ITRP -------------------- Linear Collider Technology Recommendation Barry Barish ILCSC/ICFA Special Meeting IHEP, Beijing 19-Aug-04.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Neutrinos in CHIPP Allan Clark Neuchâtel Meeting June 2004.
Advertisements

Beyond the ALCPG David B. MacFarlane Associate Laboratory Director for PPA.
The Art and Science of Making a Major Technical Decision Choosing the Technology for the International Linear Collider Barry Barish.
News from the ILC Barry Barish Users’ Meeting Fermilab 9-June-05.
Industry and the ILC B Barish 16-Aug May-05ILC Consultations - Washington DC2 Why e + e - Collisions? elementary particles well-defined –energy,
Personal Perspectives on the ITRP Recommendation and on the Next Steps Toward the International Linear Collider Barry Barish PAC Annual Meeting Knoxville,
The Art and Science of Making a Major Technical Decision Choosing the Technology for the International Linear Collider Barry Barish.
The ILC Global Design Effort Barry Barish ILC Industrial Forum Japan 28-June-05.
GDE expectations from the SRF community Barry Barish Cornell SRF Mtg 15-July-05.
The International Linear Collider The Technology Decision and the Path to the Future Barry Barish OSTP 1-Dec-04.
The Birth of the GDE Barry Barish TESLA Collab Mtg 31-March-05.
1 DOE Annual Review -June 15,2005 An Overview of Conventional Facilities (Civil Construction) U. S. ILC Civil studies and cost issues for Snowmass Fred.
International Technology Recommendation Panel ITRP Barry Barish ILCWS 20-April-04.
View from the NSF: Later Years J. Whitmore (EPP-PNA) M. Pripstein (LHC) M. Goldberg, J. Reidy (EPP) LEPP – CLEO CESR Symposium at Cornell, May 31, 2008.
Status of International Linear Collider Global Design Effort Barry Barish (by telecon) HEPAP Washington DC 18-May-05.
ITRP Linear Collider Technology Recommendation Barry Barish HEPAP Meeting Washington DC 23-Sept-04.
Review of last year: Global Design Effort Barry Barish ILC Consultations URA, Washington DC 12-May-05.
Technology Breakthroughs and International Linear Collider Barry Barish AAAS Annual Meeting Washington DC 19-Feb-05.
Summary Remarks By Jonathan Dorfan. We Are Living In a Remarkable Time – We Stand at the Door to a A scientific Revolution  Discoveries of the past five.
Question 27: Outline the key steps for industrialization of machine components and the likely remaining vulnerabilities in achieving them. Achieving industrialization.
International collaboration in high energy physics experiments  All large high energy physics experiments today are strongly international.  A necessary.
Asian View Point as ACFA Chair and Global View Point as New ILCSC Chair Shin-ichi Kurokawa KEK 2 nd ILC Workshop August 23, 2005 Snowmass, Colorado Shin-ichi.
5 th CLIC X-band collaboration meetingWalter Wuensch16 May 2011 CLIC rf structure program.
1 Albrecht Wagner, Snowmass 0805 Albrecht Wagner DESY and Hamburg University Challenges for Realising the ILC.
HEPAP and P5 Report DIET Federation Roundtable JSPS, Washington, DC; April 29, 2015 Andrew J. Lankford HEPAP Chair University of California, Irvine.
Report from ILCSC Shin-ichi Kurokawa KEK ICFA Seminar Daegu, Korea September 29, 2005.
Organizing the Linear Collider. Steps toward the ILC 1989 – 1996: Operation of the world’s only linear collider, the 90 GeV SLC at Stanford Linear Accelerator.
International Technology Recommendation Panel ITRP Barry Barish Linear Collider Funding Agency Meeting London 27-July-04.
Gek 16/6/041 ITRP Comments on Question 19 GEK 9/06/04 19) For the X-band (warm) technology, detail the status of the tests of the full rf delivery system.
Report from ICFA By Jonathan Dorfan, Chair ICFA ICHEP Meeting Beijing, China. August 20, 2004.
Bejing 2004: the Choice of Cold Technology Giorgio Bellettini International Workshop on Thin films Applied to Superconducting RF: Pushing the Limits of.
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.
27-March-10 LCWS10 - Beijing Global Design Effort 1 Barry Barish LCWS10 - Beijing 27-March-10 “Cost Containment” for the TDR.
W. Namkung, 3 nd ILC Workshop, April 1, ILCSC Update 3rd ILC-Korea Workshop April 1, 2005 Kunkook University Seoul, Korea Won Namkung PAL/POSTECH,
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.
24-Aug-11 ILCSC -Mumbai Global Design Effort 1 ILC: Future after 2012 preserving GDE assets post-TDR pre-construction program.
CLIC-ILC WG Oxford, Jan 10 Slide 1 CLIC – ILC General Issues WG, Update BackgroundChargeStatusPlans.
1 Tunnel implementations (laser straight) Central Injector complex.
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR FUTURE ACCELERATORS (ICFA) Roy Rubinstein2nd International Conference on New Frontiers in Physics - 4 September
Report from ILCSC Shin-ichi Kurokawa ILCSC Chair LCWS06 at IISc Bangalore March 9, 2006.
Report from ILCSC Shin-ichi Kurokawa KEK ILCSC Chair GDE meeting at Frascati December 7, 2005.
Accelerators in our Future ILC and Beyond Barry Barish Caltech Neutrino Telescope - Venice 13-March-09.
Status Report on ILC Project in Japan Seiichi SHIMASAKI Director, Office for Particle and Nuclear Research Promotion June 19, 2015.
Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 1 International Linear Collider In August 2004 ICFA announced their technology selection for an ILC: 1.The.
Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 1 ILC R&D Program Dr. David Sutter, Senior Program Manager Office of High Energy Physics Office of Science.
1 GUTs and Branes DESY Theory Workshop 2003 A brief introduction to the future of particle physics at DESY Albrecht Wagner Hamburg, 23 September 2003.
Status of the International Linear Collider and Importance of Industrialization B Barish Fermilab 21-Sept-05.
International Technology Recommendation Panel ITRP Barry Barish ALCPG Workshop Victoria, Canada 30-July-04.
1J. Brau - ILCSC Meeting - Beijing - August 19, 2004 Organizing the Global Experimental Program The ILCSC has asked the Worldwide Study, as its Physics.
Report from Worldwide Study and Charge to the Workshop ACFA04, Taipei 11/8/2004.
The Path to an International Linear Collider Barry Barish TRIUMPF Seminar 15-April-05.
9/17/041 The International Linear Collider Michael Witherell Presentation to The Funding Agencies for a Linear Collider September 17, 2004.
Introduction and Charge Barry Barish GDE Meeting Frascati 7-Dec-05.
Americas comments on Linear Collider organization after 2012 P. Grannis, for LCSGA – Aug. 24, 2011 ILCSC GDE.
CLIC project 2012 The Conceptual Design Report for CLIC completed – presented in SPC, ECFA and numerous meetings and conferences, also providing basis.
24-July-10 ICHEP-10 Paris Global Design Effort 1 Barry Barish Paris ICHEP 24-July-10 ILC Global Design Effort.
Round Table discussion Norbert Holtkamp SNS Oak Ridge National Laboratory August 11, 2004.
Energy or Luminosity 1 . Luminosity and energy can be complementary in precise measurement experiments up to some point but in some very important cases.
Summary: Site Discussion Jonathan Dorfan SLAC Plenary Session, June 6, 2008.
The ILC Outlook Barry Barish HEP 2005 Joint ECFA-EPS Lisbon, Portugal 23-July-05.
ITRP Linear Collider Technology Recommendation George Kalmus ECFA Study Meeting Durham, 1 st Sept 2004.
1 Comments concerning DESY and TESLA Albrecht Wagner Comments for the 5th meeting of the ITRP at Caltech 28 June 2004 DESY and the LC What could DESY contribute.
Nan Phinney SLAC ILC Worldwide Event, Fermilab, June 12, 2013 (Many slides courtesy of Marc Ross, Akira Yamamoto, Barry Barish) ILC Accelerator A 25-year.
17-Sept-04ITRP Technology Recommendation 1 ITRP Linear Collider Technology Recommendation Barry Barish FALC Meeting CERN 17-Sept-04.
ICFA Report to ICHEP 2016 August 2015 to August 2016 J. Mnich (DESY)
Report from ICFA ICFA mission and membership ICFA Panels ICFA and ILC
International Technology Recommendation Panel ITRP
ITRP Linear Collider Technology Recommendation
ITRP Linear Collider Technology Recommendation
Presentation transcript:

