1. Overview of the Project X RD&D Plan Sergei Nagaitsev AAC Meeting February 3, 2009

2. Page 2 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev What’s in this talk? RD&D plan scope –In May 2008 the AAC reviewed the RD&D plan: http://projectx.fnal.gov/RnDplan/index.html –Refined the Project X scope (eliminated target, Recycler slow spill); –Disconnected from the ILC  beam parameters and cavity gradient only; –In Oct 2008 we released the ICD v1.0 and started the cost range estimate in preparation for CD0 (almost done). –We are now adjusting the RD&D plan to match the ICD Changes to ICD –We already found inconsistencies in ICD v1.0; will update before Mar 09 Alternative configurations –Moving with ACD in parallel with the ICD; ACD cost range will follow –Part of the RD&D plan

3. Page 3 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev RD&D Program Goals The goal of the Project X RD&D program is to provide support for a CD-2/3a approval in 2012. Spans 4 FY’s. –Design and technical component development; –Development of all project documentation mandated by DOE 413.3; –Formation of a multi-institutional collaboration capable of executing both the R&D plan and the provisional construction project. The primary technical goal is completion of a Conceptual Design Report, followed by a fully developed baseline cost estimate and schedule, and supported by a technology development program. –Capability of delivering in at least 2 MW of beam power over the range 60 – 120 GeV, simultaneous with at least 150 kW of beam power at 8 GeV.

4. Page 4 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev RD&D Technical Goals Complete conceptual design and cost estimate for Project X: –technical and conventional construction elements, –systems integration, and –installation and commissioning plan. Supporting technology development program targeting key accelerator physics and engineering challenges – incorporating simulations, experiments, and prototype construction as appropriate. Alignment with the SRF/ILC program: –Primary goal is to develop a set of technologies applicable to both ILC and Project X  Common cavity/cryomodule design, rf sources and distribution –Project X linac designed to accommodate accelerating gradients in the range 23.6 – 31.5 MV/m (XFEL – ILC)  Final design gradient determined prior to CD-2.

5. Page 5 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Steps in Developing the RD&D Plan Design Criteria – high-level criteria for selection between designs –Guidance from P5, directorate, experiments, AAC (May 2008) Project Requirements - Receive the general requirements that support the desired physics –Derived from the Nov. 2007 & Jan 2008 Physics workshops –Director’s Guidance Scope - Determine the scope of the project that meets the project requirements System Requirements - develop major system requirements –10 systems (level-2 WBS elements) –17 base requirements –68 derived requirements

6. Page 6 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Steps in Developing the RD&D Plan Issues - discuss issues arising from the requirements Elements - define the level-3 elements of an RD&D plan that –Addresses the issues arising from the requirements –Are directed towards a completion of Conceptual Design Report Resources and Schedule - estimate: –The resources required to complete the R&D plan –The schedule required to complete the R&D plan The RD&D plan was previously reviewed by the AAC (May 2008) –made modifications to ICD v1.0 following AAC recommendations –today we will review the entire plan but will concentrate on modifications

7. Page 7 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Related Programs & Deliverables High Intensity Neutrino Source (HINS) –Bob Webber (APC) –Project X related deliverable: Prototype a 30 MeV Linac operating at 325 MHz providing 30mA of beam with a 1 ms pulse length Superconducting RF Infrastructure –Kephart (Directorate), Mishra (TD/Dir), Nagaitsev (AD/Dir) –Project X related deliverables: –Develop 1 cryo-module/ month capability –Three  = 1 and one  = 0.8 cryo-modules –NML RF unit test facility & CM test stand –System Integration test with beam ILC Americas –Cavities and processing: Mark Champion (TD) –Cryomodule design & assembly: Carter (TD)

