1. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 1 The ILC Program Paul Grannis March 14, 2006 Much progress, much that could have gone wrong has not … but like Sisyphus we must continue to push the boulder up the hill. The ILC still has a long road ahead.

2. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Outline 1.GDE Reference Design & cost estimate (3 – 12) 2.Global R&D program (13 – 18) 3.US R&D and regional interests (19 – 26) 4.Detector R&D (27 – 29) 5.Multiyear R&D/SCRF plan (30 – 39) (the main message) 6.International organization (40)

3. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Barish, director Dugan, Raubenheimer Willis, chairGarbincius, chair Phinney, chair Mike Harrison will replace Dugan on May 1 as ART director GDE has ~65 members, equally from Asia, Europe and Americas GDE Organization US scientists play key roles in the ILC

4. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Main organization so far (e.g. for cost rollup, RDR) along area systems. Engineering design phase will have more emphasis on technical and global systems. Civil and facilities support GDE Organization

5. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy One positron damping ring. Reduced rf in DR; consolidate layout for civil constr. savings ($250M) Electron source and damping rings from ends to central complex ($180M) Modify rf unit – 24 → 26 cavities. Reduce rf and cryo static load overheads ($220M) One IR with 14 mrad crossing – Two detectors push/pull. Remove 2 nd muon wall. ($410M) Single e+ target; combine e- source pre-accel’s ($80M) Simplify RTML ($150M) Relative to Baseline in July ’06, the RDR design reduced cost by 28%. Value engineering and preferential sources (capitalize on low labor costs in India, China etc.) to be done. Still to be considered – 1 tunnel; shallow construction, reduced rf… Design changes for cost control

6. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy  Use lowest reasonable tender world- wide for generally available items.  Estimate person-hrs of ‘explicit’ labor to be supplied through labs or contracts.  High tech components estimated in each region – many agree but cavity costs less in Europe than Asia, Americas.  Civil costs for 3 sample sites done in each region – they agree very well despite geological, regional differences.  International RDR/value cost review in May 23 – 25 (in Orsay).  DOE has deferred its plan to officially translate value estimate into US cost methodology. Value Estimate Total Value = $8.2B (FY07$) Little contingency included; no escalation; no detectors

7. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Maroon shaded areas are the civil construction components. Value by area system

8. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Confidential – contains vendor sensitive information Value by technical/global system

9. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy “management” captures SWF overheads Manpower distribution

10. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Assume:  ILC sited in US  Construction funding starts in FY2013, lasts 8 years  Contingency: 10% on civil construction (Value Est has 20% already) 40% on shared M&S; 30% on explicit labor  Add overheads on M&S (GDE included SWF overheads)  US pays 50% -- site specific costs; 33% of shared; 63% of labor.  ‘Project-like’ profile; civil construction front loaded.  Escalate to then year: 4.6% civil constr., 3% M&S, 3.5% SWF  US does 1/3 of 2 detectors @ $500M each (FY007) OHEP (PG) value estimate conversion ‼ Not a detailed value to cost translation (should do overheads, ‼ ‼ contingencies, escalation factors by work packages. ‼ Please keep confidential

11. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy OHEP conversion of value estimate US portion inflated (AY $M)20132014201520162017201820192020Total Site specific5767547884628690002756 Shared158345382610703651454353337 Explicit manpower811041512232773113472561750 TOTAL US with contngy, inflated814120213211295106610528002917843 Above costs are TEC, not TPC. Table does not include $AY442M for detectors; graph does. R&D and PED (see later) then yr M$ $1000M

12. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy GDE next steps With the RDR finalized in mid-summer, GDE will enter its engineering design phase, aimed at producing the EDR by beginning FY2010.  Produce comprehensive, global R&D plan (see below)  Add project management, engineering staff to GDE (grow the GDE by x2 to x3)  Value engineering, cost reduction, alternate technology choices  Develop work packages (started in Beijing); assign to laboratories. Need better defined authority for GDE to manage the EDR effort (see below)  EDR= full engineering design for key components (cavities, cryomodules, damping rings, civil construction etc.); detailed conceptual design for more straightforward systems.  Final engineering design requires site – geological, local infrastructure, safety and environmental regulations.

13. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Global R&D planning  OMB has indicated that ILC R&D budget increases will require an international R&D agreement (similar to the ITER EDA agreement).  FALC terms of reference include: “to work towards an appropriate organisational structure of the GDE for the engineering design phase.”  The DOE/NSF ART review of 4/06 requested a US R&D plan; this exists in draft, but it requires a global plan.  GDE advocates a sufficiently formal international organization that it has the authority needed to manage the global R&D and EDR activities. ITER had a rather formal MoU for its EDR phase. Getting this international R&D agreement is a key step, difficult to achieve.

14. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Global R&D planning In 2006, the GDE R&D Board (RDB) prepared a list of all proposed R&D efforts and attached a general priority for each (on a 1 to 4 scale). These were used as a part of the US R&D planning process to prioritize the effort for FY07 to FY09. However, this list does not address the necessary decision points, deliverables, resource, coordination of international effort. Needs to be ‘projectized’. Starting in mid-2006, RDB has set up task forces to prepare a more project-like R&D plan in each of the main ILC systems. These are now expected to report for GDE approval by mid-2007. Taken together, these task force plans should constitute a reasonable R&D project plan. A key ingredient of the plan is setting up work packages, and their assignment to specific labs or consortia.

15. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy R&D task forces S0 – Cavity gradient and yield demonstration S1 – Cryomodule (8 or 9 cavities) demonstration S2 – rf units (string) tests S3 – Damping rings S4 – Beam delivery system S5 – Electron and positron sources S6 – Global systems: controls, machine protection, BPMs etc. S7 – High power rf systems

16. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy S0 R&D The goal: demonstrate 35 MV/m gradient cavities with 95% yield in < 2 processes (and 10% gradient spread). The challenge is to demonstrate the surface processing method, and to migrate cavity fabrication to industry. a) Tight loop – cavities processed in each region swapped, re- processed to demonstrate consistency and determine optimum process method. b) Industrial batches of 25 - 50: migrate learning to industry and provide cavity base for cryomodule tests. Plan: EDR gradient choice by mid 2009. If drop gradient to XFEL value, ILC cost up 7%. ← more tunnel, cavities more cryogenic plant →

17. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy S0 R&D in US First US processed TESLA cavity (from ACCEL). JLab electropolish, rinse, bake cycle – on third process step – reached 42 MV/m with acceptable Q. 1 st AES cavity now to 16 MV/m New processing facility at ANL to double number of processes per year. New electopolish technique in operation at Cornell. Other R&D topics: materials properties, large grain Nb material, alternate shapes with low B surface.

18. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Other task forces Damping rings: control e-cloud via coatings, grooves, solenoids. Lab tests are promising; test in e+ beams underway. Proposal to use CESR as DR test facility. Fast kicker: 2 ns rise time pulser demonstrated, need demo with real magnets. Positron target: spinning wheel to control ΔT in high B field. Lab tests confirm calculations. RF power: Marx modulator prototype works (120kV, 1.4 ms), potential $180M savings. Toshiba MB klystron operates at full power, twice design rep rate. Sheet beam klystron R&D at SLAC. Simpler rf distribution under study.

19. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy US FY2007 R&D planning ART budget process for FY2007 was driven by proposals from Labs – awkward as it brought ~$110M requests and prioritization process was tough with labs arguing for their piece of the pie. Iterate with GDE RDB, Labs, DOE. Did initial plan for $60M (President’s budget). Then $45M (Senate mark). Now have guidance of $42M ($45M case with reduced reserve since so far along in fiscal year). DOE FY07 MACHINE AREATotal Program direction and administration$2,532 Management$1,009 Global systems$2,649 Electron sources$793 Positron sources$1,521 Damping rings$1,994 Ring to Main Linac$253 Main Linacs: Optics, beam dynamics, instrumentation$716 Main Linacs: RF systems$7,421 Main Linacs: Cavities and Cryomodules$13,252 Beam delivery system$2,336 Conventional facilities$845 TDR Engineering Support$2,588 Reserve$3,000 Regional Interest$1,032 $41,940

20. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy For FY2008, re-organize to WBS structure with WBS managers prioritizing and managing each WBS level 2 project. WBS x.y x=1: Program Administration x=2: Technical design x=3: R&D x=4: unused x=5: Test facil, infrastructure x=6: Reserve (& detectors) x=7: Regional interest y=1: Management – Dugan (Harrison) y=2: Global systems - Cawardine (Larsen) y=3: Electron sources - Brachmann (Poelker) y=4: Positron sources – Sheppard (Gronberg) y=5: Damping rings – Zisman (Palmer) y=6: Ring to main linac – Tenenbaum (Solyak) y=7: Main linac optics, bm dynamics (Tenenbaum, Solyak) y=8: Main linac rf systems -Adolphsen (Nagaitsev) y=9: Main linac cavities, cryomodules - Mishra, (Padamsee) y=10: Beam delivery system – Seryi (Parker) y=11: Conventional facilities – Kuchler (Asiri) y-=12: Pure regional interest – Kephart (Paterson) US is active in every ILC area system. US R&D project organization

21. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy US R&D FY2008, FY2009 In FY2008, initiated SCRF line for R&D, test infrastructure, industrialization of cavities, cryomodules, rf units, materials studies based on wider application of SCRF to DOE/SC facilities. ILC is the prime driver for SCRF in the near term. SCRF line budget limited to cavity-related work; ILC specific line can contain SCRF as well as all other aspects of ILC. Ask ART guidance for two targets spanning a range. Target 1 Target 2 FY2008 FY2009 FY2008 FY2009 ILCSCRFILCSCRFILCSCRFILCSCRF $75M$0M$90M$0M$75M$45M$90M$45M ART planned the 2+ year R&D program around these guidances, thus defining a US R&D plan. Extrapolation to out-years is relatively straightforward.

22. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy ART R&D planning – example Cavity procure, process, cryomodule assembly/test, string test by FY (Target 1) FY2007FY2008FY2009FY2010 Cavity procure/test Cryomodule assembly/test rf unit test

23. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy SCRF infrastructure – FNAL plan Surface Processing Cavity Fabrication Vertical Testing He Vessel, couplers, tuner HPR or reprocess Horizontal Testing Cold String Assembly Pass! Fail! Plan… Develop in labs then transfer technology to industry

24. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy SCRF infrastructure – FNAL plan FNAL SCRF Review Feb. 13-14. Develop the infrastructure needed to advance SCRF capability in US for broader use in new DOE facilities. A multiyear proposal for materials R&D, cavity fabrication, processing, testing, cryomodule tests, string tests. Funds for industrialization not included. Recommendations: more engagement with other SCRF centers; attention to industrialization plan; raise priority of cavity processing facility.

25. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Total M&S Cost with Indirects = $89,300 FY07 funds to finish VTS1, HTS1,… Not included in White Paper request Technically limited More real? SCRF infrastructure – FNAL plan

26. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy US specific activities SCRF Industrialization: Funds are needed to bring industry up to speed in SC cavity and cryomodule fabrication and test. Estimate (FNAL) was $5.5M in FY08 and FY09. Site characterization: ILC R&D funds must cover US site-specific effort – geological studies, environmental impact, site layout etc. GDE/FNAL estimates US site- specific need: $59M for Title I, and $137M for Title II, spread over several years (out to FY2012). Also need some GDE sample site work – design shallow tunnel site, value engineering, etc. ($30M) LCSGA subpanel (S. Ozaki chair) has considered these needs and advised on priorities and budget profile. ART has folded these recommendations into the overall budget guidance.

27. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Generic detector R&D US detector R&D lags behind that in Europe, Japan FY2006 funding: ~$5.5M at labs; $1.35M at universities (DOE $1.05M, NSF $0.3M). New FNAL test beam; losing SLAC test beam (SABER transfer line?) Funding in Japan has increased in past year. Eurodet in Europe for next 3 years. Analysis from end 2005

28. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Detector R&D Planning detector R&D program is less advanced than for accelerator. Asked for US R&D plan (goals, milestones, resource needs) coordinating labs and universities. DOE/NSF review June 19, 20. Expect request of ~$15M per year. University grants via Oregon umbrella. Global detector R&D program is being reviewed by WWS (with GDE RDB observing) – gather information, give advice on coordinating and prioritizing the program. Tracking detectors in Beijing (Feb.); Calorimetry in Hamburg (June); Vertex detectors in FNAL (October); Muon/PID/LEP next year. ‘Supplemental requests’ for FY2007 totalling $1.5M. These provide deliverable hardware for tests in beam and labs. Still hope to fund about $0.8M of these. Also, third year of umbrella grant funds at universities: hoped to do at $2M level, will now scale back to last year level of ~$1.2M. Need help in finding FY2007 detector R&D funds (Not on the explicit ILC line).

29. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Detector concepts The reference design provides for two detectors, moving on or off the IP in about 1 week (and several month intervals). The experimental community remains nervous about this arrangement, but it was supported by the ILCSC parameters group. Four detector concepts have emerged (Detector Reference Document to come will summarize).  LCD – TPC based tracking, SiW EM calorimeter;  GLD – TPC based tracking, Scintillator cal; largest concept  SiD – silicon based tracking; fine grained SiW EM cal; smallest  4 th – TPC, compensating coarse grain calorimeter, no flux return Fe Transition from generic to full concept detectors is not well planned; concepts have more regional flavor than desirable. Detector effort is not incorporated into GDE, so no central management of process (e.g. transition from 4 to 2 detectors).

30. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy ActualExpectedProposedRequest MACHINE AREAFY06FY07FY08FY09 Lab program direction and administration$2,892$2,792$3,300$4,000 Management$1,039$1,009$1,400$2,500 Global systems$1,158$2,649$5,600$7,000 Electron sources$658$793$1,400$3,000 Positron sources$1,988$1,521$2,300$4,800 Damping rings$2,156$1,994$3,000$6,500 Ring to Main Linac$214$253$500$1,500 Main Linacs: Optics, instrumentation$1,096$716$2,500$3,600 Main Linacs: RF systems$4,311$7,555$9,000$14,800 Main Linacs: Cavities and Cryomodules$7,344$13,252$12,500$16,300 Beam delivery system$2,883$2,336$4,500$6,600 Conventional facilities$1,042$845$1,200$1,500 Regional interest (siting only) $1,032$2,800$5,800 RDR/TDR engineering$1,665$2,588(in above) Univ Program + Reserve$1,254$2,366$4,000$5,100 TOTAL ILC line$29,700$41,700$54,000$83,000 Detectors $2,000$6,000$7,000 SRF Infrastructure & Industrialization$12,000$4,900$23,400$45,000 Overall total: ILC+SRF$41,700$48,600$83,400$135,000 ART R&D/SCRF current request

31. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy My synthesis of R&D, EDR design, US-specific profile R&D / technical design(in AY$M) FY2007FY2008FY2009FY2010FY2011FY2012TOT R&D Administration and program mgmt3.54.76.57.0 35.7 Global systems2.95.67.0 3.0 28.5 Electron source0.81.43.02.01.0 9.2 Positron source1.62.34.85.02.0 17.7 Damping rings2.13.06.56.0 29.6 Ring to ML0.20.51.51.0 5.2 Main linac optics, instrumentation0.72.53.63.0 15.8 RF power7.99.014.813.015.030.089.7 Cavities and cryomodules14.712.516.340.051.0100.0234.5 Beam delivery system2.54.56.67.0 10.037.6 Generic civil and facilities0.81.21.519.01.02.025.5 US site activities1.02.85.830.070.0116.0225.6 Civil &facilities (global+US site)1.84.07.349.071.0118.0251.1 Detectors 6.07.010.015.020.058.0 Reserve3.34.05.110.0 42.4 TOTAL ILC R&D + design42.060.090.0160.0192.0311.0855.0 $544M

32. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Comments on proposed ILC R&D plan The plan is predicated on a FY2013 start of construction funding. FY2009 ILC R&D up to $90M as in guidance. Major expenditure areas grow as project nears: Civil construction (incl. US site), cavities and cryomodules, RF power, detector R&D. Other areas increase moderately with time as R&D and design effort ramps up to a plateau. FY2012 accelerator is probably all PED. In that year, I put in a substantial increase in cavity and cryomodules and reduced the corresponding ‘Industrialization’ line under SCRF (below). Integrated (FY2007 to FY2012) ILC line R&D funding: ILC accelerator R&D (2007 – 11):$364M (cf EPP2010 $300 - $500M) ILC accelerator PED (2012):$165M US site development:$226M Detector R&D:$58M

33. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy $M $5M Many ILC areas ramp up to a plateau in preparation for the construction phase. Profile for smaller accelerator areas

34. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Profile for ILC major areas $M $100M Includes final industrialization The cost drivers for construction have a significant ramp in the PED phase.

35. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy FY2008FY2009FY2010FY2011FY2012TOTAL SCRF Infrastructure20.445.0 20.0 150.4 SCRF Industrialization3.08.015.020.00.046.0 TOTAL SCRF infrastruct/industry23.453.060.040.020.0196.4 Superconducting rf line Based on FNAL-proposed SCRF work to develop test facilities needed to develop ILC capability and provide infrastructure for future SC facilities. Industrialization estimate from FNAL, extrapolated to out years; FY2012 industrialization captured on ILC line under cavities/cryomodules. Placeholder $10M > FY2013 $30M * Should SCRF management be divorced from ART? FY2008FY2009FY2010FY2011FY2012

36. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Profile: R&D, SCRF, PED, project (Same plot as shown earlier) $M $1000M

37. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy ILC – proposed vs. SC guidance $M ILC R&D proposed tracks guidance until FY2010. Effect of FY2011 and 2012 shortfall is hard to quantify – it depends on success of prior year R&D, and on worldwide effort. FY07FY08FY09FY10FY11 ∫ $ dt = $510M in guidance. ∫ $ dt = $562M in PG version. 07 11 07

38. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy SCRF – proposed vs. SC guidance SCRF budget is significantly lower than guidance; integral proposed to 2011 is $181M; guidance integral is $96M. At guidance level, based on SCRF review at Fermilab, the US would not obtain string test facility with beam injected. With SCRF line guidance, have to integrate to 2016 to reach $181M. The string test facility is not needed 3 places in the world. But there should be one at the host site, so each region plans such a facility to position itself as a potential site. Failing to provide string test capability at Fermilab would jeopardize the US bid to host. Stretching SCRF delays ability to validate ILC design. FY07FY08FY09 FY10FY11FY12 $M

39. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Stretch-out savings ? Suppose that we stretch out the end of the R&D phase from 2011 to 2015 (thus the year of PED ramp-up is 2016). Keep the integral of SWF fixed, but slower ramp up (I took SWF = 55% of total) but take into account inflation. Don’t worry now about the SCRF and ILC division (it requires some transfer from ILC to SCRF infrastructure). Evaluate how much savings relative to SC guidance is generated, assuming that the integral of M&S need (the other 45% of total) remains fixed. ANSWER: Nothing (actual savings in my exercise was $15M, but that would be eaten by inflation). INTERPRETATION: The guidance profile and the GDE/ART/PG estimates of need for ILC R&D and SCRF do not allow savings for ‘new interim initiatives’.

40. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy International issues ILCSC has oversight responsibility for GDE (International review, parameters specification, Machine Advisory Committee etc.) FALC discusses, promotes international cooperation – no management). OMB stipulated that there should be international agreement for GDE EDR phase. FALC includes ‘work towards …’ in Terms of reference. GDE needs more formal authority to execute MoUs for EDR work packages and coordinate the effort.  Best if FALC could generate an international agreement for R&D phase over next 3 – 4 years. Some discussion of trying to do this via bilateral agreements.  Putting a site proposal and selection process is becoming critical. Getting international agreements and site process is becoming the most critical issue for ILC progress.

41. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Backups

42. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy ILC Technically Limited Timeline (GDE ‘plan’) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Global Design EffortProject Baseline configuration Reference Design ILC R&D Program Technical Design Expression of Interest to Host International Mgmt LHC results: offramp opportunity

43. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Cost information Tesla TDR, and the subsequent US Options study report, give some indication of the expected cost. Translated into US accounting, all manpower, escalation, contingency, two tunnels, and detectors brings the Tesla estimate to $10 - $13B, depending on potential cost savings. Experience shows that 10-20% of TEC should be spent in R&D phase (including PED?). By this rule of thumb, 15% translates to $400 – 800M on R&D in each region if this phase is equally shared across regions

44. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 2. R&D issues – cavities and cryomodules The cost drivers for ILC are the main linac cavities and cryomodules, the rf delivery system, and the civil construction (tunnels and infrastructure). 1.Cavities and cryomodules: The BCD acceptance criterion for cavities is 35 MV/m. The ILC will operate at E ACC = 31.5 MV/M (10% operating margin). A few cavities of this gradient have been fabricated for DESY; uniformity is not good (~30% spread); Alternate designs (KEK, Cornell) with larger accelerating gradient (lower B at Nb surface) exist for single cell cavities (45 – 52 MV/m) ; however higher E ACC comes with higher E field at Nb surface, hence more worry about field emission and dark current (radiation and cryo load). The cost optimization curve vs. E ACC is rather shallow; minimum around 40 MV/m is only a few % lower in cost than the 31.5 MV/m BCD. Transfering the cavity production and processing to industry is key issue.

45. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Optimize cost vs. gradient C. Adolphsen / SLAC Gradient (MV/m) Relative cost

46. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Need for improved cavity processing and reproducibility TESLA cavities – grey after chemical polishing; black after electropolishing. Spread in gradient is too large. Would like to get to ~10% spread; need work on processing control

47. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy R&D issues – cavities and cryomodules A significant cost for cavities arises from the complex conditioning procedure – buffered chemical processing, high pressure rinse, ultrapure water rinse & electropolishing (not well understood). R&D to understand and limit the need for these steps is desirable so as to reduce costs. (Fermilab, ANL, JLab, Cornell) Large grain Nb may allow reduced processing time – many surface issues seem related to grain boundaries. This is high priority R&D (JLab, FNAL) High volume cavity production capability has not yet been achieved; it is probably necessary to fabricate the full set of cavities (~20,000) in all three regions. (Fermilab) The cryomodule (eight 9-cell cavities) mechanical design needs to be redone; issues are the overall length, higher order mode beam monitors, quadrupole insertions, mechanical rigidity. (Fermilab)

48. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy R&D issues – rf power systems There is one modulator (ac to dc converter) and one klystron (rf power amplifier) for every three cryomodules (24 cavities). Klystron pulse is 1.5 ms at 10 MW. Three vendors exist but existing klystrons show breakdown at high power. Klystron R&D needs to be pushed more than it is at present. BCD choice for modulator is switched capacitor design; large, prone to failure. An alternate Marx generator design holds promise for more reliability and lower cost (SLAC, LLNL R&D). Klystron costs are high; need close interaction with industry to bring down cost. Long term project needed.

49. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Test facilities There need to be several large scale test facilities worldwide. Coordination is difficult because they also serve national needs that GDE does not take as its responsibility. At present, each region is planning on such facilities for the basic main linac components – cavities, cryomodules, rf power. STF at KEK, TTF/XFEL at DESY, ILCTA at FNAL. Is this duplicative? Given the likely need to produce cavities in all regions, it may not be. In any case, each region wants to develop its SRF capabilities. The US community believes that developing a mature SRF capability is key to making a credible bid to host. Developing industrial capability is a key part of the US specific test activity. Some part of the test facility development supports national priorities, and will buttress an eventual bid to host.

50. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Test facilities, US bid to host Potential test facilities: Cavity tests in horizontal and vertical dewars, cryomodules, cryomodule strings – feedback on surface preparation, gradient reproducibility, reliability of operation, beam tests to study dark current, cryo loading etc. There should be a ‘string test’ of 1-2% of the full system. Damping ring studies – low emittance preservation, instabilities, kickers, diagnostics, low level rf systems. Perhaps Cornell/NSF?? Klystron/modulator tests: SLAC has klystron test, not clear new need Final focus studies (KEK ATF 2 aims at this.) Without US capability in SRF production and testing, the US credibility as host would be impaired. US industry participation in the SC RF subsystems is a strong motivation in getting the support of Congress. ILC will likely need all three regions to produce cavities and cryomodules.

51. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Worldwide spending – accelerators – 2006 In Europe, CARE, EuroTeV, national budgets are roughly at the US level. The numbers for Europe have not yet been disentangled from generic R&D and CLIC etc. Handling of SWF is not converted properly to US practice yet. In Asia, information only exists for KEK. They do not include SWF, travel, Japanese expenditures in industry, or non-Japanese funding. The qualitative impression is that for FY06, the regional expenditures are roughly comparable. Funds for the Reference Design Report and cost estimating (engineering expertise) outside the US seem to be in short supply. This is a problem for GDE at present.

52. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy PG estimate of R&D need FYR&DBid hostTest fac.Industr.Detect.MgmtTotal 2006$29 $1$30 2007$40$3$15$10 $1$79 2008$45$4$25$22$15$2$113 2009$45$4$15$40$15$4$123 2010$40$4$10$90$15$4$163 2011$40$10$20$120$15$4$209 total$239$25$85$282$70$16$717

53. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy PG Guess at need for FY07 – FY11 FY06FY08FY09FY10FY07FY11

54. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy R&D profile comparison The OMB profile falls short of the ‘desired’ in the critical years FY07 to FY09 FY06FY08FY09FY10FY07FY11 Desired profile integral = $717M OMB profile integral = $585M

55. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Budget impact on schedule The ‘desired’ budget is consistent with having technical information and cost available in 2010 for a decision by governments to approve the ILC project. The detailed negotiation and establishing the organization would follow immediately. Given the time required to let contracts for tunnels, major technical systems, this would translate to construction start in 2012. We estimate an 8 year construction period, so completion in ~2020. The approximate impact of the OMB outyear guidance is to delay the technical readiness demonstration by about 1 year to permit a construction start in ~2013.

56. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Detector R&D in FY06 We have advice from Laboratories on detector R&D spending in FY06 SWF ($K)M&S ($K) SLAC2007460 FNAL1635420 ANL 355150 LBNL 335145 BNL 100 0 TOTAL43321175 O’hds included SWF ($K)M&S ($K) DOE University525175 NSF University 88 30 Total University613205 University detector R&D SWF/M&S splits are guesses 5507 total 818 total DOE+NSF

57. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Preliminary & confidential detector R&D spending in various nations High priority needs for detector R&D over the next 3 – 5 years (Damerell report). ‘Established’ funding that is thought to be in hand (dark blue), and the ‘total’ thought needed (light blue). M&SFTE’s $10M600

58. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Detector R&D There are two main areas of high priority need for detector R&D in the US, and worldwide. Energy flow calorimetry tests and simulations: ILC calorimeters seek to measure charged particles by tracking and subtract charged particle energy deposits in the calorimeter. It requires fine segmentation and new algorithms to separate charged and neutral. Vertex detectors are key to physics such as Higgs branching ratios, searches for new phenomena. They need to be kept thin (multiple scattering) and highly segmented and multiplexed. EM interference from the beam fields is an issue. Both these high priority programs need high quality test beams. It would be good if Fermilab can provide this, and thus become the center for ongoing ILC R&D. Other identified but unfunded needs are R&D on forward tracking (not presently covered) and particle ID.

59. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Next steps for detector R&D Test beam demonstration of particle flow calorimetry technique – so far its all on paper! Establish choices for vertex detector technology – winnow the 10 candidates down to a few most promising. Develop and test the new GEM/micromega detectors for TPC readout. Test beam studies and make choices for detector technology for hadron calorimetry – RPC’s, scintillator tiles, GEMs. Experimental study of digital vs. analog hadron calorimetry. Building the detectors takes almost as long as accelerator; should plan to have firm technical designs by end of decade.

60. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 5. Governmental activities – FALC and beyond Funding Agencies for Linear Collider (FALC) formed in 2003 Typically Science Minister level, but variable (from DOE, Orbach and Staffin; NSF is Turner). Nations involved: US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, CERN (for smaller CERN member states), Japan, Korea, India, (China). Roberto Petronzio of INFN Italy is the current chair. FALC formed the FALC Resources Group to conduct more detailed discussions and fact finding. ILCSC chair now sits on FALC and FALC RG; FALC Res. Gp. invited to ILCSC to give coordination. ILCSC (not FALC) is the responsible body for GDE oversight.

61. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Toward ILC organization and site Site and organization are interrelated – each action requires some input from the other. Need an identified site to establish a real project cost. Real cost and site are needed to engage governments in decision to proceed. Thus propose a stepwise process: a)Interim international ILC organization (FALC successor) to oversee GDE during the R&D and technical design phase – no commitment yet to project, but international agreement to pursue the R&D. b)Develop the procedure for proposing and selecting site; aim for site selection (or 2) by 2008 if possible (to keep TDR pace). c)Prepare final design & cost estimate based on proposed site, commit to ILC project with international agreement in ~2010 – 11. Construction start in 2012. (Consistent with technical schedule and cost profile above.)

62. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Toward ILC organization and site The ITER agreement is a good template for ILC organization. It has the advantage of being agreed to by many of the potential ILC partners (EU, US, Russia, Japan, India, Korea, China). ITER provisions for the legal basis of the organization, personnel policy, financial sharing arrangements (not the details), intellectual property can be taken over with little change. Different national shares for construction and operations. Propose a Council to oversee ILC, with equal number of regional representative nations. (Not all nations – Labs or Consortia would not be on Council at any time). It may be necessary to establish regional councils to satisfy regional differences for selecting Council representation, adjusting intra-regional contributions … A procedure for site proposals and selections should be put in place by FALC by 2007. Final technical design depends on knowing site.

63. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Issues for US bid to host Visa access for foreign nationals – those working directly for the ILC organization, those seconded by their government, experimental users, family members – must be rationalized. The visa issue is a strong concern of our potential partners in choosing a US site. Work permits for spouses/partners of foreign nationals. Getting the best people often requires opportunity for spouses to work. Relationship between ILC Laboratory and host lab (FNAL) needs to be regularized so as not to damage the fabric of either entity. There should not be large salary disparities. Arrangements for sharing infrastructure – shops, guest services, procurement departments – must be spelled out. The norm is for international organization employees to pay no tax in the host country. Requires negotiation. Waiver of customs on in-kind contributions.

64. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Summary – International Organization The ILC progress requires some effort now by potential international partners (through FALC):  Establish an interim organization to manage GDE though the R&D and TDR phase.  Establish predicted levels of R&D funding  Establish procedure for site proposals and selection process. Dedicated US effort should be focussed on the US bid to host activities. LCSGA is undertaking a task force to prepare integrated national proposal.

65. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Next steps for organization By mid-2007, establish an intgerim oversight organization for GDE by funding agencies. Presumably this is done by an interagency MoU. By early 2007, establish the timeline and procedure for site selection that aims at fixing two sites by early 2008 and a final site (subject to later project approval) by late 2008.

66. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy Backups