...
Discussion items
Time | Item | Who | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Walk-ins | |||
Measurement Innovations Follow-up | Cost estimate of the specific projects - for MEC-U the question is quite different; other projects are focused on single diagnostics. Talked to Corey at experimental systems meeting to get some WAG numbers that could be submitted. Design through implementation ~$.5M/device. Multiplying by number of requests puts it in category 2. LLNL overbudget | ||
Upcoming workshops (internal) | Facility Stress Test (mid February) - All Day workshop to question various assumptions that are driving up cost. Copy over notes
Question: We've been designing for much higher beam time in the long run. Should we reconsider that value? A detailed operations model is not there to sufficient level to firmly set the requirements - other than turnaround time. Recalling at LLNL: workshops on future MEC-U / Lasers / – presenting lots of experiments at MEC-U Current design is not linked back to the operations model. A good idea to build the connections after finalizing/validating the fundamental requirements at this location | ||
Many requirements laid down run into engineering difficulties and come back. One is the weight capacity of a SLIM: 300 lbs is considered untenable and should come down to 200lbs. Science requirements being translated into engineering requirements can be a long process - so we get late reacion to our science requirements- example of the LLNL laser Workshop on diagnostic density on TAX. The extent to which we can support that or give up on flexibility and going less dense. Example-- Mike Krieger in DR feedback: 300lb payload is a bridge too far. Bring capacity down to 200lbs and go back and see how we can be creative with diagnostics. Run through the requirements chain from engineering back to science. | |||
Running other crazy ideas | Imagining TAO for a future multi-PW OPCPA | ||
Operations modeling |
Action items
- Type your task here, using "@" to assign to a user and "//" to select a due date