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 Office of Science (Grannis contributions)

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 2 Top physics candidates

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 3 New Higgs boson limits (see next slide). 1 inverse femtobarn accumulated luminosity improves many measurements of top quark, supersymmetry searches, b-quark hadron properties. Tevatron has set new records. Tevatron experiments measure Bs mixing frequency (important because ratio of Bs and Bd mixing removes the major theoretical source of error due to B meson wave function, thus permitting much improved search for new physics. Observation of separated dark and visible matter in distant galaxies (did DOE have enough stake in this to count it?) NUMI experiment surpasses previous K2K measurement of the neutrino mass (squared) difference using accelerator generated neutrinos. Attaining xx GV/m accelerating gradient in plasma and laser driven plasma acceleration. Cosmic ray events in both Atlas and CMS, in preparation for 2007 LHC start. ILC R&D program established under the international GDE team, with approximately equal funding from Asia, Europe and Americas. Candidate top HEP results in FY06:

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 4 Results from FY 2005 The Tevatron has now delivered over 1.7 inverse femtobarns to CDF and DØ. Physics analyses based on up to 1 fb -1 in summer 2006 have now reduced the limit on Standard Model Higgs production to within about a factor of five above the SM. Revised estimates now predict 95% confidence level limits within the mass range 115 to 185 GeV with 8 fb -1 of data, and evidence or discovery in some mass regions. Ratio of current limit to SM cross section

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 5 ILC and SCRF

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 6 The US and its international partners are in the R&D phase to validate the technology, prepare the detailed design and cost of a future ILC project. ILC project approval will require successful completion of this R&D phase, validation of the scientific potential at the LHC, selection of a site and preliminary agreement on the partnership and potential roles. Project start would not occur before FY2012. The R&D phase will deliver much of the societal benefits – development of superconducting rf acceleration technology. Current R&D expenditures are equal in Asia, Europe and Americas (at $60M/yr in US accounting). ILC R&D

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 7 EPP2010 Report “The US should launch a major † program of R&D, design, industrialization, and management and financing studies of the ILC accelerator and detectors.” (as the highest priority future effort. European strategy for particle physics (2006): “It is fundamental* to complement the results of the LHC with measurements at a linear collider.” “The first general meeting of the [Japanese] Federation of Diet members to promote the realisation of ILC … As an important international project in the fundamental sciences, the Federation decided to give strong support toward the realisation of the ILC.” (ILC News, ) * CERN strategy group lexicon: † EPP2010 identified R&D costs as $500M over FY Adding FY2006 actual and FY2012 estimate, detector R&D, SCRF infrastructure raises this to $820M. Worldwide commitment to ILC

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 8 GDE FY2007 plans Complete Reference Design, cost estimate. Aim for international review under FALC oversight (Lehman from US). R&D on most critical baseline elements and those alternates holding promise for cost saving or improvement in reliability. Restructure the GDE to begin the Technical (engineering) Design activities. This will require more engineering worldwide, and more authority for GDE to direct activities and deploy funds. Develop world R&D phase plan. At present 4 task forces (cavities and cryomodule, string tests, damping rings, final focus/beam delivery) are established to define the goals, timelines, allocation of effort around the world. Expect first reports around end 2006, with further elaboration of the R&D plan in 2007.

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 9 Past investment by HEP in SCRF has led to current facilities CEBAF and SNS. The future of light sources (for material science, environmental studies, structural biology), energy recovery linacs, rare isotope accelerators, heavy ion research, and intense neutrino beams depends on expanding the capability of SCRF. Shorter high gradient linacs should provide spin-offs for medical and industrial applications (e.g. neutron therapy) In the near term high gradient SCRF relies on the ILC R&D program. The chief broader benefit of the ILC R&D program is acquisition of the SCRF technology. HEP has enabled past advances in other fields: the SPPS and LCLS at SLAC for short time resolution imaging, structural biology, plasma studies, chemical kinetics are dependent on the investment and experience at the SLAC linac. Superconducting rf acceleration – the key to future accelerators

