The categories for ILC budget planning are: R&D – work done in laboratories to develop and verify subsystem components. This supports the cost reduction.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
DOE/NSF U.S. CMS Operations Program Review Closeout Report Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory March 10, 2015 Anadi Canepa, TRIUMF Anna Goussiou, University.
Advertisements

Industry and the ILC B Barish 16-Aug May-05ILC Consultations - Washington DC2 Why e + e - Collisions? elementary particles well-defined –energy,
BDS GDE context LC-ABD2 : WP4 - Beam Line Design 12 th April 2007, LC-ABD Plenary, RHUL Deepa Angal-Kalinin ASTeC, The Cockcroft Institute.
A Possible Strategy Towards a Future Lepton Collider Tor Raubenheimer SLUO Annual Meeting September 17, 2009.
Overview of Advanced Design White Paper Farrokh Najmabadi Virtual Laboratory for Technology Meeting June 23, 1998 OFES Headquarters, Germantown.
RFCC Module Tech Board Schedule Discussion Steve Virostek Lawrence Berkeley National Lab MICE CM25 at RAL November 4, 2009.
Linac Front-End R&D --- Systems Integration and Meson Lab Setup
October 24, 2000Milestones, Funding of USCMS S&C Matthias Kasemann1 US CMS Software and Computing Milestones and Funding Profiles Matthias Kasemann Fermilab.
Industrial Studies of ILC Cavities & Component Production in the Americas IPAC 11 – Kyoto, Japan May 23, 2010 Science Projects Homeland Security Medical.
Discussion on Studies at Test Stands Roger Ruber Uppsala University.
5 th CLIC X-band collaboration meetingWalter Wuensch16 May 2011 CLIC rf structure program.
Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy High Energy Physics FY 2008 OMB Presentation Dr. Robin Staffin, Associate Director Office of High Energy Physics.
Department of Energy Office of Science 1 Sisyphus, founder of Corinth, was condemned to an eternity of rolling a boulder uphill then watching it roll back.
ILC DR RF Cavity – D. Li DR Workshop, KEK, Japan 1 Design for the DR RF cavities and impedance issues Derun Li Center for Beam Physics Lawrence Berkeley.
U.S. MICE Schedule, Cost, & Risks Peter H. Garbincius Mark Palmer, Alan Bross, Rich Krull Fermilab Presented at RAL – November 13, 2013.
AARD Sub-panel at Fermilab Feb , 2006 LARP Magnet R&D Program - S. Gourlay1 BNL -FNAL - LBNL - SLAC LARP Magnet R&D Program Steve Gourlay AARD Sub-Panel.
Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 1  Now in international R&D phase (baseline design defined); validate technology, engineering design, cost.
US ILC Review by DOE/NSF Apr. 4-6 at Fermilab Consultant reviewers: Ilan Ben-Zvi (BNL/ATF &RHIC) Dixon Bogert (FNAL/NUMI) Isidoro Campisi (ORNL/SNS) Tom.
Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment: U.S. Muon Accelerator Program Perspective and Approach Mark Palmer May 7, 2013.
Welcome to Session 3 – Project Management Process Overview
International Linear Collider The ILC is the worldwide consensus for the next major new facility. One year ago, the choice was made between the two alternate.
HLRF DRAFT Global Design Effort 1 Defining EDR* Work Packages [Engineering Design Report] Ray Larsen SLAC ILC Division for HLRF Team DRAFT April.
27-March-10 LCWS10 - Beijing Global Design Effort 1 Barry Barish LCWS10 - Beijing 27-March-10 “Cost Containment” for the TDR.
M. Ross, N. Walker, A. Yamamoto ILC Cost Review, (updated for TB) and Cost Drivers  Future R & D ILC Cost Review (M. Ross,
F Project X Overview Dave McGinnis October 12, 2007.
1 The Design & Value Costs SRF Technology The XFEL as a Prototype Japan as a Host International Linear Collider Status Mike Harrison.
Cost Estimate Marion White (Argonne) SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting December 16, 2014.
R&D, Collaborations and Closeout Fulvia Pilat MEIC Collaboration Meeting March
“Requesting NSF Facilities for a ‘Small’ Field Campaign: Insights from a Veteran” Bruce Albrecht University of Miami.
