LUSI
X-Ray Correlation Spectroscopy
Instrument Final Instrument Design
Review
INTRODUCTION
Thomas Fornek
Project Manager
June 17, 2009
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
1
1
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI WBS Organization
WBS
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
TITLE
1.1
Project Management
1.2.
X-ray Pump Probe Instrument (XPP)
1.3
Coherent X-ray Imaging Instrument (CXI)
1.4
X-ray Correlation Spectroscopy Instrument (XCS)
1.5
Diagnostics and Common Optics (DCO)
1.6
Controls and Data Acquisition (CDA)
2
2
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Project description (1)
LUSI is Providing Instruments for Three of the Six LCLS Instrument Hutches
Near Experimental Hall
1
AMO
Part of
LCLS
2
SXR
X-ray Transport
3
4
XCS
Mono
XPP
XCS
5
6
CXI
H6
Installation
Part of LCLS
FES
ARRA Funds
Beam Transport
LCLS
LUSI
Offset Monochromator
Exp. Chamber
Detector
H6
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
Far Experimental Hall
3
3
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Project description (2)
CXI
WBS 1.3
X-ray transport tunnel
(200 m)
LCLS
SXR
XCS
WBS 1.4
XPP
WBS 1.2
XCS Offset
Monochromator
WBS 1.5
H6
LCLS AMO
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
4
4
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Project Status (1)
LUSI Baseline Performance (through Apr09)
TPC = $60M (MIE = $55.1M, OPC = $4.9M)
CD-4 = August 2012
TPC >26% Complete, TEC >18% Complete
Contingency on MIE = $11.8M
33.2% on remaining work
OPC is complete
$50K remaining for close-out
ARRA Funds ($33.6M) Received in April
Part of the $60M TPC
Most recent added scope to enhance LUSI science
program
Large Offset Monochromator for XPP
Focusing lens for CXI
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
5
5
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Project Status (2)
Design Completion
XPP Instrument Design through FIDR
CD-3 Ready
CXI Instrument FIDR Held June 3
CD-3 Ready Now - Solid Instrument Configuration
XCS Instrument FIDR in June
90% CD-3 Ready Now - Instrument configuration is solid
Diagnostics and Common Optics Design
90% CD-3 Ready Now
Harmonic Rejection Mirror PDR held June 15
Controls and Data Acquisition
100% CD-3 Ready Now
Inherited Designs from LCLS comprise many items
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
6
6
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Project Status (3)
Final DOE-IPR Status Review Report Received
Responses have been prepared to the report recommendations
Preparing for the July 15, 2009 CD-3 Review
The XCS FIDR is the final pre-requisite for this milestone
Held in Germantown
LUSI PM, Instrument Scientists and Controls Rep to travel
Working on the second part of the Baseline Change to
incorporate ARRA effects into the baseline
This change incorporates two L2 milestones into schedule
One of these milestones is XCS “Early Science” Instrument Complete
First month of reporting on ARRA accounts has been
completed
Some corrections are needed to the baseline – These are nearing
completion
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
7
7
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
April Milestone Status
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
8
8
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Schedule Advancement
Milestone
Current
Baseline
Advanced
Baseline
April 2010
October 2009
XPP Early Science
October 2010
October 2010
CXI Early Science
August 2011
June 2011
XCS Early Science (New)
NA
August 2011
Project Ready for CD-4 (New)
NA
March 2012
August 2012
August 2012
CD-3
CD-4
XCS “Early Science” allows for a functioning XCS instrument one
year earlier than original schedule
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
9
9
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
April Status
SLAC Linear Accelerator Center
Menlo Park, California
WBS[2]
LUSI Cost/Schedule Status Report (April 2009)
Date:
Performance Data
Cumulative to Date
Actual
Budgeted Cost
Cost
Variance
Work
Work
Work
Schedule
Cost
Budgeted
Scheduled
Performed
Performed
At Completion
Latest
Revised
Estimate
6/1/2009
Indices
Variance
SPI
CPI
1.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
2,353,987
2,353,987
2,265,241
0
88,746
4,955,382
4,896,892
58,490
1.00
1.04
1.2 X-RAY PUMP PROBE (XPP)
2,167,147
2,078,757
2,066,028
-88,390
12,729
5,728,269
5,680,774
47,495
0.96
1.01
1.3 COHERENT X-RAY IMAGING (CXI)
1,249,718
1,246,825
1,041,390
-2,893
205,435
9,890,267
9,913,328
-23,061
1.00
1.20
911,719
819,441
836,065
-92,278
-16,624
6,995,690
7,056,112
-60,422
0.90
0.98
1,213,822
1,203,493
1,191,269
-10,329
12,224
8,311,095
8,541,527
-230,433
0.99
1.01
516,891
504,095
514,934
-12,796
-10,839
7,223,124
7,259,346
-36,223
0.98
0.98
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43,103,826
43,347,980
-244,154
11,996,174
11,752,020
244,154
0.98
1.04
1.4 X-RAY CORRELATION SPECTROSCOPY
(XCS)
1.5 DIAGNOSTICS & COMMON OPTICS
1.6 CONTROLS AND DATA ACQUISITION
Gen. and Admin.
