1. Tor Raubenheimer SLAC ILC Accelerator Program DOE HEP Program Review June 14 th, 2005

2. Outline and Breakouts Outline –Program overview –CDR Efforts –L-band RF development Breakouts –L-band RF R&D Adolphsen –e+/e- Source development & E-166Sheppard –Beam Delivery System & ATF-2 & ESASeryi –Accelerator operationsTenenbaum –Instrumentation Development Ross –ILC Civil studies & cost issues for Snowmass Asiri

3. SLAC ILC Program SLAC ILC Department is focused on the ILC machine design –Presently the largest group focused on the ILC accelerator design –More than 70% of the ILC is ‘warm’ technology that we know well Funding is 16.2 M$ from DOE plus ~0.5 M$ from US-Japan –2 M$ of the DOE funding is used to support the ILC programs at LBNL, LLNL, and BNL SLAC group has roughly 40 people in ILC Department plus another 40~50 people matrixed across the lab –Nominal program is roughly 65 FTEs –Presently under-running due to redirection from the NLC program, personnel losses to LCLS, and the accident recovery at SLAC but expect to catch up during summer

4. SLAC ILC and the GDE Barry Barish has been chosen to lead the GDE and Gerry Dugan is the American Regional Director –GDE organization not yet completely clear –Working with Barry and Gerry to formulate FY06 program Near term plans from the GDE: –Develop a baseline design in a ‘CDR’ with regional sites by the end of CY06 –Establish an R&D program focused on improvements (cost and performance) to the baseline design –Use 2 nd ILC Workshop at Snowmass to begin definition of baseline Barry: “the SLAC group is essential to develop the CDR” –Develop accelerator design with other international groups –Work with Fermilab FESS group on site development in the US

5. ILC Working Groups and Snowmass Goal for 2 nd ILC Workshop at Snowmass: –Start making choices for Baseline Configuration Document and determine remaining work to decide on BCD by 12/05 –Develop focused R&D program for cost reduction and/or improved performance –Develop site models for three different regions Informal ILC organization will be used for Snowmass –6 subarea Working Groups with three conveners apiece –Four of the 6 US region co-conveners are from SLAC ILC –Possibly 5 more ‘global’ working groups with possible SLAC leaders –Organization is bottoms-up with coordination provided by Nick Walker, Kaoru Yokoya, and myself working with the WG conveners SLAC ILC group is working on documentation for the meeting that will compare options for the BCD

6. SLAC FY05 ILC Program NLC group was redirected towards ILC –Developed a program aimed at the topics identified in the 2003 Technical Review Committee report and at the 1 st ILC Workshop Description at: http://www- project.slac.stanford.edu/ilc/slacprogram.htmlhttp://www- project.slac.stanford.edu/ilc/slacprogram.html –The 2003 TRC identified 1 ‘R1’ and 15 ‘R2’ R&D items DESY, Fermilab, and KEK are focused on the outstanding R1 and the R2 on the linac sub-unit test SLAC is focused on the other 14 of the 15 R2 items and is working with US labs, KEK, UK groups, and DESY –SLAC is using technical expertise to study paths for cost reduction High power rf (klystrons, couplers, circulators, and rf distribution) and solid state modulators

7. SLAC FY06 ILC Program Program for FY06 has two main elements –Development of the ILC CDR Overall design: Beam parameters, Optics, Emittance preservation, Stability/alignment, Instrumentation, Availability, MPS, and Operational issues Electron & Positron sources and Damping rings Linac design and wakefields/cavity optimization Beam Delivery System and Interaction Region Conventional construction implications and site development –Continuing R&D on linac rf technology Klystrons, modulators, rf distribution, and couplers Not (much) SC Cavity fabrication –Plan is posted on SLAC ILC website: http://www- project.slac.stanford.edu/ilc/slacprogram.html http://www- project.slac.stanford.edu/ilc/slacprogram.html

8. Experimental Basis for the ILC Design Linac rf system BDS & IR Damping Rings e+ / e- Sources Bunch Compression SLC, E-158 SLC and (ATF2 in the future) SLC, FFTB, ASSET, E-158 ATF, 3 rd Gen Light Sources, SLC  Preservation TESLA Test Facility (SMTF & STF in the future) SLC and FEL’s

