U.S. ATLAS HL-LHC Upgrade Level 2 and Deputies-NSF only Management Mailing List

[Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>]

Hi John,

> 
> 
>       We are using all the "standard" impacts proposed across the project 
> for Supply Chain, eg. up to 4 months delay for PCB fab.  The LAr issue 
> being revealed here, with the implication we could need an extra ~9 months 
> more than we have before the needed-at-CERN dates, is maybe a reflection of 
> the fact these are (by now) too conservative?  Do we really want to show 
> this at DR??  It seems to me it could become the "dominant issue" of the 
> entire review?  And how do we reply when asked "what happens if the MC is 
> right and you deliver LAr boards 9 months too late"??

Do you think the supply chain risk registers for LAr are wrong?  We recently 
had an NSF risk workshop… Anyway, we don’t really have a choice I think in 
terms of what we show at the DR.  It’s too late to change our approach.

 I put some text in my slides along the lines of “we might need extra funds 
to accelerate production,” I’m happy to hear more creative suggestions.  Of 
course it’s not a secret for anybody that pixels and strips for both ATLAS 
and CMS are in much worse shape.


> 
>       Given we have not seen this problem before yesterday, we don't 
> currently have anything prepared to address it.  (as requested, I do not 
> even have the MC results in my L2 talk)  By April, I can see quite a few 
> improvements, since the ADC preprod will be done and the lpGBT production 
> should be done.  Also, we should have received the preprod. PA/S (from DOE 
> scope) by then.   So we could "retire" those.  All that would help, but who 
> knows whether it would be enough to get us to 90%CL float.  We could 
> consider changing some of the assumptions.  For example, based on recent 
> experience, I don't think a potential 4-month delay for PCB fab is a 
> serious possibility anymore.  I would be comfortable reducing it to 2 
> months max.

That’s up to you.  I think PCB fab is probably less of an issue now that 
China has ended zero-covid.  Parts remain an issue, but maybe for FEB2 there 
are few things that can go wrong there.

> 
>       So, bottom line, here are some questions:
> 
> - for next week, you are going to show these float results in your plenary 
> talk?  And if so, what are we going to say?  Just say this is a current 
> snapshot, discuss the points above, and argue it will be "better" by April? 
>  That still leaves open for discussion whether it will be "good enough", 
> and the answer is that today we don't know.  This seems problematic to me.
> 

I don’t think we have a choice.  Please take a look at my slides.  I’m happy 
to adjust the text.


> - Or, given that all these changes will happen by April, do we choose to 
> NOT show the MC schedule result next week?  Once the DR is over, we could 
> work with Chris to see where we expect things to stand at the time of the 
> rebaseline review?

We have to show MC results.  Since this is the DR, I don’t think it’s a huge 
deal.  We just need to think what the recommendation is we’re fishing for.  
Is it “revise the LAr risks” or is it “prepare a plan to accelerate 
production should this be needed”?

Best,

Gustaaf


> 
>               John
>       
> On 2/24/23 5:34 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> Yes, but it turns out this is all due to supply chain.  In the working 
>> summary sheet you’ll see I made some small annotations.  Without supply 
>> chain the 438/461 becomes 251/288, so ~90% CL.  We didn’t have supply 
>> chain risks at FDR, or at the summer 2021 annula review.
>> Best,
>> Gustaaf
>>> On Feb 24, 2023, at 4:48 PM, John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Gustaaf,
>>> 
>>>     I am surprised that @ 90%CL LAr seems to need about 200 "extra" days 
>>> (almost a year) beyond the float we have.  What is driving that?  We have 
>>> certainly made a lot of progress since FDR, and were not in such bad 
>>> shape back then.  We also have more base float now than we did at FDR, 
>>> and yet we are "under water"?
>>> 
>>>             John
>>> 
>>> On 2/24/23 4:39 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
>>>> Hello all,
>>>> We think we’ve worked the kinks out of all the numbers.  In the attached 
>>>> you will find a for presentation tab, as well as a working tab with a 
>>>> bit more info on floats, and all the detailed info.  Let us know if you 
>>>> see something weird.  The for presentation tab calculates % contingency 
>>>> on the cost-to-go, which gives a better idea of where we are.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Chris and Gustaaf
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l mailing list
>>>> Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>>>> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> 
>>> John Parsons
>>> Nevis Labs,                 Email: parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu
>>> Columbia University Phone: (914) 591-2820
>>> P.O. Box 137                Fax: (914) 591-8120
>>> Irvington, NY 10533 WWW: 
>>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/*parsons/__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!HrbO9miWVkHznsp0Z4HaxHQi2hmTs9FK_uPfdpMKdG4IHMm0kMe2swYPXs_NxAQO5ZbyE3SbzQ3M-rHbVMJ_0nionRd_-IINqO4wmKfLwj5RSBuT_LA2yQ$
>>>       
>>> 
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> 
> 
> -- 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> John Parsons
> Nevis Labs,           Email: parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu
> Columbia University   Phone: (914) 591-2820
> P.O. Box 137          Fax: (914) 591-8120
> Irvington, NY 10533   WWW: 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.nevis.columbia.edu/*parsons/__;fg!!P4SdNyxKAPE!HrbO9miWVkHznsp0Z4HaxHQi2hmTs9FK_uPfdpMKdG4IHMm0kMe2swYPXs_NxAQO5ZbyE3SbzQ3M-rHbVMJ_0nionRd_-IINqO4wmKfLwj5RSBuT_LA2yQ$
>       
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
>