HEPAP – ILC Americas Region Report

1. HEPAP – ILC Americas Region Report • ART Program • FY08 status & priorities • FY09 proposed program • Timelines & Critical Decisions • US Host, non-host scenarios • Funding profiles • Summary

2. Americas Region FY08 status Recent omnibus spending bill capped US FY08 ILC funding at $15M. Since we were 3 months into the fiscal year with a $60M guidance this was tantamount to a ‘cease work’ for the balance of FY08. All spending was halted ~ 1 Jan and a count of funds remaining at the labs indicated an unobligated balance of ~ $2.5M under the cap. FY08 priorities then became: • GDE common fund ($400K) • GDE core support (Barish, Harrison, Ross, Carwardine) + some travel • CESR TA (electron cloud R&D) • + Machine – Detector Interface (?) • + ……..

3. GDE Common fund & Management – priority 1 Although this is essentially intuitive: • The common fund contribution is the US membership dues to the GDE • Nationally embarrassing to lay-off the International Director • Likewise the Regional Director & Project Management • Even with a funding cap there is a need for some functionality to maintain the ability to resume

4. CESR TA – Priority 2 • Comprehensive electron-cloud R&D program based on the very flexible machine complex at Cornell. • Unique time-critical opportunity. • Rated the highest technical risk with the baseline design, which relies on successful mitigation. • NSF 80% & DOE 20% over the 24 month experimental program. The FY08 funding-cap and the FY09 budget at collaborating labs have resulted in some delays/issues. Looking for help at KEK.

5. CESR TA – Priority 2 • Highest R&D priorities ILC Damping Rings – GDE working group • Lattice Design for positron ring • Lattice Design for electron ring • Demonstrate < 2pm vertical emittance (CesrTA <5-10pm for positrons) • Characterize single bunch impedance driven instabilities • Characterize electron cloud build up • Develop electron cloud suppression techniques • Develop modeling tools for electron cloud instabilities • Determine electron cloud instability thresholds • Characterize ion effects • Specify techniques for suppressing ion effects • Develop a fast high power pulser

6. Machine/Detector Interface– Priority 3 Highly Complex physics/engineering issues Totally integrated design between machine & detector Critically important for detector design – LOI’s in ~ 12 months US is the GDE lead FY08 Funding uncertain

7. Americas Region – Budget Evolution The chart shows the time evolution of ART funding - actuals + projected. Since Aug of last year the projected FY09 funding has fallen from $95M -> $60M -> $35M. Together with the FY08 stop-work order it tends to make detailed planning difficult.

8. Americas Region FY09 planning • The recent presidents budget shows ART at roughly 50% of the former one. • Program should be ‘ robust ’ and thus easily defensible. • Given the FY08 situation then only top down planning possible for the near term. • No detailed ART multi-year program yet but it is conceptually compatible with the new GDE plan (TDP1 & 2). • Strategic goals: • Preserve collaborative commitment to the GDE • Provide contributions to the ILC R&D program which are unique to the US • Support the value engineering effort in the medium term • Maintain US presence in ILC SRF R&D

9. ART/GDE Collaboration - Management & Conceptual Engineering • FY09 reduction of effort ~50% i.e. scaling with program size though not linearly. Mid level management pushed back into the technical programs. • Preserves international and national management & engineering roles, travel, contingency, etc.. • Management/Engineering (GDE) Barish, Harrison, Ross, Carwardine + travel etc. • GDE common fund - $400K • Management ART/GDE (Garbincius, Kerby) + travel etc. • System integration - (Paterson) • Communications - (~ 50% of an FTE) • Contingency ~ $3M

10. ART ILC Systems - FY09 Impact • Electron Source • 20% reduction. • Positron Source • US efforts eliminated • Damping Rings • All effort eliminated except e-cloud R&D at CESR-TA (with NSF) • RF systems • All hardware deliverables eliminated (40% reduction) - preserve R&D at SLAC in HLRF systems • Beam Delivery System • 10% reduction. • Accelerator physics/Global systems • 50% reduction • Conventional Facilities • No bid to host or site categorisation • Maintain value engineering