9. ILC System Design and Operational Issues Extensive simulation of sub-systems –Balance emittance budgets and specify system tolerances  impact on overall beam parameters Study operational issues –Design for availability and work on detailed availability models  big impact on layouts and configuration but hard to quantify –Develop beam tuning algorithms  specify beam instrumentation requirements and layout –Consider high-level controls software requirements (applications) for beam control  specify control system requirements Develop Machine Protection Scenarios –Specify active and sacrificial protection systems –Specify beam tuning stations

10. Electron and Positron Sources Electron source –Continuing photocathode development –Creating space to begin laser and gun development –Need to start design simulations Positron source (program with LLNL) –Studying target design for undulator, conventional, and Compton sources Radiation damage Thermal shock / beam damage Engineering issues (high rotation speed, remote handling) –Capture and optics studies –Normal conducting capture structure design and fabrication –Complete E-166 polarized positron production (summer 2005)

11. Damping Rings Damping ring design (program with LBNL) –Optics and tuning studies and collective effects –Bunch compressor design SEY studies for electron cloud (program with LBNL) –Laboratory measurements in PEL –Building three chambers for PEP-II installation to verify solutions ATF at KEK –Instrumentation (NanoBPM, laser wires, optical anchor) –Beam studies (ORM, BBA, FBII, Wiggler) –ATF Kicker replacement –ATF stripline kicker development –FONT/Feather 3ns kicker from LLNL/SLAC

12. Damping Ring Optics New optics proposed based on PEP-II non-interleaved sextupole correction  Pi-cell and FODO cell designs TME (DESY TDR) Pi-cell (low  Pep-II) FODO (high  Pep-II) Injected positron beam:  x =  y = 1x10 -6 m-rad, tracked using LEGO with single-mode wigglers and multipole errors in the other magnets. Dynamic aperture in Dogbone Damping Ring designs

13. Electron Cloud Simulations Electron density in units of e m 3 as a function of time for an arc bend in the 6km DR option assuming a beam pipe radius 22mm and including an antechamber design (full height h=10mm).

14. SEY Studies in PEP LER Building three chambers for PEP-II –One with a load-lock system to allow laboratory measurement of a sample after exposure to the PEP-II vacuum environment –Two ‘grooved’ chambers to verify a proposal by Mauro Pivi and Gennady Stupakov

15. Linac Beam Line Design Quadrupole alignment –Use a SC linac quadrupole from DESY to study shunting alignment ability – very important to achieve desired tolerances –Continue program for NC quadrupoles BPM tests (program with TTF, ATF and LCLS) –Develop and test high resolution BPMs Laser wire (program at ATF and PETRA3) –Work with other groups to test high resolution laser wires Cavity diagnostics (program at TTF) –Add HOM detectors to SC cavities at TTF to determine beam- cavity location – very important especially for high shunt impedance cavities with small aperture Measure vibration due to SC cryogenic equipment –Important for conventional layout and BDIR

16. Beam Delivery System Optics design and layout (program with UK groups) –Study variations of BDS with different crossing angles, collimation systems, L*, etc  understand tradeoffs ATF-2 at KEK –Demonstration of new FFS using ATF beam –Proposal is being assembled – detailed contributions to be defined Specialty magnets (program with BNL) –SC final quadrupoles are being prototyped at BNL End Station A Test Facility (with UK and University groups) –MDI instrumentation studies, collimator wakefield studies –Construct IR mock-up

17. Civil Construction and Sites Working with the Fermilab team to develop an Illinois site and a reference site –DOE has urged consideration of an Illinois site but it is important to understand the advantages and disadvantages –For Snowmass Investigate 5 possible Illinois sites and create a matrix to compare sites Investigate cost of configuration options –For BCD (December 2005) Select Illinois site and compare with reference site; submit to DOE –For CDR (December 2006) Develop selected Illinois site with cost and schedule

