engineering:jun24_11 [Assay and Acquisition of Radiopure Materials]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
==== Agenda ====

  * Teleconference times:  USD at Soudan, July 11-14  Call Friday?
  * Summary of Materials Database work  with Loach (Anthony) 
  * Summary of FLUKA v GEANT (Anthony{{:engineering:aarm_tele062411.pdf|pdf}}, Tony Empl)
  * Current status (update) on the AARMSim (Chao)
  * Plans for neutron measurements (Prisca, Chao, DongMing) 
    * What about time stamps?
    * Stay at River's Bend?
  * Discussion on possible Proposals for Fall.
[[http://science.energy.gov/~/media/hep/hepap/pdf/june-2011/HEPAP_Briefing_Underground_Science-Final_MARX_June21.pdf]]

Gaitskell notes: It was clearly stated that the committee only endorses a new cavity for 3rd generation DM and 1 tonne DBD physics at Homestake, if LBNE has a detector at 4850 ft. The cost of establishing new space at 4850 is prohibitive for dm or DBD physics to go it alone witthout LBNE.

The LBNE program currently has a timetable to reach a decision on technology and depth, between Thanksgiving and Year's End in 2011.  The Marx Committee preferred the WCD at 4850 ft over the Ar at 800 ft. This was based on greater risk for the Ar, and the longer timescale (and higher cost, inflation adjusted) for the realization of the Ar.  (The new option for Ar at 4850 ft was not considered by the Marx committee, but was raised by Jim Strait at the meeting.) The LBNE cost is ~$1.0-1.5 bn in FY11$ with infrastructure costs and 50% contingency. Their decision will strongly influence the prospect for the new excavation at the lab.

The committee reported that they see a ~$100M differential between the cost of establishing the first new physics space at SNOLab versus Homestake. The cost of further excavation (say from 1 experiment to 2 experiments) at the two sites is currently understood to be roughly equal. 

While much could be made of this differential Marx himself asked for a sense of perspective with respect to this budget difference. Since this construction is spread over many fiscal years the bump is smoothed, and the gains in the science were listed earlier. Marx said he discussed this point with Brinkman during their discussions earlier this month.

The cost comparisons have a significant caveat that the committee raises since the SNOLab number is not based on a full design study for new space, but is a rough extrapolation from the last round of excavation. There remains some inconsistency in terms of foot print since the cost estimate appearing  in Table 9 of the report (p60) is for 15m diameter x 20 m height space, which is 1/3rd the volume of the space being used for the Homestake submodule volume (which includes the space for services). Reservations were aired during the Q&A in the session that the $'s was not an apples-to-apples comparison for Homestake versus SNOLab facilities costs. It was suggested that additional help would be needed to bring these numbers to a fairer basis of comparison. It is stated in the report that the marginal cost of further excavation of additional space at Homestake and SNOLab was probably very close per unit volume.

The Homestake 7400 options were excluded on the basis of significant incremental cost under all scenarios.
User Tools

Page Tools