Undist. Budget
Sub Total
8,413,284
8,206,598
7,914,927
-206,685
291,671
Management Resrv. (MIE)
Total MIE
8,413,284
8,206,598
7,914,927
-206,685
291,671
55,100,000
55,100,000
0
2.0 Other Project Costs (OPC)
4,851,861
4,851,861
4,851,861
0
0
4,851,861
4,851,861
0
48,139
48,139
0
Management Resrv. (OPC)
Total OPC
Sub Total (MIE+OPC)
4,851,861
4,851,861
4,851,861
0
0
4,900,000
4,900,000
0
13,265,145
13,058,459
12,766,788
-206,685
291,671
47,955,687
48,199,841
-244,154
12,044,313
11,800,159
244,154
60,000,000
60,000,000
0
Total Management Reserve
Total Project Cost (TPC)
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
13,265,145
13,058,459
12,766,788
-206,685
10 10
291,671
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Project Risks and Mitigation
LUSI Follows the LCLS Risk Management Plan and
uses the LCLS Risk Registry
LCLS Project Management Document 1.1-002
Risk Registry Updated May, 2009
Major Risks
Do something to cause loss or suspension of ARRA funds
Annual funding - Continuing Resolutions (Retired)
Foreign procurements – Dollar fluctuation, sole source
Loss and/or availability of critical personnel (Exercised)
Ability to place procurements in a timely manner
CXI mirror delivery, performance
XPP, XCS Monochromator delivery, performance
XPP, XCS Detector delivery, performance
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
11
11
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Part of an
Advance
Procurement
Review
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
12 12
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
LCLS Directorate – Detail 1/2009
LCLS Directorate
Dale Knutson
Mark Reichanadter, Deputy
ESH / Work Planning & Control
Michael Scharfenstein
Richard Hislop
Administration
Helen O’Donnell, LA De Wan,
B. Espiritu, D. Ford, S. Matni,
R. Matter, D. Mitchell, P. Tank
Special Projects
Richard M. Boyce
Uli Wienands
Accelerator Systems Division
Experimental Facilities Division
John Seeman
Jochen Schneider
TBD - Deputy
TBD - Chief Operating Officer
P. Miller, Accelerator Safety Officer
Business Office
Cindy Lowe
TBD – Beam Line Safety Officer
Engineering & Physics Division
Strategic Projects Division
Dave Schultz
James Krebs, Deputy
John Galayda
TBD - Deputy
TBD – ES&H Coordinator
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
13 13
M. Scharfenstein – Construction Safety
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
Strategic Projects Division (SPD)
John Galayda
M. Scharfenstein, Construction Safety
Project Org =
83 FTEs
Project Org =
7 FTEs
LCLS Construction Project
J. Galayda
M. Reichanadter, Deputy
J. Albino, AD, Civil Const.
LUSI MIE Project
T. Fornek
TBD, Deputy
RSB
J. Albino
G. Herman, K. Chan-Hui
PULSE
D. Rich
Project Org =
27 FTEs
Project Org =
10 FTEs
Future Upgrades
J. Galayda
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
14 14
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
LUSI Project’s Integrated Project Team
DOE-HQ
Harriet Kung, Acquisition Executive
T.E. Kiess, Program Manager
DOE-SSO
H. Joma
DOE Federal Project Director
Instrument Team
Leaders
Technical Configuration Control
Committee
.
WBS 1.2 XPP
IIT
D. Fritz
(Instr. Scientist)
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
SLAC
T. Fornek
LUSI Project Manager
RM Boyce - Deputy
WBS 1.3 CXI
IIT
S. Boutet
(Instr. Scientist)
WBS 1.4 XCS
IIT
A. Robert
(Instr. Scientist)
15 15
DOE-SSO
Support
LCLS Directorate Support
Engineering, Procurement, QA,
ES&H, Finance & Budget, PMCS
Installation Manager
B. Poling
WBS 1.5
Diagnostics &
Common Optics
Y. Feng
(Lead Scientist)
WBS 1.6
Data Acquisition
& Controls
G. Haller
(Lead)
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
CHARGE - 1
Technical Scope
Is the design of the partial instrument mature and technically sound to
enable early scientific experiments at LCLS?
Have all of the major interfaces been identified and incorporated in the
design?
Have design reviews been performed?
Is the design likely to meet performance expectations?
Management
Is the instrument team organized and staffed to successfully achieve the
milestone?
Have all the major risks been identified and effectively managed?
Are procurements appropriately planned for the partial instrument?
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
16 16
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu
CHARGE - 2
Cost and Schedule
Are the cost and schedule reasonable to achieve the planned scope?
Have the XCS cost and schedule been recently updated?
Is there sufficient cost and schedule contingency to ensure successful
completion of the partial instrument on schedule?
ES&H
Are all related ES&H aspects being properly addressed?
Overall Readiness
Is XCS ready to begin fabrication and installation at LCLS to begin
conducting early scientific experiments?
LUSI XCS FIDR
June 17, 2009
17 17
T. Fornek
tomf@slac.stanford.edu