8. Page 8 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Design Criteria Derived from 3 missions of Project X Neutrino program with MI: 2 MW at 60-120 GeV Deliver 1.6e14 protons every 0.8 sec (with specific beam requirements); Mu2e experiment at 8 GeV: 150 kW slow extraction Specific beam requirement Deliver 1.4e13 protons per spill cycle (15-20 Hz) Provide a plausible self-consistent path to a 2-MW (and higher) proton source for a muon collider single bunch, 2-ns rms, 15 Hz, 2mm rms spot size on target, 8-20 GeV We have concluded that the total Project X beam power of 0.5MW at 8 GeV is sufficient to meet first 2 criteria Baseline missions

9. Page 9 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Project X scope The basic scheme of Project X is: –An 8 GeV Linac –H- stripping in the Recycler –Beam distributed to the Main Injector for acceleration to 120 GeV –Beam distributed to Accumulator/Debuncher for an 8 GeV slow spill program The major components that comprise Project X are: –A front end linac operating at 325 MHz (max energy 420MeV). –A high-energy linac operating at 1300MHz. –An 8 GeV transfer line and H- Injection system. –The Recycler operating as a stripping ring and a proton accumulator. –The Main Injector acting as a rapid cycling accelerator. –Civil Construction and Utilities –Controls –Cryogenics

10. Page 10 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Project X scope 120 GeV fast extraction spill 1.6 x 10 14 protons/1.4 sec 2 MW 8 GeV H - Linac up to 1.6x10 14 x 5 Hz Flex chopper pattern To Accumulator 8 GeV extraction (fast) 150 kW total Stripping Foil Recycler 1 linac pulse/fill Main Injector 1.4 sec cycle Single turn transfer @ 8 GeV 0.42-8 GeV HE Linac 0.42 GeV LE Linac

11. Page 11 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Project X Requirements (ICD) ICD v1.0 exceeds the design criteria in terms of beam power Previous version of requirements (AAC May 2008): 360 kW (ILC- like) linac paramentrs –1 MW at 8 GeV was arrived at by requiring that the MI is loaded in a single linac pulse (1.6e14 ppp at 5 Hz)

12. Page 12 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev What is wrong with operating scenario in ICD? 1. Five out of seven linac pulses are unused. 2. 8e13 every 1.4 sec to Mu2e does not work – (1) high tune shift in Debuncher, (2) long emittance too high (150 eV-s) 3. Incorrect linac chopping pattern to extract 3 batches from Recycler 4. Note: Mu2e beam power in this scenario is 75 kW

13. Page 13 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Operations scenario (60 GeV MI)

14. Page 14 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Mu2e beam requirements Slow extraction from the Debuncher: –8 GeV, 150-ns (FW) bunch length, 20 eV-s (95%) max. long. emittance –tune shift limit for slow extraction ≤0.05; 1.4e13 per bunch max. Recycler is filled with 7 barrier-bucket bunches (1-µs long), long. emitt. 10 eV-s, 0.6-µs gaps, 1.4e13 ppb –Requires a different chopping pattern Bunches are then transferred to the Accumulator (at ~15 Hz rate) for bunch rotation (10 ms) and then to the Debuncher 1 µs 7 bunches

15. Page 15 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Bunch rotation for Mu2e 0.0 0.785 1.59 Time (  sec) 0.0 0.785 1.59 Beam at Injection: LE= 10 eVs at t= 0 sec Beam with h=1+2 buckets at t= 0 sec E-E0(MeV) 0.0 0.785 1.59 Time (  sec) -120 0 120 E-E0(MeV) Just before transfer to the Debuncher at t= 10msec RMSW= 24 nsec FW=132 nsec E-E0(MeV) RMSW= 29 MeV FW=100 MeV Arbitrary Units

16. Page 16 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev System Requirements Previously reviewed by the AAC (May 2008, Aug 2007) Once the major system requirements were formulated, a report was written (Jan 2008) that –Discussed issues arising from the requirements –Defined the elements of an RD&D plan that  Addresses the issues arising from the requirements  Are directed towards a completion of Conceptual Design Report –Estimated:  The resources required to complete the R&D plan  The schedule required to complete the R&D plan The plan is documented at: projectx.fnal.gov/RnDplan/index.html We are now modifying the RD&D plan to meet the ICD system requirements