CLIC Implementation Studies Ph. Lebrun & J. Osborne CERN CLIC Collaboration Meeting addressing the Work Packages CERN, 3-4 November 2011.
ILC in Japan A 10 minute introduction H.Weerts Argonne National Lab March 24, 2014 University of Chicago.
U.S. ATLAS Tier 1 Planning Rich Baker Brookhaven National Laboratory US ATLAS Computing Advisory Panel Meeting Argonne National Laboratory October 30-31,
DESY_ILCW07 Global Design Effort-CF&S 1 Beam Delivery System & Interaction Region Fred Asiri CF&S Point of Contact.
RLSR 16/4/2015 UK Financial Plan & Risks. Content Finances – Cost to Completion Risks – Top level to completion – R9 working space – Summary 2 RLSR 24/11/2014.
Status Report on ILC Project in Japan Seiichi SHIMASAKI Director, Office for Particle and Nuclear Research Promotion June 19, 2015.
Report from MICE project teams Feedback from PPRP MICE funding: various scenarios Issues  Financial year 2003/04  iMICE common fund.
F Axis NO A Status NO A Collaboration Meeting Fermilab 17 November 2006 Gary Feldman.
U.S. Fusion Energy Sciences Program Fusion Program Summary for Program Leaders February 7, 2005 E xcellent S cience in S upport of A ttractive E nergy.
Status of the International Linear Collider and Importance of Industrialization B Barish Fermilab 21-Sept-05.
Welcome and Presentation of Charge Steve Holmes Accelerator Advisory Committee ( May 10-12, 2005.
1 Global Design Effort: Controls & LLRF Controls & LLRF Working Group: Tuesday Session (29 May 07) John Carwardine Kay Rehlich.
Department of Energy Office of Science  FY 2007 Request for Office of Science is 14% above FY 2006 Appropriation  FY 2007 Request for HEP is 8% above.
Industrial Participation & SRF Infrastructure at Fermilab Phil Pfund with input from Harry Carter, Rich Stanek, Mike Foley, Dan Olis, and others.
Proton Driver Resources & Schedule (R&D Plan) Rich Stanek May 10, 2005.
Budget Outlook Glen Crawford P5 Meeting Sep
24-July-10 ICHEP-10 Paris Global Design Effort 1 Barry Barish Paris ICHEP 24-July-10 ILC Global Design Effort.
ILC 2007 Global Design Effort 1 Planning Damping Rings Activities in the Engineering Design Phase Andy Wolski Cockcroft Institute/University of Liverpool.
Office of Science January 28, 2008J.Blazey / SiD Workshop / SLAC1 The View from DOE Moving ForwardMoving Forward HEPAPHEPAP FY08 “in review”FY08 “in review”
NCSX Strykowsky 1Cost and Schedule Rebaseline April 25, 2005 NCSX Project Re-baseline Review April 25, 2005 Cost and Schedule Ron Strykowsky.
Proposed LCLS-II SCU Schedule Soren Prestemon (LBNL) SCU 3-Lab Review Meeting December 16, 2014.
January 9, 2006 Margaret Votava 1 ILC – NI/FNAL/ANL Brief overview of Global Design Effort (GDE) plans, dates, and organization: –Changes since Industrial.
1 Project X Workshop November 21-22, 2008 Richard York Chris Compton Walter Hartung Xiaoyu Wu Michigan State University.
Fermilab-India Agreements and Collaboration Shekhar Mishra Project-X, International Collaboration Coodinator Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Batavia,
CD FY08 Tactical Plan Review FY08 Tactical Plans for Linear Collider Controls, LLRF, Instrumentation, Detector, Physics Studies Stephen Wolbers for the.
FNAL SCRF Review R. Kephart. What is this Review? FNAL has argued that SCRF technology is an “enabling” accelerator technology (much like superconducting.
ILC CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne
ILC CONVENTIONAL FACILITIES A. Enomoto, V. Kuchler, J. Osborne
Resource Loaded Schedule and Budget Profile
CLIC work program and milestones
Requirements for Efficient CW SRF Cryomodules
Crab Cavities Contribution from the U.S.
Evolving an ILC focused SCRF Facility from the XFEL Infrastructure
EDR HLRF Work Packages Draft Summary
What Should We Do?.
ESS RF Development at Uppsala University
Introduction to Jefferson Lab
Barry Barish Paris ICHEP 24-July-10
Project Management Issues John N. Galayda, SLAC April 24, 2002
SNS-PPU upgrades the existing accelerator structure
Detector Proto-Technical board Sep 30, 2010
Presentation transcript:

