ＩＬＣＳＣ and ALCSC 16 December December 2003 TIFR Mumbai INDIA Sachio Komamiya Sachio Komamiya Graduate School of Science, University of Tokyo

One Year History of ILCSC Activities 2002 July 30 (Amsterdam) ILCSC was established by ICFA. Chair: Hirotaka Sugawara Mandate was decided by telephone conferences in spring The ILCSC will, 1.Engage in outreach, explain the intrinsic scientific and technological importance of the project to the scientific community at large, to industry, to government officials, and politicians and to the general public. 2. Based upon the extensive work already done in the three regions, engage in defining the scientific roadmap, the scope and primary parameters of machine and detector. It is particularly important that the initial energy, the initial operations scenario and the goals for upgradability be properly assessed.

3. Monitor the machine R&D activities and make recommendations on the coordination and sharing of R&D tasks as appropriate. Although the accelerator technology choice may well be determined by the host country, the ILCSC should help facilitate this choice to the largest degree possible. 4. Identify models of the organizational structure, based on the international partnerships, adequate for constructing the LC facility. In addition, the ILCSC should make recommendations regarding the role of the host country in the construction and operation of the facility. 5. Carry out such tasks as may be approved or directed by ICFA.

Members of the ILCSC Categories Names Directors KEK Y. Totsuka Large labs SLAC J. Dorfan Large labs SLAC J. Dorfan DESY A. Wagner DESY A. Wagner Fermilab M. Withrell Fermilab M. Withrell RLCSC chairs Asian W. Namkung (RLCSG European B. Foster N.American (J. Dorfan) N.American (J. Dorfan) Other Directors China H.S.Chen Russia A.Skrinsky Russia A.Skrinsky ICFA outside LC regions C. Garcia Canal Community Asia S. Komamiya representatives Europe D. Miller N.America P.Grannnis N.America P.Grannnis Chair person of the ILCSC M.Tigner

2002 October （ CERN ICFA Seminar) Sugawara and Yamada proposed the pre-GLCC and GLCC. Sugawara and Yamada proposed the pre-GLCC and GLCC. 2nd ILCSC 2nd ILCSC The Idea of Wise Persons Committee to recommend the technology was proposed by Tigner. The Idea of Wise Persons Committee to recommend the technology was proposed by Tigner February 13 (Tsukuba) 3rd ILCSC 3rd ILCSC ACFA (W.Namkung) reported the Roadmap Report ACFA (W.Namkung) reported the Roadmap Report It was decided that the Pre-GLCC to be discussed in the next ILCSC It was decided that the Pre-GLCC to be discussed in the next ILCSC 2003 Spring Parameter subcommittee was formed. Parameter subcommittee was formed. S.Komamiya D.Son (Asia) S.Komamiya D.Son (Asia) R.Heuer (chair), F.Richard (Europe) R.Heuer (chair), F.Richard (Europe) P.Grannis, M.Orglia (N.America) P.Grannis, M.Orglia (N.America) Accelerator subcommittee was formed Accelerator subcommittee was formed G.Loew (chair) G.Loew (chair) K.Yokoya, M.Yoshioka, N.Toge, J.Urakawa (Asia) K.Yokoya, M.Yoshioka, N.Toge, J.Urakawa (Asia) G.Guignard, G.Geschonke, R.Brinkmann, O.Napoly (Europe) G.Guignard, G.Geschonke, R.Brinkmann, O.Napoly (Europe) G.Dugan, T.Raubenheimer, N.Solyak, A.Wolski (N.America) G.Dugan, T.Raubenheimer, N.Solyak, A.Wolski (N.America)

2003 August 14 ４ th ILCSC (Fermilab Lepton Photon) ILCSC decided that “Wise Persons Committee” will recommend LC Technology (warm/cold). ILCSC decided that “Wise Persons Committee” will recommend LC Technology (warm/cold) September Discuss about overall parameters of the Discuss about overall parameters of the machine by “Parameter subcommittee” of ILCSC machine by “Parameter subcommittee” of ILCSC Discuss about the status of R&D and cost issues Discuss about the status of R&D and cost issues towards the technology choice by “Accelerator towards the technology choice by “Accelerator subcommittee” of ILCSC subcommittee” of ILCSC Discuss about Pre-Global Llinear Collider Center Discuss about Pre-Global Llinear Collider Center (Global Design Organization) (Global Design Organization)

