ILC R&D Program

1. ILC R&D Program Paul Grannis March 14-16, 2006

2. Outline • Global Design Effort – recent past and future activities • Major needs for ILC R&D • Funding in FY06 and needs in FY07 to FY11 • Detector R&D • Governmental initiatives (FALC)

3. 1. GDE recent accomplishments 2004: Choice of superconducting rf for main linacs 2005: Establish Global Design Effort (GDE) with Barry Barish director 2005: Appoint 3 regional directors (Gerry Dugan, Americas Regional Team – ART; Brian Foster, Europe; Fumihiko Takasaki, Asia Now 66 members of GDE 1 cost engineer, civil engineer, communicators from each region Some representation from detector community

4. The GDE organization ICFA FALC, FALC Resource Grp ILCSC GDE Directorate GDE Executive Committee GDE R & D Board GDE Change Control Board GDE Design Cost Board Global R&D Program RDR Design Matrix

5. GDE organization Executive Committee: Director, 3 Regional directors and chief accelerator scientists (Tor Raubenheimer (SLAC), Nick Walker (DESY), Kaoru Yokoya (KEK) ) Responsible for major decisions on baseline configuration, overall R&D plans, test facility coordination, Reference Design and cost estimate preparation. Weekly meetings of EC Three important boards: Change Control Bd: document all configuration changes R&D Bd: Oversee R&D, set priorities for accelerator and detector R&D Design & Cost Bd: establish WBS, conduct cost estimate

6. ILC Technically Limited Timeline (GDE ‘plan’) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Global Design Effort Project Baseline configuration LHC results: offramp opportunity Reference Design Technical Design ILC R&D Program Expression of Interest to Host International Mgmt

7. First steps in the GDE plan 2005: Form the GDE, develop the Baseline Configuration Document and the Alternate Configuration options (those things where improvement in performance, reduction in cost or risk mitigation could be achieved). The BCD and ACD choices were made and documented by end of 2005. 2006: Reconstitute the GDE organization to manage the R&D coordination, reference design report and cost estimate (see slides 5 – 8). By end 2006: prepare the Ref. Design Report and cost estimate. The report will be based in part on existing work (Tesla TDR, NLC, KEK), in part on new design effort in labs and in part on new studies conducted with industry. The BCD choices tend to be conservative; only those solutions that have been demonstrated will be incorporated. We may expect and hope that R&D will develop cost savings and risk mitigation.

8. GDE Technical plan FY07 and beyond • GDE plans to use 2007 – 8 to prepare an engineering level Technical Design Report. There are several problems associated: • Without a specific site, a technical design is not possible (need to know geology, tunnel configuration, environmental issues, ES&H etc.) • Getting a site requires a reasonably clear commitment by governments (subject to LHC off ramp, final cost). • Knowing the cost of major systems (klystrons, cavities, cryomodules) requires extensive experience in industry in making these items and major tests. This step is expensive. And it takes time (current estimate is that we won’t have the results before 2009-10). • Will need to have a clear idea of what each nation provides toward R&D and test facilities. Technical design completion, commitment to project with site choice, seems more likely ~2010.

9. Cost estimation Costing will be done using the CERN system employed for LHC detectors, and adapted for ITER. WBS is ready; rules for costing are established. Costs for M&S deliverables from industry quotations, experience with similar systems, estimates by Lab engineers, etc. Take some average of the available M&S information. Make an estimate for the cost learning curves for mass production (these are crucial!) Laboratory manpower estimates by GDE, broken down into categories (professional, administrative, technician, quoted in FTE. Average detector cost to be done by WWS; first estimate by end 2006. NO contingency, escalation, fringe benefits, overheads, etc. Translation into real cost in US can only be done when the specific work package allocations are negotiated.

10. Cost information Tesla TDR, and the subsequent US Options study report, give some indication of the expected cost. Translated into US accounting, all manpower, escalation, contingency, two tunnels, and detectors brings the Tesla estimate to $10 - $13B, depending on potential cost savings. Experience shows that 10-20% of TEC should be spent in R&D phase (including PED?). By this rule of thumb, 15% translates to $400 – 800M on R&D in each region if this phase is equally shared across regions

11. Tesla TDR cost breakdown (M&S only) Main linac

12. Summary: GDE • GDE has no fiscal authority – national funding agencies provide funds directly to laboratories. Thus direction and planning is done on a consensual basis with whatever funds are made available to each lab. • Issues resulting from this organization: • Expensive test facilities are initiated nationally without clear prioritization or central control by GDE. Such facilities are often seen as important components of national infrastructure improvements and thus may go beyond ILC specific needs. • GDE does not have good guidance for out year funding, so planning the R&D and PED phase is hampered. • GDE has not engaged with needs for detector R&D and its funding priority. • GDE operation as virtual laboratory under ILCSC makes oversight cumbersome. • Putting GDE under interim internationalorganization, with agreed upon regional funding guidance for the next 5 years, and with a central site, would allow more effective management of the R&D phase. Institution of site selection process needed for TDR phase.