The categories for ILC budget planning are: R&D – work done in laboratories to develop and verify subsystem components. This supports the cost reduction of the ILC by developing new cheaper alternatives, and reduces the risk of the design and mitigates the potential for cost overruns and stretchout. Bid to host – needed to develop the US site geology, environmental impact, infrastructure impact, buildings, shafts etc. Test facilities – infrastructure for testing superconducting rf components with beam in Laboratories. The facilities are used to test early industrial prototypes and to develop new cost saving steps in superconducting rf fabrication. Industrialization – funds needed to bring US industry up to capability to produce quality cavities, cryomodules, couplers etc with good efficiency, reproducibility and quality. Detectors – funds for experimental detector R&D and test beams Management – the US portion of ILC management costs during the R&D phase.

Request This request is based on a FY12 start of construction. The spending in FY11 is for the final design preparation and preparation of industry and labs for production. Results from the LHC in FY10 and beyond are required for an international agreement to proceed. FYR&DBid hostTest fac.Industr.DetectorMgmtTotal 2006$29 $1$ $30$3$8$11$7$1$ $45$4$25$22$15$2$ $45$4$15$40$15$4$ $40$4$10$90$15$4$ $40$10$20$120$15$4$209 total R&D phase$229$25$78$283$67$16$698

OMB guidance FYR&DBid hostTest fac.Industr.DetectorMgmtTotal 2006$29 $1$ $30$3$8$11$7$1$ $30$4$14$15$10$2$ $30$4$20$22$10$4$ $30$4$17$75$10$4$ $24$10$20$100$10$4$168 total R&D phase$173$25$79$223$47$16$563

1: R&D 2: Bid to host 3: Test facilities 4: Industrialization 5: Detector 6: Management FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Requested profile

1: R&D 2: Bid to host 3: Test facilities 4: Industrialization 5: Detector 6: Management OMB profile FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Profile by year

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Integrated Profile

The OMB profile for FY07– FY11 gives 80% of the OHEP request. The reductions in the major categories are: R&D: 76% Test facilities: 100% Industrialization: 79% Detector R&D70% Impacts: Comparison of the total and integrated profiles indicates start of construction is delayed 1 year to FY2013. The reduction of R&D allows for fewer cost saving studies, so tends to increase the TPC. It also increases the chance that unforeseen surprises arise during construction causing delay and cost overruns. This in turn increases the risk that the construction phase is stretched beyond the target of 8 years.

Industrialization work needed to demonstrate the cost estimate and ILC feasibility are shifted to FY12. Test facilities are delayed in OMB budget, but nearly completed in FY11 to match the final industrialization funding. The delay in developing US industrial capability jeopardizes the credibility of the US bid to host. Reduced detector R&D will impair demonstration of needed new technology, resulting in less capable detectors and longer operation time to achieve comparable precision measurements.

Backups