2003 November 19 (Paris) ５ th ILCSC Nomination of the International Technical Recommendation Panel (ITRP) members Nomination of the International Technical Recommendation Panel (ITRP) members (Wise Persons Committee): 4 X 3 =12 (Wise Persons Committee): 4 X 3 =12 G.-S.Lee, A.Masaike, K.Oide, H.Sugawara (Asia) G.-S.Lee, A.Masaike, K.Oide, H.Sugawara (Asia) J.-E.Augustin, G.Bellettini, G.Kalmus, V.Soergel (Europe) J.-E.Augustin, G.Bellettini, G.Kalmus, V.Soergel (Europe) J.Bagger, B.Barish, P.Grannis, N.Holtkamp (N.America) J.Bagger, B.Barish, P.Grannis, N.Holtkamp (N.America) Charge of the ITRP The ITRP should recommend a LC technology to the ILCSC. The ITRP should recommend a LC technology to the ILCSC. On the assumption that a Linear Collider commences before 2010 and given assessment by ITRC that both TESLA and JLC-X/NLC have rather mature conceptual designs, the choice should be between these two designs. If necessary, a solution incorporating C-band technology should be evaluated. On the assumption that a Linear Collider commences before 2010 and given assessment by ITRC that both TESLA and JLC-X/NLC have rather mature conceptual designs, the choice should be between these two designs. If necessary, a solution incorporating C-band technology should be evaluated.

……….. ……….. To reach its recommendation the Panel will hear from the design proponents addressing the above issue. To reach its recommendation the Panel will hear from the design proponents addressing the above issue. ………. ………. The panel will need to know if there is a significant cost difference between the two designs being examined for completing the 500 GeV project and possibly any upgrade set forth in the ILC Parameters Document. ………. ………. The panel is urged to report its recommendation as soon as possible, with a firm deadline by the end of ……….. ……….. The Accelerator Sub-committee of the ILCSC is prepared to give an extensive tutorial on the LC. This would inform the Panel about LC issues and acquaint it with the experts from whom they can solicit advice. ………… ………… It is expected that the presentation sessions will be open to the scientific and funding agency communities.

We hope that there will be very serious and positive discussions in the ITRP. Any new results after the ILCTRC-II must be incorporated. (1) Costing of the project (1) Costing of the project The cost issues were not discussed at the ILCTRC-II (Greg Loew) Committee. The cost issues were not discussed at the ILCTRC-II (Greg Loew) Committee. The cost must be evaluated in the same basis. The cost must be evaluated in the same basis. (2) Discerning judgement on Reliability, Stability, Maintainability, (2) Discerning judgement on Reliability, Stability, Maintainability, and Availability of the accelerator system must be needed. and Availability of the accelerator system must be needed. (3) Since the technology choice couples to many other issues, (3) Since the technology choice couples to many other issues, discussions on broad issues are expected in the panel. discussions on broad issues are expected in the panel. For example, the roles of the host and non-host regions/countries must be considered. For example, the roles of the host and non-host regions/countries must be considered. The accelerator subcommittee of ILCSC must supply all the available information to ITRP. available information to ITRP.

After the technology Choice We need a realistic international organization to proceed the international LC project. International share of the accelerator R&D without a hard commitment of the governments. The KEK Globalization Committee had considered a realistic way towards the construction of the international LC. The discussion at ILCSC shows essentially the same direction as the Globalization Committee. Only the difference is that the technology choice comes earlier than forming the pre- GLCC (Pre-Global Design Organization).

