ECFA recommendations (September 2001:) MUTAC ( 14-15 jan 2003)(US) The committee remains convinced that this experiment, which is absolutely required to validate the concept of ionization cooling, and the R&D leading to it should be the highest priority of the muon collaboration. Planning and design for the experiment have advanced dramatically(…) EMCOG: (6 feb 2003) (Europe) (…)EMCOG was impressed by the quality of the experiment, which has been well studied, is well organized and well structured. The issue of ionization cooling is critical and this justifies the important effort that the experiment represents. EMCOG recommends very strongly a timely realization of MICE. MUTAC: Muon Technical Advisory Committee (Helen Edwards, et al) (US) EMCOG: European Muon Coordination and Oversight Group (C. Wyss et al)

2010

Recommendations december 2004 J. Feltesse CERN should make every reasonable effort to deliver the approved p.o.t. to CNGS. Future neutrino facilities offer great promise for fundamental discoveries. CERN should join the world effort in developing technologies for new facilities : Beta beams, Neutrino Factory…wherever they are sited. Focus now on enabling CERN to do the best choice by 2010 on future physics programme. Explore further synergies with EURISOL december 2004 J. Feltesse

SUPERBEAM and NEUTRINO FACTORY DS Edgecock FP6 Design Study SUPERBEAM and NEUTRINO FACTORY DS WP Title Responsible Summary 1 Management Edgecock Proton Driver Garoby Insufficient manpower 2 Targetry Bennett R&D on targets to prove viability; engineering of target station 3 Collection Campagne Viability of horn 4 MICE Blondel R&D on critical components 5 FFAGs Meot R&D on SC dipoles 6 Machine Haseroth Cost and performance optimised Neutrino Factory Design 7 Physics and detectors Mezzetto Strolin Define parameters for accelerator & detector, inc. detector cost Leading House = RAL ; minor CERN involvement

What did we achieve? from to Design Study A European Integrated Infrastructure Initiative for Long Baseline Neutrino Oscillation Physics What did we achieve?

X X Proposed structure Access to Networking Research Joint Infrastructures TA Networking activities (NA) Joint research activities JRA The 3 activities are mandatory for an I3 We were advised to submit a modest proposal Between 5-7 M€ total. The duration of projects should be 3 years. The focus should be BEAM AND EXPERIMENTS

NA1. project management OK

Joint Research Activities: JRA1: target and collection systems Lettry and Efthymiopoulos (CERN) proposed a nice set of activities (Tests of solid and liquid targets, Horn PS, TTA2?) collaboration with Polish group. (but: RAL, PSI?) JRA2: Muon beam at RAL Bradshaw (RAL) proposed a MICE based activity (spectrometer solenoid, detectors, manpower, international collab.) OK

MUST CONTINUE and EXPAND JRA3 Detector development for neutrino experiments Paolo Strolin We have identified four main fields of research on detectors that can be developed and improved in the future. 1. Large area or high sensitivity economical photon detectors 2. Large volume liquid argon detector possibly in magnetic field 3. Large magnetic detectors 4. Emulsion detectors Photo-detectors: proposal by Saclay (Mosca et al) issue raised: EU collaborators? Inclusion of Photonis, a private company. Magnetic detectors Ragazzi (Milano ex monolith) proposed to supervise design a 40kton mag detector. Liquid Argon. Obviously. But deadline was too close (A. Rubbia ETHZ) Activity on emlsions or similar was not identified MUST CONTINUE and EXPAND

group was identified but did not materialize. JRA4: Tools for analysis of neutrino oscillation experiments. group was identified but did not materialize. Steve King Eligio Lisi, Mezzetto, Donini, Rigolin, Hernandez, Gomez-Cadenas… Migliozzi, Lindner

J. Wood’s call offers a clear first goal: Next steps: J. Wood’s call offers a clear first goal: understand -- required DesingStudy structures is an associated I3 important? Is it CARE? -- the needed JRA’s -- preliminary studies -- workshops or meetings to be organized to gather the community. -- can build on n3 as seeds -- must build on BENE to avoid unnecessary accumulation of meetings -- need further seeds as n3 did not include such items as engineering, proton driver, acceleration, storage ring

start from where we are and move forward. Possibilities Wait until FP7: call 2006, 2007, …….. Submit Neutrino Factory I3: - call 4th November - 140MEUR - RA, DP: no chance for accelerator R&D proposal Do what we can with individual WPs: - Neutrino detector I3 - Non-scaling FFAG PoP NEST - Others? but do not wait… start from where we are and move forward.

Towards a Neutrino Factory scoping study The original plan from EMCOG was that RAL would be the mother house of the superbeam/NF DS. Ken Long received a letter from John wood to this effect. 17/01/2019

Background: Intellectual: Social: Political: Funding: Feasibility studies: US: I, II, Ia EU: CERN ‘yellow report’ JP: Design report Need inter-regional cooperation for ‘Study III’ Recognised at NuFct03 Social: Essential to develop collaboration Neutrino source for precision measurements of neutrino properties necessarily requires an international collaboration Political: European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructure: Preparing roadmap for major research infrastructure Funding: FP7: Design Study call, expected autumn 2006 UK funding cycle

Scoping study: request for proposal

Scoping study: request for proposal Empowering invitation: Recognition of crucial nature of international partnership Framework for discussion leading to: Source(s) required for optimal precision exploration of neutrino properties Consensus on options to be taken forward; Identification of critical R&D items (h/w and concept development); Definition of interfaces, performance goals etc. that can be studied in the next conceptual design phase; Establishment of collaboration for the next phase.

Discussion: Just at the start; request only ‘a week old’ Take forward on afternoon of Thursday 17Mar05 Proposed timescale (working backwards): Hand in proposal: 27May05 Full draft of proposal: 13May05 Meeting to discuss/agree content: 08-08May05 RAL An exciting opportunity! (And much work to do)

-- Engelen agreed with my strong feeling that CERN should be associated with the upcoming Neutrino Factory design study and that the 'TESLA' story (a European lab designing an accelerator without CERN support or even with CERN pushing a competing solution) should not repeat itself. -- His opinion from discussing e.g. with the previous SPC chair (Joel Feltesse) is that Europe, countrary to Japan and apparently contrary to the US does not have a clear long term strategy for neutrino physics. Therefore he would like to suggest an independent committee to evaluate the situation and issue recommandations. -- His suggestion would be that such a committee could be generated in the framework of the SPC. The aim could be to make a clear recommandation for a choice between future options, i.e. beta-beam/superbeam and neutrino factory options or to define an ordering between them. (see discussion with Ken Peach tomorrow)