International Linear Collider

1. Toshiba Thales CPI International Linear Collider Barry Barish P5 Meeting Washington DC 8-Sept-05

2. Outline • Charge posed by Abe Seiden • Your plans for how to make progress on the LC design and R&D. • Budget requirements tied to the above, any milestones you feel comfortable presenting at this time. • Community response to the design challenge. Names of any individuals who plan to commit significant time to this effort. • Regional issues - division of effort. • Any comments you wish to make regarding outcome of Snowmass meeting. • Anything you feel we should know about. P5 Meeting - Washington DC

3. Outline • Charge posed by Abe Seiden • Your plans for how to make progress on the LC design and R&D. P5 Meeting - Washington DC

4. What’s our job? • The Mission of the GDE • Produce a design for the ILC that includes a detailed design concept, performance assessments, reliable international costing, an industrialization plan , siting analysis, as well as detector concepts and scope. • Coordinate worldwide prioritized proposal driven R & D efforts (to demonstrate and improve the performance, reduce the costs, attain the required reliability, etc.) P5 Meeting - Washington DC

5. The ITRP Recommendation • We recommend that the linear collider be based on superconducting rf technology • This recommendation is made with the understanding that we are recommending a technology, not a design. We expect the final design to be developed by a team drawn from the combined warm and cold linear collider communities, taking full advantage of the experience and expertise of both(from the Executive Summary). P5 Meeting - Washington DC

6. Starting Point for the GDE Superconducting RF Main Linac P5 Meeting - Washington DC

7. Parameters for the ILC • Ecm adjustable from 200 – 500 GeV • Luminosity ∫Ldt = 500 fb-1 in 4 years • Ability to scan between 200 and 500 GeV • Energy stability and precision below 0.1% • Electron polarization of at least 80% • The machine must be upgradeable to 1 TeV P5 Meeting - Washington DC

8. Higgs Coupling and Extra Dimensions • ILC precisely measures Higgs interaction strength with standard model particles. • Straight blue line gives the standard model predictions. • Range of predictions in models with extra dimensions -- yellow band, (at most 30% below the Standard Model • The models predict that the effect on each particle would be exactly the same size. • The red error bars indicate the level of precision attainable at the ILC for each particle • Sufficient to discover extra dimensional physics. P5 Meeting - Washington DC

9. GDE – Near Term Plan • Schedule • Begin - define Configuration (Snowmass Aug 05) • Baseline Configuration Document (end of 2005) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- • Baseline under Configuration Control (Jan 06) • Develop Reference Design (end of 2006) • Coordinate the supporting R&D program • Three volumes -- 1) Reference Design Report; 2) Shorter glossy version for non-experts and policy makers ; 3) Detector Concept Report P5 Meeting - Washington DC

10. GDE – Staffing • Staff the GDE • Administrative, Communications, Web staff • Regional Directors (one per region) • Accelerator Experts (covering all technical areas) • Senior Costing Engineer (one per region) • Civil/Facilities Engineer (one per region) • Detectors (WWS chairs) • Fill in missing skills (later) • Total staff size about 25 FTE (2005-2006) about 50 heads. • The internal GDE organization and tasks will be organized internationally, not regionally P5 Meeting - Washington DC

