Status of ILC

1. Status of ILC Shin-ichi Kurokawa ILCSC Chair KEK June 11, 2007 PPRHE07 Workshop IHEP, Beijing, China

2. Global Effort on ILC Design & R&D Europe Americas Asia 2003年 7月 Joint Design, Implementation, Operations, Management Host Country Provides Conventional Facilities

3. ICFA and the Linear Collider ICFA has been helping to guide international cooperation on and try to realize the Linear Collider more than 10 years . Major steps: 1995: First LC TRC Report, under Greg Loew as Chair 1999: ICFA Statement on Linear Collider 2002: ICFA commissioned the second LC TRC Report, under Greg Loew as Chair 2002: ICFA has established the ILC Steering Committee (ILCSC) with Maury Tigner as the 1st Chair2004 ILCSC set up ITRP and ICFA/ILCSC have approve ITRP recommendation 2005 ICFA/ILCSC has established GDE

4. WWS ILC Organization Chart ACFA ICFA FALC ALCSC ILCSC GDE Asia Regional Team European Regional Team American Regional Team

5. Membership of the ILCSC(Present) Directors CERN Robert Aymar DESY Albrecht Wagner Fermilab Pier Oddone KEK Atsuto Suzuki SLAC Jonathan Dorfan LC Steering Group Chairs Asian Won Namkung European Karlheinz Meier American Satoshi Ozaki Other Chair(2nd ) Shin-ichi Kurokawa China (IHEP Director) Hesheng Chen Russia (BINP Director) Alexander Skrinsky ICFA outside LC regions Vinod Sahni Asia Rep. Sachio Komamiya Europe Rep. Francois Richard American Rep. Jim Brau Secretary Roy Rubinstein

6. Recent and Future ILCSC meetings • July 30, 2006, in Moscow • November 11, 2006, in Valencia • January 12, 2007 (afternoon), in Daresbury (after MAC on January 10-12). First RDR cost disclosure to ILCSC. • February 8, 2007, in Beijing • June 1, 2007, in DESY • August 15, 2007, in Daegu, Korea

7. ILCSC Charter(2002) • Engage in outreach, explaining the intrinsic scientific and technological importance of the project to the scientific community at large, to industry, to government officials and politicians and to the general public • Based upon the extensive work already done in the three regions, engage in defining the scientific roadmap, the scope and primary parameters for machine and detector. It is particularly important that the initial energy, the initial operations scenario and the goals for upgradeability be properly assessed.->Parameter Committee(Chaired by Rolf Heuer)

8. How the physics defines the ILC

9. Parameters for the ILC (2003) • Ecm adjustable from 200 – 500 GeV • Luminosity Ldt = 500 fb-1 in 4 years • Ability to scan between 200 and 500 GeV • Energy stability and precision below 0.1% • Electron polarization of at least 80% • The machine must be upgradeable to 1 TeV

10. Parameters Report Revisited (Nov. 2006) • The ILCSC Parameters Group has given updated selected clarification on accelerator requirements, based on achieving ILC science goals: • Removing safety margins in the energy reach is acceptable but should be recoverable without extra construction. The max luminosity is not needed at the top energy (500 GeV), however ….. • The interaction region (IR) should allow for two experiments ….. the two experiments could share a common IR, provided that the detector changeover can be accomplished in approximately 1 week.

11. ILC – Underlying Technology • Room temperature copper structures OR • Superconducting RF cavities

12. ILCSC Charter (cont) • Monitor the machine R&D activities and make recommendations on the coordination and sharing of R&D tasks as appropriate. Although the accelerator technology choice may well be determined by the host country, the ILCSC should help facilitate this choice to the largest degree possible.> ITRP (International Technology Recommendation Panel) • Identify models of the organizational structure, based on international partnerships, adequate for constructing the LC facility. In addition, the ILCSC should make recommendations regarding the role of the host country in the construction and operation of the facility.-> Establish GDE

13. International Technology Review Panel

14. Global project named International Linear Collider (ILC)

15. ITRP Recommendationendorsed by ICFA in August 2004 ICFA has decided on superconducting technology for the future linear collider (LC), by endorsing the resolution of the ITRP. The ITRP report emphasizes the importance of world-wide unified approach as a single team to design the international linear collider (ILC).-> ILCSC has established GDE

16. Global Design Effort (GDE) • ILCSC set up a committee with Paul Grannis as Chair to select a Director for the GDE. • February 2005, at TRIUMF, ILCSC and ICFA unanimously endorsed the Committee’s choice. • On March 18, 2005 Barry Barish officially accepted the position at the opening of LCWS 05 meeting at Stanford.

17. WWS ILC Organization Chart ACFA ICFA FALC ALCSC ILCSC GDE Asia Regional Team European Regional Team American Regional Team

18. Global Design Effort The Mission of the GDE • Produce a design for the ILC that includes a detailed design concept, performance assessments, reliable international costing, an industrialization plan , siting analysis, as well as detector concepts and scope. • Coordinate worldwide prioritized proposal driven R & D efforts (to demonstrate and improve the performance, reduce the costs, attain the required reliability, etc.)

