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

[John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>]

Here is a screenshot of the slide I added to my L2 talk.  Comments welcome.

                John

On 2/25/23 1:22 PM, John Parsons wrote:
> Hi Gustaaf,
>
>      You mention "NSF guidance for MREFCs is that TPC should be between 
> the 70% and 90% CL".  Does the same guidance apply to completion date?  
> In any case, do we have from the MC completion dates for less than 90% 
> CL; it might be a natural question to ask what CL we are consistent with 
> at the moment.
>
>      I would not say the supply chain risks for LAr are "wrong".  For 
> the recent NSF risk review, we decided (as I believe did other 
> subsystems) to keep unchanged the supply chain risks for items that are 
> not yet completed; ie. we did not revisit the "standard" impacts assumed 
> previously for the various types of things, such as PCB fab, PCB assy, 
> ASICs, ...  The same was true for the DOE side, where we did not see a 
> float problem coming from this on the MC for CD/2-3.  So I was not 
> expecting such a stark problem to appear on the NSF side.
>
>      As I mentioned previously, we can (very) soon retire some of these 
> supply chain risks, at which point there is no need to tweak their 
> potential impacts.  For some others, it might be time to revisit the 
> "standard" impact assumptions,
>
>      I think I will have to add a slide to my L2 talk that proactively 
> addresses these issues.  It will likely not deflect the questions that 
> this is going to cause, but at least we will be seen to be tackling them 
> head on.
>
>          John
>
> On 2/25/23 12:13 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
> > 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!CTyzlIiR7uMyc0dGKsoVCpfDmthWEBY3sC6efD1ZuYJO298MuUqTdGXWUzt_bCYT3ze_8kwpeSPTFX5QHc3TfUu-aBtLpGYTFLvO1-Jc5FzmJCL27veH0w$ 
> > > > >
> > > > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > --
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > > 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!CTyzlIiR7uMyc0dGKsoVCpfDmthWEBY3sC6efD1ZuYJO298MuUqTdGXWUzt_bCYT3ze_8kwpeSPTFX5QHc3TfUu-aBtLpGYTFLvO1-Jc5FzmJCL27veH0w$ 
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________________

--
______________________________________________________________________

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!CTyzlIiR7uMyc0dGKsoVCpfDmthWEBY3sC6efD1ZuYJO298MuUqTdGXWUzt_bCYT3ze_8kwpeSPTFX5QHc3TfUu-aBtLpGYTFLvO1-Jc5FzmJCL27veH0w$
      

______________________________________________________________________

Attachment: Screen Shot 2023-02-26 at 1.57.28 PM.png
Description: PNG image