11. Chris Adolphsen, SLAC Jean-Luc Baldy, CERN Philip Bambade, LAL, Orsay Barry Barish, Caltech Wilhelm Bialowons, DESY Grahame Blair, Royal Holloway Jim Brau, University of Oregon Karsten Buesser, DESY Elizabeth Clements, Fermilab Michael Danilov, ITEP Jean-Pierre Delahaye, CERN, Gerald Dugan, Cornell University Atsushi Enomoto, KEK Brian Foster, Oxford University Warren Funk, JLAB Jie Gao, IHEP Terry Garvey, LAL-IN2P3 Hitoshi Hayano, KEK Tom Himel, SLAC Bob Kephart, Fermilab Eun San Kim, Pohang Acc Lab Hyoung Suk Kim, Kyungpook Nat’l Univ Shane Koscielniak, TRIUMF Vic Kuchler, Fermilab Lutz Lilje, DESY Tom Markiewicz, SLAC David Miller, Univ College of London Shekhar Mishra, Fermilab Youhei Morita, KEK Olivier Napoly, CEA-Saclay Hasan Padamsee, Cornell University Carlo Pagani, DESY Nan Phinney, SLAC Dieter Proch, DESY Pantaleo Raimondi, INFN Tor Raubenheimer, SLAC Francois Richard, LAL-IN2P3 Perrine Royole-Degieux, GDE/LAL Kenji Saito, KEK Daniel Schulte, CERN Tetsuo Shidara, KEK Sasha Skrinsky, Budker Institute Fumihiko Takasaki, KEK Laurent Jean Tavian, CERN Nobu Toge, KEK Nick Walker, DESY Andy Wolski, LBL Hitoshi Yamamoto, Tohoku Univ Kaoru Yokoya, KEK 49 members GDE Members Americas 16 Europe 21 Asia 12 P5 Meeting - Washington DC

12. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Global Design Effort Project LHC Physics Baseline configuration Reference Design The GDE Plan and Schedule Technical Design ILC R&D Program Bids to Host; Site Selection; International Mgmt

13. Design Approach • Create a baseline configuration for the machine • Document a concept for ILC machine with a complete layout, parameters etc. defined by the end of 2005 • Make forward looking choices, consistent with attaining performance goals, and understood well enough to do a conceptual design and reliable costing by end of 2006. • Technical and cost considerations will be an integral part in making these choices. • Baseline will be put under “configuration control,” with a defined process for changes to the baseline. • A reference design will be carried out in 2006. I am proposing we use a “parametric” design and costing approach. • Technical performance and physics performance will be evaluated for the reference design P5 Meeting - Washington DC

14. Parametric Approach • Parametric approach to design • machine parameters : a space to optimize the machine • Trial parameter space, being evaluated by subsystems • machine design : incorporate change without redesign; incorporates value engineering, trade studies at each step to minimize costs P5 Meeting - Washington DC

15. Approach to ILC R&D Program • Proposal-driven R&D in support of the baseline design. • Technical developments, demonstration experiments, industrialization, etc. • Proposal-driven R&D in support of alternatives to the baseline • Proposals for potential improvements to the baseline, resources required, time scale, etc. • Develop a prioritized DETECTOR R&D program aimed at technical developments needed to reach combined design performance goals P5 Meeting - Washington DC

16. Outline • Charge posed by Abe Seiden • Your plans for how to make progress on the LC design and R&D. • Budget requirements tied to the above, any milestones you feel comfortable presenting at this time. P5 Meeting - Washington DC

17. US ILC Budgets – FY05 P5 Meeting - Washington DC

18. US ILC Budgets – FY05 P5 Meeting - Washington DC

19. US ILC Budgets – FY05 • SLAC, LBNL & Cornell – Design & Simulation of Bunch Compressor • All – Main Linac Lattice Design & Beam based alignment • Berkeley developed RF BPMs to measure local tilt of the bunch • Ohio State developing radiation hard digitizers • Coherent Synchrotron Radiation in Bunch Compressors studied at UNM P5 Meeting - Washington DC

20. US ILC Budgets – FY05 P5 Meeting - Washington DC

21. European ILC Budgets – FY05 Japan / Asia budgets are pending, but the efforts are comparable. P5 Meeting - Washington DC

22. Present ILC R&D Budget Levels • Comparable in the three regions • About $30M / region • Estimate that the global level must triple to produce technical design and readiness for construction (e.g. by construction start ~ 2010) • Main items – • Design Effort (engineering, cost estimates, etc) • R&D in support of baseline and alternatives • Industrialization • System Tests • Detailed outyear budget plan will be developed after baseline configuration is completed P5 Meeting - Washington DC

