[Lcls-ii] JLab weekly

[Hays, Greg]

Hi George,

Please see my responses to issues from this week’s JLab report (view in HTML).  Marc or I are always available if further clarification is required.

thanks,
Greg



From 1.04.06:

For the upcoming reviews what do we do for activities supporting LLP (receipt QC, acceptance testing)?

In response I have quoted the guidance we received on this matter from Richard Boyce from his email earlier today:

Therefore we list only the LLP Awards for CD-3b request with the assumptions that we are allowed to continue the work performed as described above.

From 1.04.08:
Need to decide level of analysis to be done on supplementary 1 kW @ 2.0K and 1.3kW @ 4.5Kcryoplant approach and who/how that work is to be accomplished. Plans A, B, and C
Response:
Recognizing the limited resources and time we have to prepare for the upcoming three reviews over the next 9 weeks, the level of analysis to be done on the back up cryogenics Plans B and C will be academic and conceptual.  The near term expectation is that we delivery a unified and coherent message to the review committees showing that the Project has identified suitable mitigations for this risk with well-identified trigger points.  As we near the upcoming trigger points, it may become necessary to change scope and add more resources to further investigate these options.  However for now, we must continue to focus our primary efforts on the baseline scope.



On Jan 29, 2015, at 11:35 AM, George Neil <neil at jlab.org<mailto:neil at jlab.org>> wrote:

attached please find the JLab weekly report for Jan 29.
<JLab LCLS-II Weekly Report_Jan 29-1.docx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman.jlab.org/pipermail/lcls-ii/attachments/20150130/843ee608/attachment-0001.html