13. Next steps for GDE 2006: Prepare the Reference Design Report and cost estimate with errors. 2006: High priority R&D tasks at participating labs. 2007: DOE needs to review the cost estimate and plan the next phase. 2007: Reorganize the GDE to include more engineering for technical design tasks. Pursue critical R&D tasks to validate alternate choices for technology. 2008: Prepare technical design report, preferrably on 1 or 2 actual proposed sites. Continue R&D on alternate design choices.

14. 2. R&D issues – cavities and cryomodules • The cost drivers for ILC are the main linac cavities and cryomodules, the rf delivery system, and the civil construction (tunnels and infrastructure). • Cavities and cryomodules: • The BCD acceptance criterion for cavities is 35 MV/m. The ILC will operate at EACC = 31.5 MV/M (10% operating margin). • A few cavities of this gradient have been fabricated for DESY; uniformity is not good (~30% spread); • Alternate designs (KEK, Cornell) with larger accelerating gradient (lower B at Nb surface) exist for single cell cavities (45 – 52 MV/m) ; however higher EACC comes with higher E field at Nb surface, hence more worry about field emission and dark current (radiation and cryo load). • The cost optimization curve vs. EACC is rather shallow; minimum around 40 MV/m is only a few % lower in cost than the 31.5 MV/m BCD. • Transfering the cavity production and processing to industry is key issue.

15. Optimize cost vs. gradient Relative cost Gradient (MV/m) C. Adolphsen / SLAC

16. Need for improved cavity processing and reproducibility TESLA cavities – grey after chemical polishing; black after electropolishing. Spread in gradient is too large. Would like to get to ~10% spread; need work on processing control

17. R&D issues – cavities and cryomodules A significant cost for cavities arises from the complex conditioning procedure – buffered chemical processing, high pressure rinse, ultrapure water rinse & electropolishing (not well understood). R&D to understand and limit the need for these steps is desirable so as to reduce costs. (Fermilab, ANL, JLab, Cornell) Large grain Nb may allow reduced processing time – many surface issues seem related to grain boundaries. This is high priority R&D (JLab, FNAL) High volume cavity production capability has not yet been achieved; it is probably necessary to fabricate the full set of cavities (~20,000) in all three regions. (Fermilab) The cryomodule (eight 9-cell cavities) mechanical design needs to be redone; issues are the overall length, higher order mode beam monitors, quadrupole insertions, mechanical rigidity. (Fermilab)

18. R&D issues – rf power systems There is one modulator (ac to dc converter) and one klystron (rf power amplifier) for every three cryomodules (24 cavities). Klystron pulse is 1.5 ms at 10 MW. Three vendors exist but existing klystrons show breakdown at high power. Klystron R&D needs to be pushed more than it is at present. BCD choice for modulator is switched capacitor design; large, prone to failure. An alternate Marx generator design holds promise for more reliability and lower cost (SLAC, LLNL R&D). Klystron costs are high; need close interaction with industry to bring down cost. Long term project needed.

19. R&D issues – sources and damping rings Electron source seems well understood (90%) polarization. Undulator experiment at SLAC last year seems to demonstrate the proof of principle for the positron source (undulator photons on thin target make e+ (and e-). Need to demonstrate the helical undulators needed for polarized positrons (~60%). Emittance reduction needed has been demonstrated in KEK ATF. Remaining R&D required: study and control of electron cloud instability in positron rings. ATF (electrons only) cannot do this; Cornell considering an e+ test facility based on CESR. Fast kicker magnets are needed to eject the bunches from the damping ring to the main linac. The 6 km long damping rings require rise/fall time < 10 nsec. These have been achieved.

20. Other R&D and design issues Beam delivery system and final focus seems in fairly good shape. However the interface between accelerator and experiment (collimators, stations for beam energy and polarization measurements before and after collision, beam dump channels) still needs work. One vs two tunnels: BCD has 2 tunnels, one for klystrons/modulators with service access, one for main linac. The choice will depend on site. Reference design will include 4 sites (2 EU, 1 US, 1 JP) to give range of options to look at cost variations. A final design will require a specific site – 1 vs. 2 tunnel, deep or shallow, local safety requirements, environmental issues etc. Reference Design includes 2 collision points for 2 detectors (side by side). Beam only goes to one at a time. This choice will be re-evaluated in light of the cost impact later.

21. Test facilities There need to be several large scale test facilities worldwide. Coordination is difficult because they also serve national needs that GDE does not take as its responsibility. At present, each region is planning on such facilities for the basic main linac components – cavities, cryomodules, rf power. STF at KEK, TTF/XFEL at DESY, ILCTA at FNAL. Is this duplicative? Given the likely need to produce cavities in all regions, it may not be. In any case, each region wants to develop its SRF capabilities. The US community believes that developing a mature SRF capability is key to making a credible bid to host. Developing industrial capability is a key part of the US specific test activity. Some part of the test facility development supports national priorities, and will buttress an eventual bid to host.

