The ILC Global Design Effort

1. The ILC Global Design Effort Barry Barish EPP2010 Cornell University 2-Aug-05

2. The SCRF Technology Recommendation • The recommendation of ITRP was presented to ILCSC & ICFA on August 19, 2004 in a joint meeting in Beijing. • ICFA unanimously endorsed the ITRP’s recommendation on August 20, 2004 EPP2010 - Barish

3. 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). EPP2010 - Barish

4. The Community Self-Organized Nov 13-15, 2004 EPP2010 - Barish

5. Global Design Effort • Director Appointed in March 2005 • Appointed Regional Directors (Gerry Dugan (North America), Fumihiko Takasaki (Asia), Brian Foster (Europe)) • Staff - Cost Engineers, Civil Engineers, Accelerator Experts and Detector Experts • Design Effort will begin August 2005 in Snowmass • ILC Design will include design, plus reliable costs, siting plan, technology transfer and industrialization etc. • Coordinate worldwide proposal driven R & D efforts (to demonstrate and improve the performance, reduce the costs, attain the required reliability, etc.) EPP2010 - Barish

6. Snowmass Workshop – Aug 2005 EPP2010 - Barish

7. 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 simulate performance of reference design vs physics goals next year. EPP2010 - Barish

8. Snowmass – GDE Takes Over EPP2010 - Barish

9. GDE – Near Term Plan • Schedule • Begin to define Configuration (Aug 05) • Baseline Configuration Document by end of 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- • Put Baseline under Configuration Control (Jan 06) • Develop Reference Design Report by end of 2006 • Three volumes -- 1) Reference Design Report; 2) Shorter glossy version for non-experts and policy makers ; 3) Detector Concept Report EPP2010 - Barish

10. 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

11. Starting Point for the GDE Superconducting RF Main Linac EPP2010 - Barish

12. 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 EPP2010 - Barish

13. Cost Breakdown by Subsystem Civil SCRF Linac EPP2010 - Barish

14. Design Issues EPP2010 - Barish

15. What Gradient to Choose? EPP2010 - Barish

16. Gradient EPP2010 - Barish

17. 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) EPP2010 - Barish

18. TESLA Cavity ~1m 9-cell 1.3GHz Niobium Cavity Reference design: has not been modified in 10 years EPP2010 - Barish

19. Electro-polishing (Improve surface quality -- pioneering work done at KEK) BCP EP • Several single cell cavities at g > 40 MV/m • 4 nine-cell cavities at ~35 MV/m, one at 40 MV/m • Theoretical Limit 50 MV/m EPP2010 - Barish

20. Gradient Results from KEK-DESY collaboration must reduce spread (need more statistics) single-cell measurements (in nine-cell cavities) EPP2010 - Barish

21. Evolve the CavitiesMinor Enhancement Low Loss Design Modification to cavity shape reduces peak B field. (A small Hp/Eacc ratio around 35Oe/(MV/m) must be designed). This generally means a smaller bore radius Trade-offs (Electropolishing, weak cell-to-cell coupling, etc) KEK currently producing prototypes EPP2010 - Barish

22. New Cavity Design Re-entrant 28 cell Super-structure More radical concepts potentially offer greater benefits. But require time and major new infrastructure to develop. single-cell achieved45.7 MV/m Q0 ~1010 (Cornell) EPP2010 - Barish

23. Experimental Status single cell EPP2010 - Barish

24. ILC Siting and Civil Construction • 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 EPP2010 - Barish

25. 1 vs 2 Tunnels • Tunnel must contain • Linac Cryomodule • RF system • Damping Ring Lines • Save maybe $0.5B • Issues • Maintenance • Safety • Duty Cycle EPP2010 - Barish

26. Fermilab ILC Civil Program A Fermilab Civil Group is collaborating with SLAC Engineers and soon with Japanese and European engineers 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 EPP2010 - Barish

27. Accelerator Physics Challenges • Develop High Gradient Superconducting RF systems • Requires efficient RF systems, capable of accelerating high power beams (~MW) with small beam spots(~nm). • Achieving nm scale beam spots • Requires generating high intensity beams of electrons and positrons • Damping the beams to ultra-low emittance in damping rings • Transporting the beams to the collision point without significant emittance growth or uncontrolled beam jitter • Cleanly dumping the used beams. • Reaching Luminosity Requirements • Designs satisfy the luminosity goals in simulations • A number of challenging problems in accelerator physics and technology must be solved, however. EPP2010 - Barish