18. Project Management Need to establish configuration control for the ‘CDR’ and subsequent TDR –Ewan Paterson is putting together a proposal to manage The collider configuration Collider construction project cost and schedule Possibly the R&D program cost and schedule –Barry Barish will create configuration control board Members from the accelerator design team Members from the engineering team Need to structure the ‘CDR’ work and work packages –Many discussions but need to move forward before Snowmass Need to establish a structure for the BCD documentation –1 st cut being made by Nick, Kaoru, and myself

19. L-Band RF System R&D SLAC has strong expertise in rf power generation and lots of experience from the X-band rf program to apply to ILC –Goal: reduce cost of the rf system (which is roughly 15% of TPC in USLCTOS cost estimate) and improve performance (better reliability, higher efficiency, …) Working on solid state modulators, L-band klystrons, and other rf components –Many of these components could be part of the BCD – if not should be part of the long-range R&D program Collaborating with Fermilab on three projects for the SMTF: –Modulator switches –Bayonet box for cryo-system –Electron-beam welding of SC cavities

20. Modulator R&D Baseline design is FNAL/DESY/PPT modulator Single switch with bouncer circuit and 12:1 transformer Efficiency is pretty good; reliability uncertain; transformer is large and stray fields impact the dogbone damping ring SLAC effort is evaluating options –Receiving an SNS power converter-modulator which should have good efficiency –Building Marx generator style which should provide similar efficiency and 100% availability and lower cost –Building switch for FNAL bouncer-style modulator –Working with Diversified Technologies in SBIR program (??) to test another series-switch modulator –Looking at high voltage cables for power distribution

21. Klystrons Three industrial vendors for ‘baseline’ 10MW MBK tubes –Still very little real experience with multi-beam klystrons –Thales has delivered two refurbished tubes to DESY –CPI 10MW tube was accepted by DESY – may come to SLAC later –Toshiba 10MW tube is still under test Four elements to SLAC program –Develop L-band sheet beam klystron –Study klystron / modulator options More conservative 5MW tube or lower power PPM tubes Decide which (if any) of these to pursue further –Buy L-band rf power at SLAC (needed for experience and other elements of program) –Possibly work with DESY and CPI on CPI 10 MW tube

22. Other RF Topics Large number of ideas and requests for help –Constructing an SC ‘materials’ test facility –Studying TTF3 coupler designs and limitations –Looking at new approaches for the rf distribution that would reduce the number of components –Working on concepts for new high power circulators and industrialization of low power (400 kW) circulators

23. Major Test Facilities End Station B –Complete X-band program in NLCTA –Create new L-band rf Test Facility Develop klystron and modulators for ILC Test normal conducting structures for e+/e- sources Construct coupler test facility –Facilities also available in Klystron Test Lab End Station A –Study Interaction Region issues and instrumentation –Mockup of full IR ATF/ATF-2 (Located at KEK but with big SLAC participation) –Test final focus system using very low emittance beam Work on the linac test facilities around the world: TTF, SMTF, and STF

24. End Station B Program NLCTA completed restart review and will turn on this week Complete X-band program at NLCTA –Test CERN structure and other gradient studies –Test active switching technology –Will decommission 8-pac modulator and install a 2-pac modulator to allow for future use of the 300 MeV X-band linac Create facility to construct prototype collimators for the LHC –Adaptation of NLC consumable collimator technology to allow the LHC to reach design luminosity (part of US-LARP) Support E-163 laser acceleration experiment Start construction of an ILC L-band test facility  next slides

25. End Station B L-Band RF Test Facility Build two L-band test stations next to NLCTA in ESB –Test modulators and klystrons –Provide rf power for NC accelerator structures and couplers

26. Longer Term L-band RF R&D Goals All stations in End Station B will be run 24/7 FY06: –Complete 1 st station for rf component testing and experience –Test normal conducting structure for positron system –Develop coupler test stand –Start testing of circulators and other rf components FY07: –Complete 2 nd station to test Marx Generator (and CPI klystron?) –Test couplers for SMTF at Fermilab FY08: –Finish 3 rd and 4 th stations with improved modulator/klystron designs FY09: –Construct 10 additional stations in ESA or Klystron Test Lab to begin industrialization process, lifetime testing, and optimization