23. Outline • Charge posed by Abe Seiden • Your plans for how to make progress on the LC design and R&D. • Budget requirements tied to the above, any milestones you feel comfortable presenting at this time. • Community response to the design challenge. Names of any individuals who plan to commit significant time to this effort. P5 Meeting - Washington DC

24. Participation in Snowmass 670 Scientists attended two week workshop at Snowmass P5 Meeting - Washington DC

25. Chris Adolphsen, SLAC Jean-Luc Baldy, CERN Philip Bambade, LAL, Orsay Barry Barish, Caltech Wilhelm Bialowons, DESY Grahame Blair, Royal Holloway Jim Brau, University of Oregon Karsten Buesser, DESY Elizabeth Clements, Fermilab Michael Danilov, ITEP Jean-Pierre Delahaye, CERN, Gerald Dugan, Cornell University Atsushi Enomoto, KEK Brian Foster, Oxford University Warren Funk, JLAB Jie Gao, IHEP Terry Garvey, LAL-IN2P3 Hitoshi Hayano, KEK Tom Himel, SLAC Bob Kephart, Fermilab Eun San Kim, Pohang Acc Lab Hyoung Suk Kim, Kyungpook Nat’l Univ Shane Koscielniak, TRIUMF Vic Kuchler, Fermilab Lutz Lilje, DESY Tom Markiewicz, SLAC David Miller, Univ College of London Shekhar Mishra, Fermilab Youhei Morita, KEK Olivier Napoly, CEA-Saclay Hasan Padamsee, Cornell University Carlo Pagani, DESY Nan Phinney, SLAC Dieter Proch, DESY Pantaleo Raimondi, INFN Tor Raubenheimer, SLAC Francois Richard, LAL-IN2P3 Perrine Royole-Degieux, GDE/LAL Kenji Saito, KEK Daniel Schulte, CERN Tetsuo Shidara, KEK Sasha Skrinsky, Budker Institute Fumihiko Takasaki, KEK Laurent Jean Tavian, CERN Nobu Toge, KEK Nick Walker, DESY Andy Wolski, LBL Hitoshi Yamamoto, Tohoku Univ Kaoru Yokoya, KEK 49 members GDE Members P5 Meeting - Washington DC

26. Outline • Charge posed by Abe Seiden • Your plans for how to make progress on the LC design and R&D. • Budget requirements tied to the above, any milestones you feel comfortable presenting at this time. • Community response to the design challenge. Names of any individuals who plan to commit significant time to this effort. • Regional issues - division of effort. P5 Meeting - Washington DC

27. Regional Efforts • Asia – • Broaden participation (e.g. India, Taiwan) • Europe – • CERN role (Delahaye, Baldy) EDMS? • Americas – • Broaden participation (Canada); • Develop SCRF capability at Fermilab; • Industrialize; • Prepare to bid to host • Division of effort will take place at time of technical design / site selection. P5 Meeting - Washington DC

28. Outline • Charge posed by Abe Seiden • Your plans for how to make progress on the LC design and R&D. • Budget requirements tied to the above, any milestones you feel comfortable presenting at this time. • Community response to the design challenge. Names of any individuals who plan to commit significant time to this effort. • Regional issues - division of effort. • Any comments you wish to make regarding outcome of Snowmass meeting. P5 Meeting - Washington DC

29. Highlights from Snowmass P5 Meeting - Washington DC

30. ILC Workshop Organization 2nd Week: BCD Recommendations - Focus Groups P5 Meeting - Washington DC

31. Design Choices for Baseline • Design Alternatives • Gradient / Length (30MV/m?, 35MV/m? Higher?) • Tunnel (single? or double?) • Positron Souce (undulator? conventional?) • Damping ring (dogbone? small ring?) • Crossing angle (head-on, small angle, large angle) • Define detailed configuration • RF layout • Lattice layout • Beam delivery system layout • Klystron / modulators • Cryomodule design • Evolve these choices through “change control” process P5 Meeting - Washington DC

