Attendees:
Justin Galbraith
Ashray Patel
John Peterson (LLNL)
Robert Plummer
Cavern Evaluation
| Topics | Notes |
|---|---|
| Charge and Responses | Presentation by Brice Arnold. Kai recommends verbiage to be "FES Scope minus the Explicitly Designed Upgrades" (see Chapter 11, Section 11.2) https://slac.sharepoint.com/sites/pub/Publications/Forms/Legacy%20View.aspx?FilterField1=Document%5Fx0020%5FType&FilterValue1=Design%20Reports&FilterType1=Lookup&viewid=7b0b6c13%2D0334%2D46f5%2D8367%2Db2ff3505631f&id=%2Fsites%2Fpub%2FPublications%2FMECU%2DDR%2D0003%2Epdf&parent=%2Fsites%2Fpub%2FPublications |
| TAX | Major conflicts involve beam transport in TAX. Note that not all conflicts have been resolved. Recommendation is to descope or enlarge cavern size. Deferred scope shall not be precluded. Increased TAX height is included in 60% DGPS scope. |
| RRL and HE | Considered alternate beam dump approach. Brice, Corey and Ted are managing master integrated model. Need more offline discussion on Laser Hall - alignment lasers, diagnostic package. What is the impact of precluding Delphi B? Justin Galbraith: Plan is the same, but height decreases. Smaller magnification assumed but not in scope. Implementation of any technical changes must go through TCCB. Impacts Target Chamber PDR. Any other technical assumptions? Baseline long pulse? Which expansion ration should be used - decision needed. Michael Greenberg points out that larger beam size resulted in residual spatial chirp. Needs offline discussion. |
| Controls System | Racks in progress of being updated in model, cable tray will have an impact. |
| Schedule | Technically limited schedule is not reasonable. Credible decision needs all technical impacts. Changes to cavern, even larger, will have impacts. |