CLIC-ILC Collaboration Update

CLIC-ILC Collaboration Update Ken Peach CLIC Collaboration Board, May 19 2011

2010

Joint WG on « accelerator general issues » • Membership: • CLIC: Ph. Lebrun (co-chair), K. Peach, D. Schulte • ILC: E. Elsen, M. Harrison (co-chair), K. Yokoya • Mandate • The ILCSC and the CLIC Collaboration Board have approved formation of a CLIC/ILC General Issues working group with the following mandate: • Promoting the Linear Collider • Identifying synergies to enable the design concepts of ILC and CLIC to be prepared efficiently • Discussing detailed plans for the ILC and CLIC efforts, in order to identify common issues regarding siting, technical items and project planning. • Discussing issues that will be part of each project implementation plan • Identifying points of comparison between the two approaches to the linear collider • Reporting line • The conclusions of the working group will be reported to the ILCSC and CLIC Collaboration Board with a goal of producing a joint document.

Activities 2010 • Working method • Approximately monthly meetings by teleconference • Four face-to-face meetings held during CLIC/ILC events • Analysing the mandate • Physics and detector issues • considered outside the remit of the WG • Governance • covered by dedicated WG under B. Foster • advisable to check their draft report for CLIC-specific sensitivities • Outreach • basically handled outside the WG • WG addresses communication strategies to the various stakeholders • Interim Report part of this approach • Focus in 2010 • Addressed in this Interim Report • Identifying synergies to enable the design concepts of ILC and CLIC to be prepared efficiently • Discussing detailed plans for the ILC and CLIC efforts, in order to identify common issues regarding siting, technical items and project planning. • neither CLIC nor ILC have yet produced a project implementation plan • comparison of the two approaches needs CLIC CDR, available 2011

CLIC Response Dear Mike and Philippe, I want to thank you for the report issued January 2011 concerning general issues for the CLIC and ILC accelerator projects. We believe this report is both useful and well written, and generally we appreciate very much the work done by the group so far.The report was presented to the CLIC CB February 7th and the discussions concentrated one four topics: a) The difficulty of re-using ILC equipment for CLICb) The wish to consider if there are specific site requirement for CLICc) The need to understand the system tests needed for both project - our discussion concentrated the CLIC side of thisd) The recommendation to present a cost band up to 1 TeVIn particular the three last we will follow up in more detail in our project planning discussions and it is useful to have these issues identified in your report.Concerning future work of the WG we are happy to discuss this further with you. One rather obvious first point is to make sure that the points raised in the current report are followed up or at least discussed carefully, secondly to consider if more R&D areas can benefit from common working groups, and thirdly to continue to develop common understanding and language to be able to compare and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both technologies in an open atmosphere. Moving towards a more combined Governance model is an underlying theme but clearly there are several processes in this area, and one has to be careful to discuss such a complicated issue in the right place and at the right time. Your WG can nevertheless contribute very constructively to such a process if the discussion and suggestions are made in coherence with larger discussions in the community and in other committees. Best regards, Steinar

CERN May 2011 MTP • high priority for Linear Collider collaboration for the future • The science drivers for the 2011 MTP: • … LHC Ops…., the fixed target program and ….. • “This MTP is science-driven secondly by the preparations for the longer-term aim of ensuring that CERN remains the main global accelerator laboratory at the energy frontier: • R&D for CLIC in the framework of a world-wide collaboration, leading to a Conceptual Design Report in 2011/2012; • enhanced CLIC – ILC collaboration, including detector R&D and preparation for the Conceptual Design Report; • R&D for superconducting high-field magnets for a possible higher- energy proton collider, HE-LHC, if necessitated by the physics; and • R&D for high-power proton sources, such as the high-power superconducting proton linac (HP-SPL), in line with European participation in neutrino physics.”

The Accelerator Inspired Working Groups • In addition to the General Issues workinggroup, the currenttechnicalworking groups are • Beamdeliverysystems & machine-detector interface • Civil engineering and conventionalfacilities • Positron generation • Damping rings • Beamdynamics • Cost & schedule

General Issues Working Group: Future topics (work still in progress) • Issues part of project implementation plans • Siting • criteria and constraints • CLIC specificities • Preparation of technical procurement • Considerations of mass producing hi-tech components • QA, industrial follow-up • Decision point for the LC • Points of comparison between the two approaches • Physics reach • Maximum energy: in relation to first LHC results • Energy staging and upgradeability • Luminosity (incl energy spread & background) & polarization • Lower-energy operation, energy fine scans • Accelerator technology • Explore (& compare ?) strength/weaknesses of the two approaches • Comparative reliability • Future technology development? • Cost & power estimates • Topical joint WGs • Follow-up of existing ones • ½ day topical workshops at LC meetings : • RF power sources • High surface E-M fields • Beam instrumentation • Conclusions Topics in green - another interim report in 2011 Topics in blue - the final report in 2012

Decision point for the LC • 2½ key facts are needed • Is there a light (<200 GeV/c2) Higgs? • Is there New Physics (below 1 TeV)? • If yes, what is the energy range? • Note: • It does not matter much from the point of view of defining the decision point what the answers to these questions are – only that we know them! • The 1st question may be answered by end 2012 • The 2nd question may be answered by end 2011 • The ½ question may not be clear for some time • We need to define criteria for making a “fact” • Is 3s enough for evidence? • Is 98% enough to exclude? • Reach of LC wrt HE-LHC or HL-LHC?

Comments and proposals • Do we need the answers to both to proceed? • (KJP) yes (politically) • Is the European Strategy update a constraint? • (KJP) yes • If either or both questions are answered before the Strategy update workshop, we should • Encourage the Americas & Asia to update their strategies • Organise input to these discussions • Plan for a “community workshop” in early 2012 (March?) • If there is no reliable information by March 2012 • Be prepared to organise a quick workshop between March and the Strategy update workshop if evidence emerges • Make plans for a major “community workshop” in early 2013 to review the situation • [this will either define the LC parameters or address the crisis] • “Community workshop” – a sort of Snowmass

Tentative Conclusions The Linear Collider collaboration is working at the grass roots level. We may tweak the organisational structure a little (i.e. create one) The General Issues Working Group does appear to have a legitimate role in the collaborative process. Remark: By nature of its mandate, the WG is however called to address matters at the limit of its domain of responsibility: the contents of the corresponding discussions – by definition informal - should not be released outside the formal reporting line of the WG. The ~2012 co-incidence between the EU strategy report, the CLIC CDR, the GDE TDR, and the LHC first physics run could certainly change the landscape in a significant way. There is evident interest on both sides of continuing to develop the LC collaboration in the future, post GDE. We will need to consider how to do this soon.

Confidential LCCB (Linear Collider Cooperation Board) Lab Directors, ILC, CLIC, Physics, Detectors, Preliminary ideas /work in progress CLIC Project ILC Project Internal Collaboration structure Internal Collaboration Structure (see Steinar’s talk) Site studies Detector Detector Steinar Stapnes & Ken Peach Physics Physics

CLIC-ILC Collaboration Update