27. End Station A Test Facility For Prototypes of Beam Delivery and IR Components CCLRCLLNLQMULU. of BristolUMass Amherst CERNLancaster U.SLACUC BerkeleyU. of Oregon DESYManchester U.TU DarmstadtU. of Cambridge KEKNotre DameU. of BirminghamUCL http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/ilc/testfac/ESA/esa.html Collimator design, wakefields (T-480) BPM energy spectrometer (T-474) Synch Stripe energy spectrometer (T-475) IP BPMs, kickers EMI (electro-magnetic interference) IR Mockup PAC05 paper/poster: SLAC-PUB-11180, e-Print Archive: physics/0505171

28. ATF-2 at KEK ATF-2 would be the BDS test facility –Follow-on to FFTB –New FFS optics –Operational issues –Train next generation

29. Reasons to develop the ATF-2 Many reasons to develop the ATF-2 –Luminosity issues will be extremely challenging in the LC Likely more challenging than achieving the beam energy –Complete FFTB studies FFTB never demonstrated routine operation of FFS Need to implement full feedback control and optimization Operate with ILC like bunch train and demonstrate IP feedback Operate with stable low emittance beam from ATF DR –Provide demonstration and experience concurrent with ILC construction FFTB experience will be over 15 years old Train new generation of physicists Provide a visible test facility for project reviewers and sponsors

30. Collaborative Meetings ILC Status Meeting – bi-weekly: SLAC, ANL, BNL, Cornell, Jlab, FNAL, LBNL, LLNL Availability and MPS – monthly: SLAC, DESY LET – bi-weekly: SLAC, Cornell, FNAL e+ source – bi-weekly: SLAC, LLNL –@ Daresbury wks – SLAC would lead CDR effort DR – bi-weekly: LBNL, ANL, Cornell, FNAL, SLAC –E cloud – weekly: SLAC – also irregular with LBNL, CERN, and KEK –ATF– irregular: SLAC, Cornell, LBNL, LLNL, UK BDS – weekly: SLAC, BNL, FNAL, Oregon – also monthly: EU & Japan –MDI – monthly: SLAC, FNAL, Orsay, UK, many US universities –ESA – weekly: SLAC, UK, universities –ATF2 – irregular: SLAC, KEK, UK Instrumentation – irregular: SLAC, KEK, DESY SMTF – biweekly: SMTF collaboration Conventional facilities – weekly: SLAC, FNAL

31. SLAC ILC Budget FY05 DOE ILC budget is 22.7 M$ –16.2 M$ to SLAC –1.95 M$  LBNL, LLNL, BNL –14.25 M$ at SLAC plus US-Japan funds FY06 DOE budget is 25 M$ –Distribution is unknown –Developing a detailed plan for FY06 based on 14.25 M$ at SLAC and 3.8 M$  LBNL, LLNL, and BNL plus 0.5 M$ US-Japan funds Working with Robin Staffin, Barry Barish, and Gerry Dugan Maintain flexibility to deal with budget increase or decrease –Having difficulty keeping people on ILC given the uncertainty Lost 10 people so far in FY05 FY05 Funding SourceM$ DOE ILC Program+16.2 US-Japan Program+0.87 Xfers to LLNL, LBNL, BNL-1.95 SLAC Labor8.3 SLAC M&S / Shop2.9 SLAC indirect overhead3.1 Carryover change FY06 – FY050.8

32. Summary Last year has been difficult –Technology choice forced redirection of effort –Major accident and subsequent shutdown –Budget shortfall and layoffs in FY05 and large uncertainty in FY06 Strong program addressing many of the critical design issues –SLAC program addresses 14 of the 15 “R2” items identified by the 2003 TRC report as well as many additional problems Program descriptions for FY05 and FY06 are posted on web site Working with GDE to further develop FY06 program Program is focused on overall accelerator design issues as well some technology development concepts –Makes use of SLAC expertise to lead ILC design efforts worldwide –Many programs could grow but some will require new people