19. ILC DGE ILC-MOU : Signed on May 10, 2005

20. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CLIC Global Design Effort Project LHC Physics Baseline configuration Reference Design The GDE Plan and Schedule Technical Design ILC R&D Program Expression of Interest to Host International Mgmt From Barry

21. Revised Mandate of ILCSC (August 2006) • The ILCSC, as a Sub-panel of ICFA, is established in order to facilitate a global support towards the realization of the International Linear Collider as a global collaborative effort,drawing on input from regional steering committees. • The ILCSC has established the Global Design Effort (GDE) Central Team to coordinate and direct the effort of the teams in Asia, Europe and the Americas that comprise the GDE. The ILCSC, representing ICFA, will provide oversight to the GDE. • The ILCSC will monitor the progress of the GDE activities, including through reports by the GDE Director and the assessment of technical progress through reports by the MAC Chairperson.

22. Revised Mandate of ILCSC (wrt FALC) • The ILCSC will work closely with the Funding Agencies for the Linear Collider (FALC) and/or other national or international agencies to facilitate the evolution of GDE to an institution under international governance aimed at the construction of the ILC. • The ILCSC will assess and endorse budget requests for the common operations fund of the Central Team that the GDE Director will put forward to Funding Agencies for the Linear Collider (FALC) for approval. • Comment: FALC has changed its name from Funding Agencies for Linear Colliders to Funding Agencies for Large Colliders in May 2006 • FALC is now trying to write Terms of Reference

23. Role of Governments (FALC) • Governments are the key – they will make the decisions that lead to the establishment of an ILC project • The main forum is the Funding Agencies for Large Colliders (FALC), which meets about twice a year. Major steps (like ITRP, GDE, etc) are discussed with FALC to ensure acceptance by the governments of ICFA’s actions. FALC has created a small common fund for the GDE. • FALC has recently expanded its role beyond the ILC to be able to put it into proper context with the plans around the world. It is forming a “terms of reference” to establish its roles and plans to make an annual report for governments.

24. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Global Design Effort Project LHC Physics Baseline configuration Reference Design ILC – Reference Design Phase Engineering Design ILC R&D Program Expression of Interest to Host International Mgmt

25. RDR Design Parameters

26. GDE -- Designing a Linear Collider Superconducting RF Main Linac

27. The Baseline Machine (500GeV) January 2006 ~31 km 20mr ML ~10km (G = 31.5MV/m) RTML ~1.6km BDS 5km 2mr e+ undulator @ 150 GeV (~1.2km) R = 955m E = 5 GeV x2 not to scale

28. The Evolving Baseline Baseline Configuration ~31 km not to scale Removal of second e+ ring

29. Damping Ring The Evolving Baseline Baseline Configuration ~31 km not to scale Removal of second e+ ring simulations of effect of clearing electrodes on ElectronCloud instability suggests that a single e+ ring will be sufficient

30. The Evolving Baseline Baseline Configuration ~31 km not to scale Centralised injectors Place both e+ and e- ring in single centralized tunnel

31. The Evolving Baseline Baseline Configuration ~31 km not to scale Centralised injectors Place both e+ and e- ring in single centralized tunnel Adjust timing (remove timing insert in e+ linac)

32. The Evolving Baseline Baseline Configuration ~30 km not to scale Centralised injectors Place both e+ and e- ring in single centralized tunnel Adjust timing (remove timing insert in e+ linac) Remove BDS e+ bypass

33. The Evolving Baseline Long 5GeV low-emittance transport lines now required Baseline Configuration ~30 km not to scale Centralised injectors Place both e+ and e- ring in single centralized tunnel Adjust timing (remove timing insert in e+ linac) Remove BDS e+ bypass

34. Single IR with Push-Pull Detector The Evolving Baseline Baseline Configuration ~30 km not to scale Final RDR baseline

35. Evolving Design  Cost Reductions July 2006 Some possible cost reductions (e.g. single tunnel, half RF, value engineering) deferred to the engineering phase

36. RDR Cost Estimating Value Costing is intended to represent a common basis for costing, that needs to be converted to actual costs for work performed in a given region. “Value” Costing System: International costing for International Project Provides basic “value” costs agreed to among regions Provides estimate of “explicit” labor (man-hr) Based on a call for world-wide tender: lowest reasonable price for required quality So far only industrial nations, opportunity for reductions Classes of items in cost estimate: Site-Specific: separate estimate for each sample site Conventional: global capability (single world estimate) High Tech: cavities, cryomodules (regional estimates) 36

37. RDR Design & “Value” Costs Summary RDR “Value” Costs Total Value Cost (FY07) 4.80 B ILC Units Shared + 1.82 B Units Site Specific + 14.1 K person-years (“explicit” labor = 24.0 M person-hrs @ 1,700 hrs/yr) 1 ILC Unit = $ 1 (2007) • The reference design was “frozen” as of 1-Dec-06 for the purpose of producing the RDR, including costs. • It is important to recognize this is a snapshot and the design will continue to evolve, due to results of the R&D, accelerator studies and value engineering • The value costs have already been reviewed twice • 3 day “internal review” in Dec • ILCSC MAC review in Jan • Σ Value = 6.62 B ILC Units 37

38. ILC Value – by Area Systems Main Cost Driver Conventional FacilitiesComponents DRAFT PHG - Value Estimate - ORSAY - May 16, 2007 ILC - Global Design Effort 38

39. The Main Linac • Costs have been estimated regionally and can be compared. • Understanding differences require detail comparisons – industrial experience, differences in design or technical specifications, labor rates, assumptions regarding quantity discounts, etc.