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 10 DOE/OHEP has recognized the generic importance of SCRF R&D and infrastructure and will define a budget category for it in FY Budget $23M (if FY2007 appropriation is at $60M). The FY2008 over target request of $47M for SCRF infrastructure and industrial partnership is essential for advancing ILC R&D, and for establishing the basis for future SC facilities. Without such infrastructure and industrial capability, the advanced DOE/SC accelerator facilities will not be possible. Developing high yield, cost-effective and reproducible SC cavities is the highest priority for the ILC R&D program worldwide. Superconducting rf acceleration – the key to future accelerators

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 11 US lags Europe and Japan in developing superconducting rf (SCRF) technology. With ~20,000 SCRF cavities in ILC, it is probable that all three regions must contribute. Hosting ILC requires SCRF industrial and laboratory test capability in the US. DESY Tesla Test Facility: Cost was >$150M (~FY1995), SWF not included. Where we are now Superconducting rf acceleration – the key to future accelerators Current estimate for 6 year cost of SCRF infrastructure and industrial procurement of cavities and cryomodules is $452M

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 12 SC RF Effort Coordinating role at Fermilab, with infrastructure development for cavity, cryomodule and string tests. ANL: High volume facility for surface preparation using buffered chemical polishing and electropolishing. TJNAF: Development of new materials and maintain modest volume capability for cavity fabrication and electropolishing. LANL: test stand for single cavities SLAC/LLNL: develop high power rf power systems Universities* (Cornell, Michigan State, William&Mary, Old Dominion, Wisconsin, Northwestern): modest surface preparation facilities, develop new electropolishing techniques, new cavity fabrication techniques, materials research. * DOE and NSF support

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 13 US FY2007 plans (assuming $60M)  ~$120M in work package requests for R&D and engineering design from labs and universities, prioritized to fit $60M budget. * Generic R&D examples: high availability power supplies, beam simulations, laser development, high power rf sources, SCRF materials research ….  Top R&D priority is getting reliable 35 MV/m cavities and infrastructure needed to refine process and test prototypes.  By end 2006, complete a 3 year R&D plan for US R&D: goals, resource needs, milestones, deliverables. (Must be iterated with GDE guidance on worldwide plans)  Detector R&D multiyear plan with goals, milestones, resource needs. CategoryBudget% request ILC specific R&D$6.957% Generic* R&D$4.432% SCRF infrastructure/industry$23.242% Engineering design$9.459% Management$4.674% Detector$5.035% Reserve$6.5

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 14 Deployment of FY2007 Labs effort FNAL (47%): SCRF cavity, cryomodule; SCRF test infrastructure; beam optics; civil construction; outreach; magnet design. SLAC (37%): rf power sources and tests; rf distribution; high availabilty power supplies; controls; electron/positron sources; damping ring optics; bunch compressor; beam alignment; wakefield studies; magnet design; electron cloud tests; beam instrumentation. ANL (5%): damping ring design; cavity surface treatment. BNL (3%): final focus magnets. LBNL (3%): damping ring design; positron source; vacuum engineering. LLNL (3%): rf couplers; rf pulse power systems; positron target; beam position monitor. TJNAF (1%): cavity surface treatment, large grain Nb cavity development. LANL (1%): cavity testing.

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 15 FY2008 plans ($75M ILC + $47M SCRF) 1.ILC R&D: Prototype & tests of key components – undulator for photons and positron source target, damping ring collective effects, final focus magnets and optics design, bunch compressor beam elements, ILC cryomodule fabrication, … (~$20M) 2.Generic R&D also needed for ILC: test high efficiency dc to pulse power modulators, develop and test high efficiency klystrons; test new cost reducing rf power components; test high availabilty power supplies, prototype large grain niobium cavities, … (~$17M) 3.Engineering design (largely manpower) (~$12M) Sum of ILC R&D and design (items 1 -3) : $49M

