Summary of NCSX System Integration Team (SIT) Meeting of Monday, August 23, 2004

1.    Project Re-planning for CD-3 and preparation for Sept. 1 Lehman Review (Hutch)

• Good progress has been made in project re-planning to accommodate VVSA and MCWF cost increases. Projected budget contingencies appear to be adequate unless there is erosion of the savings identified to date.
• Schedule improvements to offset the 5-month delay in delivery of the last MCWF still look marginal.  We do not yet have a crisp story.  More work is needed to understand the critical path schedule from delivery of the last MCWF to First Plasma and identify improvements.  Action: Ron convene a meeting on 8/24 at 11:00 to review and improve the schedule.
• We do not yet have a crisp assessment of the risk associated with fracture life of the MCWF.  Tests are planned to determine where the NCSX alloy falls in the range between the optimistic and pessimistic data bases in the literature.  Since the results will not be available before the review, we need to show how we can live with the worst-case outcome. Responsibility: Wayne
  
  • Analysis results using a more accurate structure model may provide some clarification this week. Brad.
  • What spectrum of pulses would be achievable in the worst case?  For example: 30,000 at 2T, 100,000 at 1.7T?
  • The testing and analysis activities needs to be in the budget.  Wayne and Ron.
    
• How much of the VVSA and MCWF price increase is due to materials price increases, ball-park?  Action: Phil.
• What is the risk that the schedule will be impacted by long lead times for delivery of key materials such as inconel? Action: Phil.
  

2.   Gain schedule improvement by using the prototype coil? (Phil et al.)

• It was proposed that we consider machining the prototype C casting for use as a production winding form.  The issue is whether the prototype design is sufficiently similar to the final design so as not to introduce field errors due to non-stellarator-symmetric eddy currents.  The design of the production forms differs from that of the prototype due to specification changes made by the project during final design and to possible changes that could result from changes in the manufacturer’s tooling.  Some modification of the prototype casting would be necessary even in the best case.
• It was concluded that we will be able to judge whether the remaining Type C castings and the prototype are sufficiently alike once we see the new pattern design, which we expect to be submitted for our review this week. We will take up the question at that time.  Responsibility: Phil
  

3.   Project Control (Wayne)

• The re-planning and vacations have caused our plans to diverge considerably from our baseline. It was recommended that the ECP implementing the new plan be processed expeditiously, so that August performance can be statused against the new baseline.  Action: Wayne work with Ron.
• August status meeting will be about September 10.
  

4.  Next SIT Meeting: to be announced.

Summary by:
Hutch Neilson