1 / 30

Outline

Outline. A quick review of the VLHC A short description Some important technical points The VLHC in a global plan for HEP How & why a VLHC fits into a global plan Some remarks on planning for HEP

bella
Download Presentation

Outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Outline • A quick review of the VLHC • A short description • Some important technical points • The VLHC in a global plan for HEP • How & why a VLHC fits into a global plan • Some remarks on planning for HEP • Promoting huge accelerator projects in today’s political climate is very difficult. We make it more difficult by pursuing a flawed strategy. How can we make it better? Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  2. Fermilab-TM-2149 June 11, 2001 www.vlhc.org Design Study for a Staged Very Large Hadron Collider Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  3. The Staged VLHC Concept • Take advantage of the space and excellent geology near Fermilab. • Build a BIG tunnel. • Fill it with a “cheap” 40 TeV collider. • Later, upgrade to a 200 TeV collider in the same tunnel. • Spreads the cost • Produces exciting energy-frontier physics sooner & cheaper • Allows time to develop cost-reducing technologies for Stage 2 • Creates a high-energy full-circumference injector for Stage 2 • A large-circumference tunnel is necessary for a synchrotron radiation-dominated collider. • This is a time-tested formula for success Main Ring  Tevatron LEP  LHC Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  4. Conclusions (1) • A staged VLHC starting with 40 TeV and upgrading to 200 TeV in the same tunnel is, technically, completely feasible. • There are no serious technical obstacles to the Stage-1 VLHC at 40 TeV and 1034 luminosity. • The existing Fermilab accelerator complex is an adequate injector for the Stage-1 VLHC, but lower emittance would be better. (We should take this into account if Fermilab builds a high-power injector. Low emittance is important!) • VLHC operating cost is moderate, using only 20 MW of refrigeration power, comparable to the Tevatron. • Improvements and cost savings can be gained through a vigorous R&D program in magnets and underground construction. Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  5. Conclusions (2) • The construction cost of the first stage of a VLHC is comparable to that of a linear electron collider, ~ $4 billion using “European” accounting. • From this and previous studies, we note that the cost of a collider of energy near 40 TeV is almost independent of magnetic field. • A total construction time of 10 years for Stage-1 is feasible, but the logistics will be complex. • Making a large tunnel is possible in the Fermilab area. Managing such a large construction project will be a challenge. • Building the VLHC at an existing hadron accelerator lab saves significant money and time. Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  6. Conclusions (3) • The Stage 2 VLHC can reach 200 TeV and 2x1034 or possibly significantly more in the 233 km tunnel. • A large-circumference ring is a great advantage for the high-energy Stage-2 collider. A small-circumference high-energy VLHC may not be realistic. • There is the need for magnet and vacuum R&D to demonstrate feasibility and to reduce cost. • Result of work completed after the “Study.” • For very high energy colliders, very high magnetic fields (B>12T) are not the best solution. Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  7. VLHC Parameters Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  8. Transmission Line Magnet • 2-in-1 warm iron • Superferric: 2T bend field • 100kA Transmission Line • alternating gradient (no quadrupoles needed) • 65m Length • Self-contained including Cryogenic System and Electronics Cabling • Warm Vacuum System vacuum chamber SC transmission line 30cm support tube/vacuum jacket cry pipes 100kA return bus Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  9. The First Stage-1 Magnet Yokes Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  10. VLHC Tunnel Cross Section Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  11. Underground Construction • Three orientations chosen to get representative geological samples of sites near Fermilab. • South site samples many geologic strata and the Sandwich fault. • One north site is flat and goes through many strata. • Other north site is tipped to stay entirely within the Galena-Platteville dolomite, and is very deep. • These are not selected sites – merely representative. • Cost of other sites can be built from data gained in these sites. Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  12. EAST-WEST SECTION Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  13. VLHC Cost Basis • Used the “European” cost base • No detectors (2 halls included), no EDI, no indirects, no escalation, no contingency – a “European” base estimate. • Estimated the cost drivers using a standard cost-estimating format. This is done at a fairly high level. • Underground construction (Estimates done by AE/CM firm) • Above-ground construction (Estimates done by FNAL Facility Engineering Section) • Arc magnets • Corrector and special magnets (injection, extraction, etc) • Refrigerators • Other cryogenics • Vacuum • Interaction regions • Used today’s (2001) prices and today’s technology. No improvements in cost from R&D are assumed. Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  14. VLHC Stage 1 Cost Drivers * Underground construction cost is the average of the costs of three orientations, and includes the cost of a AE/CM firm at 17.5% of construction costs. Comparison: the SSC Collider Ring, escalated to 2001 is $3.79 billion Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  15. Stage-2 Magnets • There are several magnet options for Stage 2. Presently Nb3Sn is the most promising superconducting material. Stage-2 Dipole Single-layer common coil Stage-2 Dipole Warm-iron Cosine Q Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  16. Stage-2 Cost & Performance • What are the general design ideas that exist for magnets for the Stage 2 VLHC? • We did not make a cost estimate of the Stage 2 VLHC, but we tried to understand major cost sensitivities. • For example, how does the cost vary as a function of magnetic field? • After the “Study,” we did some work to help understand the limitations of Stage 2 performance. • Does synchrotron radiation put limits on performance, or does it influence the choice of magnetic field? • Can detectors live in the radiation field? • These questions were studied to help guide future R&D. Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  17. VLHC Cost based on SSC cost distribution Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  18. Synchrotron radiation • Synchrotron radiation masks look promising. They decrease refrigerator power and permit higher energy and luminosity. They are practical only in a large-circumference tunnel. Coolant A “standard” beam screen will work up to ~200 TeV and ~2x1034. Beyond that, the coolant channels take too much space. A synchrotron radiation “mask” will allow even higher energy and luminosity. Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  19. Magnet aperture required for beam screen and photon stops Diameter increases due to increased coolant flow requirements 200 TeV; 30 km bend radius 14 m magnet length Min. BS-beam clearance=4 mm Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  20. VLHC Optimum Field PSR<10 W/m/beam peak tL> 2 tsr Int/cross < 60 L units 1034 cm-2s-1 Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  21. Detector Radiation Dose ~ 50 kW (total) at IP Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  22. Stage-2 VLHC Conclusions • The Stage 2 VLHC can reach 200 TeV and 2x1034 or more in the 233 km tunnel. • A large-circumference ring is a great advantage for the high-energy Stage-2 collider. A small-circumference high-energy VLHC may not be realistic. • The optimum magnetic field for a 100-200 TeV collider is less than the highest field strength attainable because of synchrotron radiation, total collider cost and technical risk. • The minimum aperture of the magnet is determined by beam stability and synchrotron radiation, not by field quality. • There is the need for magnet and vacuum R&D to demonstrate feasibility and to reduce cost. • This R&D will not be easy, will not be quick, and will not be cheap. Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  23. Next Steps • Most important, we must understand the science needs and the opportunities a VLHC presents. • This workshop is a start! • If we ever want a VLHC, we have to keep at the R&D, particularly for high- and low-field magnets, tunneling and vacuum. • We need to reexamine our strategy for progress, planning and politics, not only for the VLHC, but for all large facilities. Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  24. The HEP Plan • We are on the verge of important discoveries • There are many hints that great physics is just over the horizon — understanding EWSB, neutrino mass, dark energy, dark matter and more — an exciting time. • Possibilities for new HEP tools are excellent • Run II is moving ahead (some problems, but getting better) • LHC is being built (with the usual problems) • A renaissance in neutrino physics (New stuff) • A linear collider is being considered (and might be started in 5 to 10 years) • Should we include a VLHC in this plan? Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  25. VLHC in the HEP Plan • Why do we need to include the VLHC in the HEP plan? • If we believe that we may eventually want higher-energy collisions at high luminosity, we will almost certainly want a VLHC. • The timing and eventual existence of a VLHC will depend on decisions about all other multi-billion-dollar facilities including linear collider. • The U.S. has the best combination of resources, infrastructure, space and geology for a VLHC. It is difficult to build it anywhere else. • If a linear collider is built in the U.S. for billions of $, the U.S. is unlikely to spend billions on a VLHC soon after. This results in a long delay for VLHC. • A significant energy upgrade of the LHC will be very costly and very risky, for very little gain. • Furthermore, more than VLHC is missing from the plan. • What about underground labs, super neutrino beams, astrophysics experiments or R&D for the future? All these should be in the plan. Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  26. The HEP Plan • We do not have a viable strategy for the survival of HEP. • A global scrap over a linear collider does not constitute a strategy. • There has been some recent progress in formulating a path to a linear collider technology decision. • We do not even have a plan to make a plan. • In the U.S., for example, the HEPAP recommendation to create a mechanism to formulate a coherent strategy has become the narrowly-focused P5. • HEP must change the way it does things if it is going to survive! Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  27. The HEP Plan • Big HEP instruments require more than business as usual • A global strategy derived from a large vision of scientific goals — the “Science Roadmap.” Sell the science, not the instruments. • The inclusion of a range of scientific disciplines and government policy makers from the beginning. • A fair and open mechanism to modify the roadmapand the plan as results dictate. • Why a global strategy? • Big HEP instruments are too costly to be planned, built and operated nationally or regionally. • HEP instruments are complex and take a long time to design and build. Everyone must be involved; everyone must help. • International collaboration has many political, human and scientific benefits beyond cost-sharing. Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  28. A Word About R&D • The machines we are talking about are very costly and very complex. • Mistakes and delays are potentially very damaging financially, politically and scientifically. • It takes longer than you think to develop the components of a cutting-edge collider. • The R&D investment for future HEP instruments will be much greater than we are accustomed to. Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  29. Conclusions • The most important requirement for the survival of HEP is worldwide cooperation resulting in a global strategy based on a visionary science roadmap. • Sell the science, not the instruments • Learn from the NASA strategy, in which the goals are truly large and visionary, and the instruments are missions along the way. • The parameters and schedule for a VLHC will depend on the timing and location of all other large facilities. The global plan should recognize these couplings. • If we ever want to build a VLHC, or any other very large facility, we need to have a vigorous R&D program now. • The R&D is very challenging, and the penalty for failure will be severe. Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

  30. Last Slide Hadron Collider Workshop 2003 Fermilab

More Related