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 16 FY2008 plans ($75M ILC + $47M SCRF) 4.Detector R&D: prototype energy flow calorimeters and test beam studies, development of pixel detector electronics with analog energy/time information, develop compact silicon sensors for muon/tracking signal collection, prototype data concentrators and signal multiplexing, integrated detector design, … ($20M). [This would raise the US detector R&D effort to that in Europe.] 5.Site evaluation: characterization of geological features of candidate sites, preliminary environmental assessment, impact of local land use, … ($4M) 6.Management: GDE common fund, salaries of top management; US communicator and public outreach … ($2M)

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 17 FY2008 plans ($75M ILC + $47M SCRF) 7.SCRF infrastructure: facilities for electropolishing, chemical polishing of Nb surfaces, electron beam welding stations, horizontal test stands for fully dressed cavities for high power tests (with cryogenic, rf, intrumentation infrastructure), cryomodule test stand (1 cryomodule = 8 cavities), facilities for string tests of rf units with beam (1 rf unit = 3 cryomodules, one quadrupole, powered by one klystron), … ($25M) 8.Industrial SCRF procurements: SCRF cavities for testing process steps & installation in test cryomodules, rf couplers, rf power components (klystrons, modulators, distribution), cryomodules, … ($22M) Total SCRF infrastructure and R&D (items 7,8) ($47M) With over target budget for SCRF infrastructure and ILC R&D, will be able to prepare cryomodule and string tests during FY 2008 – 2010, on timeline to match efforts in Europe and Japan and enable consideration of ILC project.

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 18 Out year projections The R&D phase of ILC R&D should follow a profile similar to that of a construction project. The synergy with SCRF activity is important to ILC as well as serving the broader DOE SC program. EPP2010 estimate (adding infrastructure, detector R&D not included) is a five-year integral of $820M. Without the SCRF effort the profile fails to meet the need to validate the ILC design or put the US in a position to make a credible bid to host.

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 19 $50M $100M $150M $200M $250M ILC R&D SCRF Detectors Out year projections

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 20 FALC = Funding Agencies Linear Collider (US DOE, US NSF, Canada, Germany, France, UK, Italy, CERN (smaller EU nations), Japan, S. Korea (India, China, Russia to be added?) Have established small common fund for GDE. International review of Reference Design cost estimate (2007) Document technological benefits of ILC for governments/industry Coordinate planning of large world projects (ILC, LHC upgrade, intense sources, CLIC R&D) TO DO: Establish procedure and time table for site proposals, evaluations (needed to complete TDR). Formalize oversight and organization structure of GDE International activities

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 21 International discussions China: Staffin/Minister of Science and Technology in June 2006: “we will join the ILC”; discussing R&D involvement at $10M level India: Staffin/Minister of Science and Technology in October 2006: Indian partnership with US in SCRF at $10M level? So. Korea: first ILC specific funds allocated in 2006 Japan: Formation of Federation of Diet members for realizing the ILC (Sugawara), with statement of intent to propose ILC in Japan. Priority of JPARC had prevented official discussion of ILC in Japan; now MEXT expresses its desire to pursue ILC. First infusion of significant funds for detector R&D (JSPS). Russia: Funding constraints, difficulty in securing the Russian contribution to LHC hinders formal ILC role, but the accelerator expertise helps ILC R&D. Canada: minimal involvement, but growing.

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 22 International discussions Europe: Situation in Europe is complex. (Orbach visit in August 2006.) Top priority is LHC, with LHC upgrade prominent in many nations priorities. CERN Council Strategy Group rated ILC as “fundamental”. Council is emerging as primary European strategic planning group. CERN continues to pursue CLIC R&D as potential future project; expert evaluation sees CLIC as being beyond the horizon of next decade. Germany is leading the XFEL construction project. France is most aligned to CERN future plans. UK is contributing large funding to ILC, with focus on beam delivery system, detector R&D. Tension between CERN and US over operating costs, LHC upgrades will tend to limit European funding for ILC in US.

Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 23 Estimated Time Line Ref Design, cost, review Engineering design FALC proposal for site selection process Interim R&D oversight organization for GDE Identification of site (or 2?) Final site specific TDR ILC organization draft plan Preconstruction planning Formal negotiation of ILC lab agreements Project start RDR cost LHC results GDE FALC Govts offramps Key