11. ART ILC Systems - Cavities & Cryomodules • Reduction of ~ 50% in FY09 • Strategy • Maintain US presence in the GDE SRF program but no lead role. • No industrialization. • No systems tests with ILC funds (potential SRF generic goal with ART hardware and synergistic with Project X) Here we ‘play the global’ card relying on work in Asia and the EU to provide the majority of the ILC SRF technology development. String test in KEK 2011 at the same time the XFEL is producing 1 cryomodule per week. • What do we keep ? • Minimal gradient program – no ramp up • Cryomodule prototyping at Fermilab (cryomodule engineering, cryomodule parts, testing etc….. $20M over 4 yrs). ART - Project X common goal. • Note: cryomodule development assumes some Fermilab infrastructure (horizontal test stand, cryomodule assembly facilities, cryomodule test stand)

12. ART ILC Systems - Cavities & Cryomodules • Cryomodules are complex • Cavities made from pure Nb • Smooth & ultra clean surfaces • Cavity handling is crucial • Operate in 2K superfluid He • 1200 parts! • Cryomodules are expensive • Single most expensive component of the ILC • Must industrialize cavities, components, and maybe assembly • Developing the extensive infrastructure to build and test CM’s • FNAL leads an international team working to improve the TESLA CM design for ILC (DESY, INFN, KEK, CERN, SLAC, India, etc ) • Plan to have an improved ILC design ready for bids - deferred

13. ART ILC Systems - Cavities & Cryomodules GDE estimate for cavity production and testing as part of the gradient program

14. ILC Project - US Role & R&D phase The concept of the requirements for an ILC host has been relatively stable for the past few years. The host would be expected to provide ~50% of the total cost. This is made up of the site specific costs together with contributions summing to 33% of the remaining value costs. The host would also be expected to donate any land needed by the Project. In order to construct and operate the machine successfully the host would need to have wide ranging involvement in all the various technical elements of the program; with the SRF systems prominent. As a Non-Host then depending on the number of collaborating countries the contribution would probably lie in the range of 10-25%. Technical involvement does not need to be across the board and targeting specific sub-systems for contributions will be necessary. A program at the anticipated level of FY09 lacks the resources to provide a broad-based R&D program consistent with a host scenario.

15. ILC Strawman Project timeline The US system (413.3A) requires critical decisions: CD0 - Mission need - a.k.a. LHC physics results ~ 2011 CD1 - Cost Range - a.k.a. Site selection (Host or not) ~ 2013 CD2 - Performance baseline - a.k.a. International scope agreement (who does what) ~ 2014 CD3 - Construction Start - ~ 2016 CD4 - Start of Operations - ~2023 Caveat: this does not represent any official GDE planning scenario

16. Near-term ART R&D Program Assume FY09 $30M • Host scenario would suggest FY11 $86M, FY12 $148M hence FY10 ~$60M thus we need starting in FY08 15->35->60->86->148. • Total R&D costs $344M out of ~$10B; low compared to the typical 6-8%. • Non Host scenario would suggest FY11 $34M, FY12 $59 hence FY10 $32M thus we need 15->35->37->39->59. • Total R&D $185M out of $4B would indicate that we are still low compared to a 20% non-host contribution but O.K. for 10-15% one. • It is conceivable to steer a middle path with some additional SRF cavity & cryomodule volume together with some specific siting studies

17. ART Program Summary • Funding cap for the balance of FY08 • Reduction of ~ 50% in FY09 • Effort more focused • Pull back on SRF technology - gradient & system tests • on any relevant time scale it’s difficult to see how we get from ‘here to there’ with a $35M-ish program if ‘there’ for the US is hosting an ILC in the foreseeable future. • we are (just) consistent with a non-host role (15±5%) at this funding level for the next couple of years. The elements of the ART program may not be the correct ones since a non-host role will have specific technical contributions. • A little stability in the funding (actuals & projected) would help to get the most from the available resources.