Date

Attendees

Overview

Text in the excerpt box will show up in lists of meetings.FAC request for day 1 and day 100 scenarios; opinion about only SLIM-based; various requirements

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
  • Experimental systems meeting recalling the FAC is asking for better description of how the facility will look (I'm assuming after CD-4)
    • "Day 1"
    • "Day 100"
    • Gilliss' ops model slide had this at a very very high level; obviously very contingent on where the project lands and where other funding comes from
      • Consider various scenarios perhaps?

FAC questions to settle on

Chuck Source question on breadboard based user diagnostics needing to transition to SLIM. 

If we get to where we only allow SLIM-based experiments, we'll miss out on some things. 

Missing out on opportunities that might not be worth engineering to a SLIM. 

Example of development of imaging. 

Maybe having a mode…. a configuration period for breadboard diagnostics even in the era of SLIM diagnostics.

  • We can say that this is a job for TCO except that we don't have an XFEL to use there.
  • We're leading towards an entire program of diagnostics: examples of LLE and NIF having the same 


Had some discussion on different scenarios. The one Chuck describes is a "21 SLIM" mode of operation that does assume pretty robust funding and is far in the future. Still maybe there's an occasional part of the year for exploration


Pointing requirements

Ginger: One challenge that has been discussed and was brought up again at the FAC was the HE-LP pointing stability.  Can you kindly put together some slides explaining the requirements to be discussed at an upcoming TI meeting? Please let me know when you would be ready.

Gilliss references Kai's work on this, as in the QA document. 

Mikael: This is great but for a 1 mm spot how can it be so strict?


Went through Jama to review state - need links to basis; put some comments


Timing requirements

Timing requirement: what would we really sign up to

TPRs are supposed to have 80 ps step controllability. If you can control at that level then RMS ought to be less.

25 ps may come from someone looking at what LLNL asked for. It could have come from an old NIF requirement. If we don't really need that we can base it on MEC's experience now and what we'd be comfortable with guaranteeing to DOE. Could be that 100ps then works fine. Look for NIF basis!


Talked over and commented in Jama


UAP white paper on IFE opportunities development


Action items

  • Type your task here, using "@" to assign to a user and "//" to select a due date