40. ILC Reference Design and Plan Producing Cavities Cavity Shape single cells Obtaining Gradient

41. Cryomodules TESLA cryomodule 4th generation prototype ILC cryomodule

42. Main Linac Double Tunnel • Three RF/cable penetrations every rf unit • Safety crossovers every 500 m • 34 kV power distribution

43. Conventional Facilities 72.5 km tunnels ~ 100-150 meters underground 13 major shafts > 9 meter diameter 443 K cu. m. underground excavation: caverns, alcoves, halls 92 surface “buildings”, 52.7 K sq. meters = 567 K sq-ft total

44. Value Funding Profile % of Total Value per Year We are not using integrated cost/schedule tools yet; but it appears feasible to develop a realistic funding profile 44

45. Reference Design Report for ILC Released on February 8, 2007, in Beijing

46. International Cost Review • It was agreed that a single international cost review of the RDR should take place. • The ILCSC was invited to organize this review. ILCSC would nominate 2 members per region and might add a few members taking into account expertise of members. In addition to it two members per region would be selected by FALC. • The committee consists of 16 members: 7 (6+1) members nominated by ILCSC, 6 members by FALC, ILCSC Chair, ILC MAC Chair, and Secretary. • Charge: This review should focus on cost trends and relative costs of sub-systems as they relate to potential scope changes to be incorporated in the EDR, their relevance to the R&D program needed to complete the EDR, and the methodology used in the estimate. • The review committee meeting was held at LAL Orsay on May 23-25. • First draft report has been just sent to the committee members

47. Membership Sergio Bertolucci (Frascati, Italy) ILCSC (from Europe) Jia-er Chen (Peking University, China) ILCSC (from Asia) Mark de Jong (Canadian Light Source) ILCSC/FALC (from Americas) Lyn Evans (CERN) FALC (from Europe) (Chair) Norbert Holtkamp (ITER) ILCSC/FALC (from Americas) S. S. Kapoor (BARC, India) ILCSC (from Asia) G. S. Lee (NFRC, Korea) FALC (from Asia) Vera Luth (SLAC, USA) ILCSC/FALC (from Americas) Norihiko Ozaki (Institute for Techno-Economics, Japan) ILCSC (at Large) Lucio Rossi (CERN) ILCSC (from Europe) Ed Temple (Fermilab, USA) ILCSC/FALC (from Americas) Dieter Trines (DESY, Germany) FALC (from Europe) Toshihide Tsunematsu (JAEA, Japan) FALC (from Asia) Ex-officio Shin-ichi Kurokawa (KEK) ILCSC Chair Ferdinand Willeke (DESY) ILCSC MAC Chair Secretary Roy Rubinstein (Fermilab)

48. Major Points(draft) • The Committee believes that GDE is doing an excellent job of designing ILC under the conditions that currently exist. The costing methodology is as good as can be done at the present time. • The Committee notes that the GDE has already reduced the ILC cost by over 25% since July 2006, and that the technical design has been scrutinized in four reviews by the ILC Machine Advisory Committee (MAC). Because of this, the Committee concentrated on two major cost drivers: the Main Linac and Conventional Facilities, which together comprise 70% of the ILC cost. • The Committee, together with the GDE, sees further possible cost savings, including in Main Linac, RF distribution, Damping Ring optimization, tunnel diameters, the number and size of vertical access shafts, and the tunnel water cooling parameters. • More industry involvement in ILC design and R&D would be very desirable.

49. Major Points (draft cont) • The methodology for the Main Linac design is the best that can be done at present. The cavity gradient goal is aggressive, but progress towards it is being made; further R&D should help, and XFEL experience over the next few years should be valuable. • Project management will need to be strengthened during EDR phase; the reporting by engineers directly to the GDE management is especially important during this phase. • ILCSC provides good scientific oversight of the project, but more government involvement is needed to optimize costs. More government funding would allow a more centralized organization and more R&D, including industrial R&D.

50. Prepare to Propose ILC Construction • ILC Engineering Design • We have a solid design concept in the reference design, but it is immature and needs engineering designs, value engineering, supporting R&D and industrialization. • GDE will be reorganized around a Project Management Office to reach this goal • Marc Ross(FNAL), N. Walker(DESY) and A Yamamoto(KEK) • Central management will have authority to set priorities and direct the work • Resources for the engineering design and associated R&D appears feasible • Investments toward Industrialization and siting • Anticipate LHC results by about 2010. We must be ready!