MXType.Localized
Document Number
MXName
Project Name
<<Project Name>>
Date
MXPrinted Date
Revision
MXRevision MXPrinted
Version
State
MXCurrent
ESS Instrument Construction Proposal
<<Name of the Instrument, e.g. Chopper Spectrometer>>
Author Instructions
The grey boxes contain information on how to complete the proposal document. Please delete all grey
boxes before submitting the proposal.
General Remark
Please give all information in available detail. In case fully detailed information cannot be
given to a satisfactory level, please specify the reasons and circumstances as well as, where
applicable, the corresponding risks. In general, the higher the level of detail, the higher the
chances of a proposal to get good ratings. However, it is obvious that especially for early
proposals the level of detail available will be limited by the circumstances.
Name
ESS Instrument
WP coordinator
ESS Partners
Affiliation
ESS
The following table is used to track the ESS internal distribution of the submitted proposal.
Document
reviewer
Document
approver
Distribution (list
names)
Name
Ken Andersen
Affiliation
ESS
Oliver Kirstein
ESS
European Spallation Source ESS AB
Visiting address: ESS, Tunavägen 24
P.O. Box 176
SE-221 00 Lund
SWEDEN
www.esss.se
MXType.Localized
Document Number
MXName
Project Name
<<Project Name>>
Date
MXPrinted Date
ENCLOSURES
List any reports you wish to attach to the proposal, e.g. if more detailed calculations are
provided to back up the instrument design.
<< List enclosures here >>
OVERVIEW
Brief description of the proposed instrument.
Please state the ESS work unit(s) that produced this proposal.
(1 or 2 paragraphs)
<< Insert text and figures here >>
2(7)
MXType.Localized
Document Number
MXName
Project Name
<<Project Name>>
Date
MXPrinted Date
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Enclosures ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Overview ................................................................................................................ 2
Table of Contents ................................................................................................... 3
1.
Instrument Proposal ........................................................................................ 4
1.1
Scientific Impact .................................................................................................... 4
1.2
User Base and Demand .......................................................................................... 4
1.3
Description of Instrument Concept and Performance ................................................. 4
1.4
Strategy and Uniqueness ........................................................................................ 5
1.5
Technical Maturity .................................................................................................. 5
1.6
Costing.................................................................................................................. 6
2.
List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................ 6
3(7)
MXType.Localized
Document Number
MXName
Project Name
<<Project Name>>
Date
MXPrinted Date
1.
INSTRUMENT PROPOSAL
1.1
Scientific Impact
Estimate the impact on the relevant scientific fields and analyse overlap with other existing
instrumentation in terms of possible measurements.
E.g. this instrument addresses a science case similar to xx instrument at xxlab but will in
contrast to/also allow studying something that is not possible today, because it particularly
benefits from the ESS source characteristics. E.g. small samples can be studied with faster
time resolution, which allows for leading-edge science as a key science driver of the project.
Should refer to instrument science drivers.
(Up to 1 page)
<< Insert text and figures here >>
1.2
User Base and Demand
Identify the strength and future potential of the user base.
Estimate number of people, number of groups, publications, impact of those publications.
Look to other facilities and their output/subscription. E.g. instruments with a similar science
case (xx,xy) at xx, xy lab are x times overbooked and attract xx users per year from xx
institutions and produce a total of xx papers and xz high impact papers. (I.e. just a bit
statistics, maybe tables from comparable instruments.) Due to the superior performance (in
terms of flux, the experiments that can be done, the accessible q-range, estimated signal-tonoise ratio etc.) of the proposed instrument, it is able to address new science (see section
1.1. above). It will also attract users interested in … which investigates grand challenges in…
or contributes key knowledge in the area of… or solves problems in …..
(Up to 1 page)
<< Insert text and figures here >>
1.3
Description of Instrument Concept and Performance
The instrument concept needs to be described in functional detail, including any assumptions
made about the performance of the components used in the estimations. Detailed
analytical/simulation results need to be given here, showing the performance for standard
configurations of resolution/bandwidth required to address the science case and user
4(7)
MXType.Localized
Document Number
MXName
Project Name
<<Project Name>>
Date
MXPrinted Date
demands detailed in sections 1.1 and 1.2. Comparison needs to be made to simulation
results and, where available, actual measurements, on leading similar instruments. For
example, in the case of a SANS instrument, a virtual experiment from standard latex
particles including both coherent and incoherent scattering would be representative. If new
measurements are expected to become possible that are not comparable to existing
instrument options, please state and elaborate in as much detail as possible how they would
work and why that is the case.
(Up to 10 pages)
<< Insert text and figures here >>
1.4
Strategy and Uniqueness
Position the instrument in the global instrument park, taking into account both similar
instrumentation and different instrumentation that addresses similar scientific questions.
Refer back to sections 1.2 and 1.3. Does this proposal fill a need? Compared to other
instruments?
Outline the strategy within the instrument class (work package, e.g. reflectometry), i.e.
compare to other concepts (ork units) in the same instrument class. Explain how the
proposed concept would need to be complemented by other types of instrument and why
the instrument is proposed at the current time, i.e. what strategy is used to cover the full
science case of the instrument class, in what time-sequence and why. Please indicate science
areas/experiments that are covered in terms of optimal, possible, and sub-optimal
performance and how the future strategy aims to eventually cover the possible and suboptimal experiments with future proposals of additional instruments.
(Up to 1 page)
<< Insert text and figures here >>
1.5
Technical Maturity
Evaluate feasibility, present risk-management strategy, specify key components, and provide
technical specifications.
Elucidate the feasibility and risk overlap using ESS risk profile methods. For this the technical
specification of the instrument components is needed, including how any out-of-the ordinary
specs will be met (and how the risk is managed). Note the potential role that can be played
by other ESS WPs and WUs, for example the status of related work on e.g. detectors in
instrument etc. Ideally this section should include an instrument layout, shielding details,
preferred location(s) at ESS, including quantitative comparison of performance according to
whether an optimum position can be made available or not, and detailed implications for the
5(7)
MXType.Localized
Document Number
MXName
Project Name
<<Project Name>>
Date
MXPrinted Date
performance of the proposed instrument and its neighbors in all cases compared.
(Up to 4 pages)
<< Insert text and figures here >>
1.6
Costing
Include complete costing specifications.
This should ideally be based on quotes from manufacturers, reference to other facilities’
costs, or numbers from in-house groups (e.g. detectors at ESS). It must include staffing (in
MY, broken down by skill set e.g. scientist, engineer, draughtsman, technician) and cost
profile over the construction period. (E.g. a table for components and a table for manpower.)
The resources and contributions from in-kind partners should also be specified in detail, i.e.
can be included in a general table but need to be marked and/or outlined with an extra
section/table to explain what the contribution is and how it complements the ESS
contribution.
If possible provide a preliminary work breakdown structure (WBS) according to cost and
schedule.
Specify risks accordingly and in relation to section 1.5.
If applicable and at the time possible, specify the interest of partner(s) in participating in the
construction of the instrument with in-kind contributions. These cover material costs as well
as human resources. The acceptances of these in-kind contributions are subject to ESS
management and In-kind Review Committee approval.
<< Insert text here >>
2.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation
Explanation of abbreviation
XXX
Xxxxxx
XXX
Xxxxxx
<<>>
<<>>
PROPOSAL HISTORY
Version
1.0
Reason for revision
New Document
Date
6(7)
MXType.Localized
Document Number
MXName
Project Name
<<Project Name>>
Date
MXPrinted Date
7(7)