• Y. Nosochkov, L.D. Bentson, R.A. Erickson, M.J. Hogan, N. Li, J. Seeman, A. Seryi, C.M. Spencer, W. Wittmer
  SLAC, Menlo Park, California

Funding: This work is supported by the Department of Energy contract DE-AC02-76SF00515.

FACET is a proposed facility at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory for beam driven plasma wakefield acceleration research. It is proposed to be built in the SLAC linac sector 20, where it will be separated from the LCLS located downstream and will gain the maximum beam energy from the upstream two kilometers of linac. FACET will also include an upgrade to linac sector 10, where a new e⁺ compressor chicane will be installed. The sector 20 will require a new optics consisting of two chicanes for e⁺ and e^- bunch length compression, a final focus system and an extraction line. The two chicanes will allow the transport of e^- and e⁺ bunches together, their simultaneous compression and proper positioning of e⁺ bunch behind e^- at the plasma Interaction Point (IP). For a minimal cost, the new optics will mostly use the existing SLAC magnets. The desired beam parameters at the IP are: up to 23 GeV beam energy, 2·10¹⁰ charge per bunch, 10 micron round beam spot without dispersion and 25 micron bunch length. Details of the FACET optics design and results of particle tracking simulations are presented.

• U. Wienands, B. Allen, W.S. Colocho, R.A. Erickson, M. Stanek
  SLAC, Menlo Park, California

Funding: Work supported by US DOE

For LCLS, an uptime of 95% of the scheduled beam time is aimed for. This is a challenging goal for a linac-driven facility, exceeding typical up time during PEP-II running by a significant amount. During the 2008 and the 2009 LCLS beam-commissioninng runs we have been gathering and analysing statistics to identify the worst offenders as far as downtime is concerned. In 2008, an overall hardware uptime of 90% was achieved, indicating the need to decrease our downtime by a factor of two. One approach to focus the effort has been to identify those faults that cause the worst performance for a system in a given time period and focus on these. Another one is to compare our MTTR performance with that of other facilities thus identifying where our processes might be improved. In this paper we will show how we track our performance and examples of the benefit of addressing identified reliability issues.