32. Cost Drivers Civil SCRF Linac P5 Meeting - Washington DC

33. How Costs Scale with Gradient? 35MV/m is close to optimum Japanese are still pushing for 40-45MV/m 30 MV/m would give safety margin Relative Cost Gradient MV/m C. Adolphsen (SLAC) P5 Meeting - Washington DC

34. Cavity Fabrication P5 Meeting - Washington DC

35. Gradient Results from KEK-DESY collaboration must reduce spread (need more statistics) single-cell measurements (in nine-cell cavities) P5 Meeting - Washington DC

36. Improved Fabrication P5 Meeting - Washington DC

37. Improved ProcessingElectropolishing P5 Meeting - Washington DC

38. Improved Cavity Shapes P5 Meeting - Washington DC

39. ILC Siting and Conventional Facilities • The design is intimately tied to the features of the site • 1 tunnels or 2 tunnels? • Deep or shallow? • Laser straight linac or follow earth’s curvature in segments? • GDE ILC Design will be done to samples sites in the three regions • North American sample site will be near Fermilab • Japan and Europe are to determine sample sites by the end of 2005 P5 Meeting - Washington DC

40. 1 vs 2 Tunnels • Tunnel must contain • Linac Cryomodule • RF system • Damping Ring Lines • Save maybe $0.5B • Issues • Maintenance • Safety • Duty Cycle P5 Meeting - Washington DC

41. Possible Tunnel Configurations • One tunnel of two, with variants ?? P5 Meeting - Washington DC

42. ILC Civil Program Civil engineers from all three regions working to develop methods of analyzing the siting issues and comparing sites. The current effort is not intended to select a potential site, but rather to understand from the beginning how the features of sites will effect the design, performance and cost P5 Meeting - Washington DC

43. Toshiba Thales CPI Baseline Klystrons Available today: 10 MW Multi-Beam Klystrons (MBKs) that operate at up to 10 Hz P5 Meeting - Washington DC

44. Improved Klystron ? 5 MW Inductive Output Tube (IOT) 10 MW Sheet Beam Klystron (SBK) Low Voltage 10 MW MBK Parameters similar to 10 MW MBK Voltage e.g. 65 kV Current 238A More beams Perhaps use a Direct Switch Modulator Klystron Output IOT KEK SLAC CPI Drive P5 Meeting - Washington DC

45. Beamsize Growth Study (cumulative after feedback) + Kicker, current, energy jitter, BPM resol. + 5 Hz ground. + Component jitter + Undulator 30 min ground. P5 Meeting - Washington DC

46. Availability Studies1 vs 2 tunnels P5 Meeting - Washington DC

47. Improving Mean Time Between Failures P5 Meeting - Washington DC

48. Industrial Studies • Industrial studies in three regions are essential. • Important to understand industrial costs • Important to examine potential cost reductions • Need to think about what studies are needed and when • Focus on the cost drivers for ILC, important for cost estimate • Focus on places where there is technical risk to the project goals • ILC need a point-of-contact and a plan for industrial studies 2nd ILC Industrial Forum Meeting is scheduled to be held at Fermilab Sept. 21st and 22nd, 2005. P5 Meeting - Washington DC

49. Outline • Charge posed by Abe Seiden • Your plans for how to make progress on the LC design and R&D. • Budget requirements tied to the above, any milestones you feel comfortable presenting at this time. • Community response to the design challenge. Names of any individuals who plan to commit significant time to this effort. • Regional issues - division of effort. • Any comments you wish to make regarding outcome of Snowmass meeting. • Anything you feel we should know about. P5 Meeting - Washington DC

50. Detector Concepts and Challenges • Three concepts under study • Typically requires factors of two or so improvements in granularity, resolution, etc. from present generation detectors • Focused R&D program required to develop the detectors -- end of 2005 • Detector Concepts will be used to determine machine detector interface, simulate performance of reference design vs physics goals next year. P5 Meeting - Washington DC