management updates

• Director’s Proposal Review at SLAC mid January * Useful dry run * Concluded work needed on schedule/management * Resulted in some improvements before submission

• Proposal submitted January 23, 2013 to DOE HEP

• One week later, Alan Stone: “Budget Snafu. Please come to DOE HEP next week”

9

The DOE Trials• Budget meeting with DOE HEP and NP at Germantown Feb. 8, 2013

* HPS Capital equipment funds must be < $2M* When is HPS scheduled? Need results from Re-Baselining review at JLAB* Want to know if other funding exists (NSF MRI, Orsay, INFN)* Suggested review in July, post re-baselining external funding decisions* Acknowledged that July review would delay funding until ~ October; need for keep alive funding acknowledged.

• HPS Response* Learned what is meant by “capital equipment, infrastructure, operations”* Had to remove Muon system and some Ecal improvements from Budget * Worked to establish keep-alive funding at SLAC for SVT and SVT DAQ* With DOE, finalized date for Review and date for submission

• Prepare Proposal Submission ONE MORE TIME* Subgroup Leaders + Marco reworked WBS and Schedule* Updated Test Run Results, Budget and Schedule, Theory* Submitted revised HPS Proposal on May 10 (thanks Stepan and Sho)* Submitted lab Field Work Proposals on May 17 (thanks Marco et al.)

10

Seeking Runtime at JLABassumed prerequisite for DOE HEP approval

• HPS Schedule has depended on the outcome of the 12 GeV Upgrade Re-Baselining process at JLAB

• Originally hoped Lehman Re-Baselining Review would settle this in November, 2012

• Lehman Panel was unsatisfied in the November review, scheduled a new review for May, 2013, to establish a credible budget and schedule for the remaining 12 GeV Upgrade, especially for experiments and detectors.

• May Re-Baselining Review was successful, and a schedule was established. Interesting boundary conditions: * Lab management must show DOE HEP commitment to schedule and run HPS

* Lab management must show DOE NP that HPS does not adversely affect 12 GeV Project

11

12

Runtime at JLAB

• Director’s Review on May 23, 2013 decided…* Install HPS in the fall of 2014* Commission the beamline during CLAS Torus installation* HPS Commissioning Run during Torus checkout, hopefully Spring, 2015.* HPS production run asap afterwards, probably FY2016. TBD.

• This establishes JLAB commitment to HPS which should satisfy DOE HEP

• HPS will explore options to advance the commissioning and running time schedule* May be possible to run HPS during Torus installation IF activation to Torus assembly is minimal. Studies are underway.* May be possible to position HPS in Hall B alcove. Then activation is not an issue, and running during Torus installation should be feasible. Additional support is needed for this option. Source of funds?

13

14

Phase 3: The Castle

To

To Kafka, the Castle was the symbol of interminable bureaucracy, senseless rules, and arbitrary procedures. Worse than the DMV. In HPS, of course, the organization is sensible, efficient, well-motivated, and only in place to guarantee we are on time and under budget. Entirely different!

Organizing for the HPS Project

• Preparing for the DOE Review* Talk titles and speakers have been assigned* Dry runs will be scheduled ~ July 1. Everyone welcome.* Budget, schedule and management plan will be an important part of the review.

• HPS Management put in place since last Collaboration Meeting* Project Management Team Project Manager Marco Oriunno Project Scientists Stepan Stepanyan and John Jaros* Bylaws charge EC with oversight of groups, allocation of resources, resolution of conflicts, and scheduling.* Working Group Leaders and Deputies have been appointed for HPS Subsystems

15

Draft DOE Review Agenda

16

DOE HEP Review of HPS at Gaithersburg Hilton, July 11, 2013

HPS Working Groups

17

Beamline Ken Moffeit (Girod) ECal Raphael Dupre (Stepanyan) SVT Tim Nelson (Fadeyev) DAQ Sergey Boyarinov (Hansson)Trigger Valery Kubarovsky (Maruyama)Slow controls Hovanes Egiyan (Nerses )Muon Keith Griffioen (Gershtein)Software Maurik Holtrop (Uemura/ Moreno)Analysis Matt Graham (Philips)Project Management Marco Oriunno (Stepanyan, Jaros)

HPS Subgroup Leader (Deputy)

18

• Recruit and organize subgroups

• Conduct and record regular subgroup meetings

• Provide contributions to the proposal, including schedule & budget

• Facilitate detailed engineering designs, design reviews, and construction schedules and milestones.

• Oversee construction and testing

• Oversee installation, commissioning, integration, and day to day operation

Charge to HPS Subgroup Leaders

Moving HPS beyond the Kafkaesque

• Re-designed and improved HPS• Analyzed the Test Run Results• Wrote and submitted a comprehensive new proposal (Twice!)• Learned to abide by DOE budget rules• Improved budget, schedule, and milestones• Established HPS project management• Settled on the HPS schedule with JLAB/Hall B • Review by DOE HEP• Approval and funding by DOE HEP• HPS Engineering Design, Construction, and Test• Installation and Commissioning• Data Taking

19

Through all this project evolution, our physics goals have remained compelling, new and unexplained results have provided new hints of theexistence of hidden sectors, and HPS physics is becoming mainstream.