US ILC Review by DOE/NSF Apr. 4-6 at Fermilab

1. US ILC Review by DOE/NSF Apr. 4-6 at Fermilab Review is charged to address US ILC organization and integration into world effort; US R&D program in FY06 and plan for FY07; effort to assess ILC risk, US role in worldwide test facilities; work toward Reference Design Report and Cost estimate. Observers will include DOE and NSF staff, GDE members (Barish, Foster = European Regional Director, Asian Regional Director delegate, Kurokawa = ILCSC chair; delegates from US labs interested in ILC participation. Science Magazine requested observer status. Instead, GDE invited Science reporter to visit after review for interviews and updates. Consultant reviewers: Ilan Ben-Zvi (BNL/ATF &RHIC) Dixon Bogert (FNAL/NUMI) Isidoro Campisi (ORNL/SNS) Tom Elioff (SLAC/SPEAR3) Don Hartill (Cornell/CESR) George Mulholland (Applied Cryo Tech Inc) Katsunobu Oide (KEK/BFactory) Ferdi Willeke (DESY/HERA)

2. The categories for ILC budget planning are: R&D – work done in laboratories to develop and verify subsystem components. This supports the cost reduction of the ILC by developing new cheaper alternatives, and reduces the risk of the design and mitigates the potential for cost overruns and stretchout. Bid to host – needed to develop the US site geology, environmental impact, infrastructure impact, buildings, shafts etc. Test facilities – infrastructure for testing superconducting rf components with beam in Laboratories. The facilities are used to test early industrial prototypes and to develop new cost saving steps in superconducting rf fabrication. Industrialization – funds needed to bring US industry up to capability to produce quality cavities, cryomodules, couplers etc with good efficiency, reproducibility and quality. Detectors – funds for experimental detector R&D and test beams Management – the US portion of ILC management costs during the R&D phase.

3. Request This request is based on a FY12 start of construction. The spending in FY11 is for the final design preparation and preparation of industry and labs for production. Results from the LHC in FY10 and beyond are required for an international agreement to proceed.

4. OMB guidance

5. 1: R&D 2: Bid to host 3: Test facilities 4: Industrialization 5: Detector 6: Management Requested profile FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

6. 1: R&D 2: Bid to host 3: Test facilities 4: Industrialization 5: Detector 6: Management OMB profile FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

7. Profile by year FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

8. The OMB profile for FY07– FY11 gives 80% of the OHEP request. The reductions in the major categories are: • R&D: 76% • Test facilities: 100% • Industrialization: 79% • Detector R&D 70% • Impacts: • Comparison of the total and integrated profiles indicates start of construction is delayed 1 year to FY2013. • The reduction of R&D allows for fewer cost saving studies, so tends to increase the TPC. It also increases the chance that unforeseen surprises arise during construction causing delay and cost overruns. This in turn increases the risk that the construction phase is stretched beyond the target of 8 years.

9. Industrialization work needed to demonstrate the cost estimate and ILC feasibility are shifted to FY12. Test facilities are delayed in OMB budget, but nearly completed in FY11 to match the final industrialization funding. • The delay in developing US industrial capability jeopardizes the credibility of the US bid to host. • Reduced detector R&D will impair demonstration of needed new technology, resulting in less capable detectors and longer operation time to achieve comparable precision measurements.

10. Expenditures at KEK: about $9.4M M&S in both 2005 and 2006. Using SWF fractions from US and Europe and including fringes, overheads, this translates to about $53 US accounting. Additional funding in Korea and China.

15. Superconducting Test Facility Plan to assemble 5 cryomodules of cavities in beam test (~1 GeV linac). Phase I in operation in late 2006; Phase 2 in 2009. Scope is very similar to that proposed by FNAL, Europe but Japanese are ahead.

19. Asian budget April 2005 – March 2006 (JFY 2006 is similar) Funding from KEK budget, core university spending, grants in aid for research, Japan-US cooperation fund. Other ATF Japan funding by area STF Total M&S direct expenditure = 1106 M¥ = 9381K$ Using same multiplier for SWF/M&S ration in Europe and US and adding estimate for US accounting for fringe benefits and Lab overheads: Total estimated ILC expenditure in Japan = $53.3M Guess that Korea and China are spending 20% of Japan, so total Asian budget is ~$60 – 65M.

21. ILC R&D activities in Europe A recent draft (as yet confidential) report from ILC/Europe details the expenditures from all nations, broken down into WBS categories, for the year Mar. 2006 – Feb. 2007. It includes M&S and SWF direct costs. M&S SWF Total European est. (K€) 5745 15,097 20,842 Conversion (K$) 6894 18,116 25,010 Add fringe benefits & overheads § (K$)7682 31,482 39,164 § : use average FNAL/SLAC overhead rates We guess the value of the XFEL industrialization effort to add another ~$20M equivalent (needed in US)

22. cost engineeringl and management tools electron source positron sources conventional facilities and siting damping rings ring to main linac operations and reliability main linac components instrumentation and controls Breakdown of European spending 2006-7 beam delivery system

23. A proposal to the 7th EU framework program is being prepared to develop a superconducting rf test facility at CERN, starting in 2008. The projected proposal will be in the 30 – 50M€ range. Converting to $ and adding the overheads to get to US accounting, this will be ~$100M.

24. OHEP estimate of US ILC R&D budget need FY07 later reduced to $60M The primary needs are for development of industrial capability (cavities, couplers, klystrons, cryomodules) and the associated test facilities at laboratories, and R&D (developing cost saving and risk reduction solutions for technical components)

25. OHEP estimate of US ILC R&D budget need

26. The OMB profile falls short of the ‘desired’ in the critical years FY07 to FY09. Desired profile integral= $717M OMB profile integral= $585M

27. The OHEP budget allows completion of the necessary R&D and industrialization in 2010, thus enabling the final technical design for a 2012 start (estimate 8 year construction so complete in 2020). This schedule is consistent with the time needed to develop industrial capability and complete the R&D. It is consistent an off ramp based on LHC results in 2010. The present OMB 5 year plan reduces the budgets in FY07 – FY09 and delays construction by ~1 year. Our Asian and European collaborators are proceeding on a pace to complete the R&D and industrialization efforts by 2010.

28. Backups

29. Integrated Profile FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11