17. Page 17 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Alternative configurations Alternative configuration studies are mandated by the DOE project Critical Decision process. ACD and its cost range estimate is being created in parallel/series to the ICD by the same people. Work on the ACD is part of the RD&D plan ACD is considered: –in support of baseline design criteria (neutrino and mu2e missions);  Examples: 1-ms pulse vs. 3-ms, TSR vs. L-band elliptical cavities –in support of future upgrades;  Path to 2  4 MW –in support of project scope changes;  not covered in this talk

18. Page 18 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Why ACD for baseline missions? The Recycler is far from being ideal for the proton accumulation: –fixed energy, permanent magnets; –small acceptance; –Large transverse impedance because of wall resistivity; –very long (3.3 km) for an 8 GeV ring; –no solution found for slow extraction; Space-charge tune shift is an issue –The maximum tune shift is limited by how much beam losses one can tolerate –Fermilab Booster has a tune shift of -0.3 at injection (400 MeV); it looses 10-15% of particles at injection or 300 W (at 7.5 Hz operation) –Fermilab MI presently has a tune shift of -0.18 at injection (w/ slip stacking); it looses 5% of particles (mostly because of slip stacking) at injection or 1.5 kW. Number of protons per bunch: 10e10

19. Page 19 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Tune shift 2 MW operation in the MI requires 1.6e14 protons at injection in the Recycler and MI or 3e10 ppb  3 times what we have now. If do nothing -- beam losses will be too high. Our solution in the ICD – painting (transverse and longitudinal): –Make transverse distribution uniform (by “painting”) –Make transv. emittance bigger: 15 to 25 µm (100%) –Make bunches longer (long. emittance increase, two-harmonic rf) Ultimately, no more beam power upgrades for MI unless the injection energy is increased.

20. Page 20 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Are based on the idea that one can reduce the linac energy by making a smaller-size ring with bigger acceptance A good alternative appears to be an 800-m Rapidly Cycling Synchrotron (1/4 of MI) with a 2-GeV injection Alternative configurations Pulsed H - Linac Stripping Foil Synchrotron

21. Page 21 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Cartoon for scale RCS 2GeV Linac 4GeV Linac

22. Page 22 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Upgrade path Provide a plausible self-consistent path to a 2-MW (and higher to 4 MW) proton source for a muon collider Project X -> –Neutrino factory -> Muon collider We have to anticipate a coherent upgrade path –Energy choice –Initial infrastructure choice –Future developments The most general structure for Muon collider proton source –Linac -> Synchrotron (?) -> Accumulator ring (?) -> Compressor ring –single bunch, 2-ns rms, 15 Hz (or higher), 5-20 GeV, 2mm rms spot size on target

23. Page 23 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Alternatives to be considered 1 2 3

24. Page 24 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev ICD and ACD Meets design criteria for nu and mu2e

25. Page 25 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Conclusions for upgrades study (preliminary) Option 1 does not work Option 2 has a limited beam power reach: 1 MW for 8 GeV, 15 Hz, single bunch (2-ns rms, 2-mm rms size) Option 3 has a power reach to 4 MW at 21 GeV, allows to increase the beam power in the MI beyond 2 MW by increasing injection energy to 21 GeV.

26. Page 26 AAC, February 3, 2009 – Sergei Nagaitsev Summary The design criteria and general requirements of Project X are defined From the general requirements: –The scope of Project X is defined –The requirements of the technical subsystems are derived The system requirements drive the design and development plan goals. A RD&D team was assembled to formulate and execute the design and development plan. The updated RD&D plan will be released by the end of February, and will incorporate input from this meeting Specific goals for each sub-system have been defined. The resources required to accomplish these goals have been defined.