Organization (in the GLC Project Report ） Globalization Committee was formed at KEK in July 2001 Two extreme cases, (A) extension of existing laboratory and (B) creation of a new international laboratory based on treaties, and in between the two cases were discussed in the committee. (B) is the preferred way. Financial stability and security, sharing of cost, human resources and responsibilities, desired openness for the scientific opportunity. For Japan, hosting such laboratory would be very attractive and in accordance with its national plan for science and technology (S&T basic low, S&T basic plan).

Pre-GLCC A realistic way towards the GLCC (Global Linear Collider Center). Similar to the existing collaborations for high energy physics experiments. The foundation is based on MoU among laboratories and universities. Building up the co-working spirit by actual R&D works and designing works. Multi-international centers (like ITER) might be a realistic way to start with. Can be created now ! Now GLCC

ILCSC （４ｔｈ ILCSC) ILCSC （４ｔｈ ILCSC) Task force of the (Pre-) Global Design Organization Deliver a report to 6th ILCSC (February) Meeting Deliver a report to 6th ILCSC (February) Meeting W.Namkung, Y.Totsuka, B.Foster, A.Wagner, J.Dorfan, S.Ozaki(chair) W.Namkung, Y.Totsuka, B.Foster, A.Wagner, J.Dorfan, S.Ozaki(chair) Discuss how to establish the Pre-Global Design Organization after the technology choice. Discuss how to establish the Pre-Global Design Organization after the technology choice. Charge (CDR,TDR,R&D), Organization (head quarter, regional centers, personnel), ………. Charge (CDR,TDR,R&D), Organization (head quarter, regional centers, personnel), ………. Currently under-discussions Currently under-discussions Sub-group to understand costing issues for the Pre-GDO Sub-group to understand costing issues for the Pre-GDO K.Yokoya, J.Urakawa (KEK), N.Walker, F.Peters (DESY), K.Yokoya, J.Urakawa (KEK), N.Walker, F.Peters (DESY), D.Burke, T.Lavine (SLAC), S.Ozaki (chair) D.Burke, T.Lavine (SLAC), S.Ozaki (chair) R&D costing definitions are very different from each country and region. The approval processes of the R&D project and the main project in each country/region must be understood. R&D costing definitions are very different from each country and region. The approval processes of the R&D project and the main project in each country/region must be understood.

Country-by country difference of the system. Definition of the fiscal year. Definition of the fiscal year. Definition of the step of the project. Definition of the step of the project. Distance between the scientists and the Distance between the scientists and the financial agencies. financial agencies. Accounting method of the budget. Accounting method of the budget. I guess most of these problems are solvable. In ITER these problems are more or less solved.

Current Activities of ILCSC Task force (6) Pre-GDO Organization World-wide study of Physics and Detector at Future Linear e+e- Collider Organizing Committee (18) ITRP (12) Accelerator Subcommittee (13) Parameter Subcommittee (6) Outreach Subcommittee Sub-group (7) Pre-GDO R&D costing ILCSC (13) ICFA (16)

A Possible Scenario 2004 January ITRP will start 2004 end ITPR is planning to decide the technology technology (Even superconducting technology has (Even superconducting technology has been selected KEK has key technology been selected KEK has key technology to host the project.) to host the project.) Pre-Global Linear Collider Center (Pre-Global Design Organization) (Pre-Global Design Organization) CDR + TDR (based on R&D) CDR + TDR (based on R&D) 2009 ? Governmental discussions (organization, cost sharing, site) (organization, cost sharing, site) 2009 ?? Start construction

We need to learn from ITER Advantages and disadvantages of the each stage of organization of ITER must be carefully investigated. As far as the structure of the international organization is concerned, we can learn from CERN and ITER. The international project must be stable, otherwise it will cause a fatal damage to the scientific community. We must learn from the case of the SSC project. It is very dangerous if the major decisions are given mainly by the politics. The decisions may well be connected to, for example, national defense policies.