ITRP Linear Collider Technology Recommendation Barry Barish ILCSC/ICFA Special Meeting IHEP, Beijing 19-Aug-04

ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation2 Arriving in Korea

19-Aug-04ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation3

19-Aug-04ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation4 Departing from Korea

19-Aug-04ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation5 Why ITRP? Two parallel developments over the past few years (the science & the technology) The precision information from LEP and other data have pointed to a low mass Higgs; Understanding electroweak symmetry breaking, whether supersymmetry or an alternative, will require precision measurements. There are strong arguments for the complementarity between a ~ TeV LC and the LHC science. Designs and technology demonstrations have matured on two technical approaches for an e + e - collider that are well matched to our present understanding of the physics. (We note that a C-band option could have been adequate for a 500 GeV machine, if NLC/GLC and TESLA were not deemed mature designs).

19-Aug-04ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation6 Why Decide Technology Now? We have an embarrassment of riches !!!! –Two alternate designs -- “warm” and “cold” have come to the stage where the show stoppers have been eliminated and the concepts are well understood. –R & D is very expensive (especially D) and to move to the “next step” (being ready to construct such a machine within about 5 years) will require more money and a concentration of resources, organization and a worldwide effort. –It is too expensive and too wasteful to try to do this for both technologies. –A major step toward a decision to construct a new machine will be enabled by uniting behind one technology, followed by a making a final global design based on the recommended technology. –The final construction decision in ~5 years will be able to fully take into account early LHC and other physics developments.