28. 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

29. Creating an International Project • Many Successful HEP Collaborations • Large detectors at major laboratories around the world are based on large international collaborations with formal governance, shared management, resource sharing, shared responsibilities and oversight, etc.The GDE is build on this model CERN is a European Laboratory with broad participation from the international community. LHC includes substantial contributions and collaborations from non-CERN countries, including the U.S. The non-CERN collaborations are mainly based on in-kind contributions with joint responsibility for the experiment management, but not laboratory management. EPP2010 - Barish

30. Creating an International Project • Many models of International Collaboration • ITER is the largest project, shared by six countries. There are both lessons learned and models of how to develop international project with agreed to costing, shared management, etc. Siting was a big problem • ALMA is a joint European, U.S. and Japan project with a shared management, mostly in-kind contributions, etc. Being a big array, it is straight forward to divide how many modules are contributed by partners and siting is not an issue. But, they have recently dealt effectively with management and cost issues. EPP2010 - Barish

31. Creating an International Project • Several Studies and Plans for ILC • OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) • “A template for Establishing, Funding and Managing an International Scientific Research Project Based on an Agreement Between Governments and Institutions” • Features a template that covers all aspects of creating agreements for an international collaboration, in particular formal agreements, funding arrangements, central structure and using existing institutions EPP2010 - Barish

32. OECD International Project Template EPP2010 - Barish

33. Creating an International Project • Several Studies and Plans for ILC • TESLA proposed plan for Project Organization • “Organization and Management of an International Collaboration on the TESLA Linear Collider” • Features a “Global Accelerator Network”, which is basically a collaboration between institutions where as much as possible the participation is treated as an extension of the laboratory programs and even the accelerator is to be run locally from the collaborating laboratories. EPP2010 - Barish

34. TESLA Proposed Project Organization EPP2010 - Barish

35. Creating an International Project • Several Studies and Plans for ILC • ECFA EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR FUTURE ACCELERATORS subcomittee EUROPEAN LINEAR COLLIDER STEERING GROUP • “Report of the Sub-group on Organizational Matters” • Features a detailed breakdown of top level governance and project management, how they relate to each other. It is based on regional organizations; mostly in-kind contributions; shared central management, oversight, responsibility. It is concerned with Europe and how to do it within European Labs (CERN) and structures EPP2010 - Barish

36. ECFA ILC Governance and Management EPP2010 - Barish

37. Creating an International Project • Several Studies and Plans for ILC • USLCSC Discussion Draft • “Report of the Sub-committee on International Partnering” USLCSC International Partnering Sub cte v. 10/11 Oct 2003mt USLCSC Discussion Draft Report of the Sub-committee on International Partnering EPP2010 - Barish

38. EPP2010 Questions • International planning: • How would a linear collider be managed and operated in the context of an international laboratory? • Probably no international laboratory, but rather an international project with a host laboratory nearby. Mostly in-kind contributions to reduce risk, shared management, oversight, etc. EPP2010 - Barish

39. EPP2010 Questions • International planning: • How can the U.S. funding mechanisms (with yearly budget decisions) connect with a long term international project? • There are successful recent examples multiyear commitments: Gemini, ALMA and US LHC collaborations. Basically, the commitments are made within the agencies to the projects, budget profiles, etc. EPP2010 - Barish

40. EPP2010 Questions • International planning: • How would cost overruns be handled? • Reduce the risk by having as much as possible large in-kind contributions, which are the responsibility of the country to make good on their contribution. Central resources must have shared responsibility and responsibility for non delivery by a partner must be shared by the collaboration in a pre-agreed manner. Example --- Argentina on Auger experiment. EPP2010 - Barish

41. EPP2010 Questions • International planning: • What is the model for distributing the costs between the host country and other participants? • The general concept is that the host country pays for most of the civil work and support infrastructure. This will be ~ 25% of the total. This extra contribution by the host must be at a level where it is attractive to host the ILC. The high tech part of the project (~75%) will be equally shared by the three regions (at least that is the present thinking) EPP2010 - Barish

42. EPP2010 Questions • International planning: • What arguments can be made for hosting an international linear collider in the United States? • The ILC promises to be one of the premier scientific adventures of the coming decade. Taking on such challenges and moving forward the frontiers of science and technology is where the U.S. excels. This project will make significant impacts on science, education and industry. The investment, though expensive, is highly leveraged --- Get a multi-Billion $$ project for half the cost! EPP2010 - Barish