The Global LC is a major challenge of the HEP society. In the past no one wants to listen to ICFA and many accelerators are duplicated in the same energy regions. However It was healthy, since the competition stimulates the scientific activities. SPEAR DORIS SPEAR DORIS PETRA PEP PETRA PEP SppS TEVATRON SppS TEVATRON SLC LEP SLC LEP SSC LHC SSC LHC KEKB PEPII etc KEKB PEPII etc Now LC must be a global project, since no single region can pay for the construction budget. To make this global system to work, we need some mechanism which avoid to have obvious losers in the global LC community. Although work-sharing and the regional balance are very important, the host must have heavy responsibilities Including the budget. The Global Linear Collider is not the last machine of the international HEP society.

Major ACFA Activities on LC 2003 February 12 ACFA Linear Collider Symposium ACFA Linear Collider Symposium The GLC (JLC) Project Report was open to the public. The GLC (JLC) Project Report was open to the public April ACFA LC Seminar was held in CAT Inodor, India. ACFA LC Seminar was held in CAT Inodor, India. ACFA selected GLC for the new project name. ACFA selected GLC for the new project name. JLC ⇒ GLC JLC ⇒ GLC 2003 October The 8 th ACFA Plenary meeting was held in National Synchrotron Radiation Researh Center, Hsinchu Taiwan. The 8 th ACFA Plenary meeting was held in National Synchrotron Radiation Researh Center, Hsinchu Taiwan. (1) With an unanimous vote ACFA proposed KEK to be the Head-quarter of the (Pre-) GDO of the International LC Project. (1) With an unanimous vote ACFA proposed KEK to be the Head-quarter of the (Pre-) GDO of the International LC Project. (2) Kurokawa is planning to stregthen the Asia wide collaboration (2) Kurokawa is planning to stregthen the Asia wide collaboration by using the multi-lateral traveling budget of JSPS. by using the multi-lateral traveling budget of JSPS.

ALCSC: Mandate The ALCSC will: - Promote Global Linear Collider Project as an international project based on the GLC Project Report, and make every effort to host the project. - Monitor and direct the international LC accelerator R&D and physics and detector studies in Asia. - Make an effort to form an international team (pre-GLCC) based on the bottom up procedure with possible international partners before forming the projec based on the governmental approvals. - Communicate with LCSC (LCSG) of other regions and as well as with ILCSC.

Organization of ALCSC Physics and Dectector WG Outreach WG Executive Board Australia S.N.Tovey China H.S. Chen India D.D.Bhawalkar KEK Y.Totsuka Japan S.Komamiya Korea J.S.Kang Taiwan W.S.Hou Other V.V. Thuan Accelerator WG ACFA D.D.Bhawalkar

LC Executive Committee of KEK 2003 April Chair: Hirotaka Sugawara ⇒ Yoji Totsuka Members: Administration from KEK Accelerator Physicists Accelerator Physicists Experimental Physicists Experimental Physicists (inside and outside of KEK) (inside and outside of KEK) Since April 2001, 24 meetings are held. Report LC R&D results, Report LC R&D results, Discuss international LC issues connected to GLC. Discuss international LC issues connected to GLC. Time to time extended meetings with Non-Japanese ACFA members.

LC Forum of Japan Japanese Industries are very interested in GLC Japanese Industries are very interested in GLC To promote GLC with a collaboration of Industries with Reserach Institues, Universities 、 we set up a forum Reserach Institues, Universities 、 we set up a forum under JHEPC October under JHEPC October Chair: Ozaki (Techno-economy Lab. Thinktank) More than 50 major companies and >100 academic researchers are participated in the forum. researchers are participated in the forum. Three working groups (technology, infrastructure and International affairs) are actively working. International affairs) are actively working. They send delegations to India, CERN and DESY.

Summary The international Linear Collider Steering Committee is moving rather fast. The international Linear Collider Steering Committee is moving rather fast. In the current plan, in the end of 2004 the technology will be recommended by the International Technology Recommendation Panel (ITRP). The (pre-)Global Design Organization will be formed. ACFA recommended that KEK to be the Head-quarter of (pre-)GDO. of (pre-)GDO. The base of the global collaboration is faithfulness.