19-Aug-04ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation7 The ITRP Members Jean-Eudes Augustin (FRANCE) Jonathan Bagger (USA) Barry Barish (USA) - Chair Giorgio Bellettini (ITALY) Paul Grannis (USA) Norbert Holtkamp (USA) George Kalmus (UK) Gyung-Su Lee (KOREA) Akira Masaike (JAPAN) Katsunobu Oide (JAPAN) Volker Soergel (GERMANY) Hirotaka Sugawara (JAPAN) David Plane - Scientific Secretary

19-Aug-04ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation8 The Charge to the International Technology Recommendation Panel General Considerations The International Technology Recommendation Panel (the Panel) should recommend a Linear Collider (LC) technology to the International Linear Collider Steering Committee (ILCSC). On the assumption that a linear collider construction commences before 2010 and given the assessment by the 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. Note -- We have interpreted our charge as being to recommend a technology, rather than choose a design

19-Aug-04ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation9 How ITRP has Approached its Task Six Meetings –RAL (Jan 27, ) –DESY (April 5,6 2004) –SLAC (April 26, ) –KEK (May 25, ) –Caltech (June 28,29, ) –Korea (August 11,12,13) Tutorial and Planning Site Visits Deliberations Conclusion

19-Aug-04ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation10 Our Process We studied and evaluated a large amount of available materials We made site visits to DESY, KEK and SLAC to listen to presentations on the competing technologies and to see the test facilities first-hand. We have also heard presentations on both C-band and CLIC technologies We interacted with the community at LC workshops, individually and through various communications we received We developed a set of evaluation criteria (a matrix) and had each proponent answer a related set of questions to facilitate our evaluations. We assigned lots of internal homework to help guide our discussions and evaluations Can be found at:

19-Aug-04ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation11 Evaluating the Criteria Matrix We analyzed the technology choice through studying a matrix having six general categories with specific items under each: –the scope and parameters specified by the ILCSC; –technical issues; –cost issues; –schedule issues; –physics operation issues; –and more general considerations that reflect the impact of the LC on science, technology and society We evaluated each of these categories with the help of answers to our “questions to the proponents,” internal assignments and reviews, plus our own discussions

19-Aug-04ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation12 What did we do? –We each traveled at least 75,000 miles –We read approximately 3000 pages –We had continuing interactions with the community and with each other –We gave up a good part of our “normal day jobs” for about six months –We had almost 100% attendance by all members at all meetings –We worked incredibly hard to “turn over every rock” we could find.

19-Aug-04ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation13 The Recommendation We recommend that the linear collider be based on superconducting rf technology (from Exec. Summary) –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). –We submit the Executive Summary today to ILCSC & ICFA –Details of the assessment will be presented in the body of the ITRP report to be published around mid September –The superconducting technology has features that tipped the balance in its favor. They follow in part from the low rf frequency.

19-Aug-04ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation14 Some of the Features of SC Technology The large cavity aperture and long bunch interval reduce the complexity of operations, reduce the sensitivity to ground motion, permit inter-bunch feedback and may enable increased beam current. The main linac rf systems, the single largest technical cost elements, are of comparatively lower risk. The construction of the superconducting XFEL free electron laser will provide prototypes and test many aspects of the linac. The industrialization of most major components of the linac is underway. The use of superconducting cavities significantly reduces power consumption. Both technologies have wider impact beyond particle physics. The superconducting rf technology has applications in other fields of accelerator-based research, while the X-band rf technology has applications in medicine and other areas.

19-Aug-04ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation15 Remarks and Next Steps CLIC, C-Band, GLC/NLC and TESLA researchers have done a fantastic job bringing these technologies to the point where we can move forward toward making a next generation linear collider a reality. We especially want to note the importance of the the work that has been done on the warm technology. We need to fully capitalize on the experience from SLC, FFTB, ATF and TTF as we move forward. The range of systems from sources to beam delivery in a LC is so broad that an optimized design can only emerge by pooling the expertise of all participants. We endorse the effort now underway to establish an international model for the design, engineering, industrialization and construction of the linear collider. Formulating that model in consultation with governments is an immediate priority. Strong central management will be critical from the beginning.

19-Aug-04ITRP - LC Technology Recommendation16 Remarks and Next Steps The linear collider will be designed to begin operation at 500 GeV, with a capability for an upgrade to about 1 TeV, as the physics requires. This capability is an essential feature of the design. Therefore we urge that part of the global R&D and design effort be focused on increasing the ultimate collider energy to the maximum extent feasible. (from Exec Summary) A TeV scale electron-positron linear collider is an essential part of a grand adventure that will provide new insights into the structure of space, time, matter and energy. We believe that the technology for achieving this goal is now in hand, and that the prospects for its success are extraordinarily bright. (from Exec Summary)