22. Test facilities, US bid to host Potential test facilities: Cavity tests in horizontal and vertical dewars, cryomodules, cryomodule strings – feedback on surface preparation, gradient reproducibility, reliability of operation, beam tests to study dark current, cryo loading etc. There should be a ‘string test’ of 1-2% of the full system. Damping ring studies – low emittance preservation, instabilities, kickers, diagnostics, low level rf systems. Perhaps Cornell/NSF?? Klystron/modulator tests: SLAC has klystron test, not clear new need Final focus studies (KEK ATF 2 aims at this.) Without US capability in SRF production and testing, the US credibility as host would be impaired. US industry participation in the SC RF subsystems is a strong motivation in getting the support of Congress. ILC will likely need all three regions to produce cavities and cryomodules.

23. Balancing R&D and test facilities It becomes increasingly clear that major test facilities such as the ILCTA at Fermilab will be large cost drivers for the R&D phase. FNAL proposal: ~$72M in FY07 – FY08 for ILCTA manpower, M&S, industrialization and operations. FNAL proposal: ~$7.4M in FY07 – FY08 for bid to host (A&E contracts for tunnel, buildings). Long lead time for preparing the test facilities: delaying these will shift readiness for construction year for year. DOE needs advice on how to get a sensible test facilities proposal, and on the appropriate split of R&D and test facility budgets. LC Steering Group Americas is setting up a new task force to propose a plan by summer 2006. GDE is rethinking the division of industrialization cost between its purview and national actions.

24. Summary: R&D issues The largest issue is developing rf units for the main linac (modulator, klystron, couplers, cavities, cryomodules) – the main technical cost drivers. Bringing industry to production standards for all steps of the fabrication is key. Large grain Nb material may save cost and improve reliability; need to pursue at JLab. The existing high power klystrons are not acceptable; R&D in FY07 should address this with industry. SLAC is a world leader here. Test facilities are critical for developing the process steps and characterizing industrial prototypes. Their scope, and place in the world scheme, have to be determined soon. Current budgets for test facilities are light on M&S “Need 10 – 20% of project cost spent on R&D before construction; LHC suffered and had cost problems by only spending 10%” R. Aymar.

25. Next steps Critical R&D efforts remain for 2006 – 2008: Validate large grain Nb cavities (prospect for cost reduction by elimination of electropolishing, and better uniformity cavities) Establish the cavity surface processing techniques to streamline for industrial production. Establish industrial capability for cryomodules Set up ‘string tests’ of ~1% of full linac components Learn how to produce reliable 10 MW klystrons New Marx generator modulator (cost savings) Demonstrate polarized positron source Demonstrate final focus spot size in ATF2 in Japan Instrumentation for beam position monitors, low level rf, machine protection etc.

26. 3. Budget issues: FY06 FY06: $30M total budget (detector R&D at universities, labs not included) $513K for GDE common fund, GDE director $701K for university accelerator R&D $300K additional for university detector R&D $2030K held in reserve for RDR/cost/industrialization activities, possible additional R&D activities. (released $685K for cryomodule cost study in industry via FNAL recently.) Labs: FNAL $11,256 ($K) R&D SLAC $12,300 ANL $300 TJAF $400 LLNL $1000 BNL $600

27. FY06 R&D Allocations by system(not including university accelerator, detector, reserve) Program administration $3.52M (includes Barish, common funds etc.) Management 0.76 Global systems 1.31 Electron source 0.69 Positron source 1.99 Damping rings 2.35 Bunch compressor 0.30 Main Linac dynamics 1.23 rf systems 4.30 Cavities and cryomodules 7.41 Beam delivery system 2.80 Conventional facilities 1.04 total $27M

28. Worldwide spending – accelerators – 2006 In Europe, CARE, EuroTeV, national budgets are roughly at the US level. The numbers for Europe have not yet been disentangled from generic R&D and CLIC etc. Handling of SWF is not converted properly to US practice yet. In Asia, information only exists for KEK. They do not include SWF, travel, Japanese expenditures in industry, or non-Japanese funding. The qualitative impression is that for FY06, the regional expenditures are roughly comparable. Funds for the Reference Design Report and cost estimating (engineering expertise) outside the US seem to be in short supply. This is a problem for GDE at present.

29. FY06 (and FY07) budget concerns FY06, and to some extent FY07 President’s budget, fall short in funds for M&S. Some example casualties: M&S for test facilities some R&D expenditures (klystron procurements, damping ring experiments, alternate design/material cavities funding for industry fabrication of SC RF prototypes The SWF budgets relative to M&S are rather high in these years – allowing studies but not enough hardware development. The labs argue that they need to keep the workforce in place as it is tough to regain it later if lost.

30. ILC R&D funding guidance FY06: $30M not including detector R&D FY07: $60M including detector R&D (and GDE taxes) – Pres. Budget Outyear guidance from OMB (3/1/06): FY08: $75M FY09: $90M FY10: $140M FY11: $190M These funds would have to be split among subsystem R&D, test facility infrastructure, industrialization, bid to host, detector R&D and management costs. Some of these costs may be ‘hidden’ as infrastructure improvements in the Labs?

31. Comments on five year OMB plan Program proponents argue that more rapid buildup of infrastructure development (test facilities) and industrialization are needed due to the long lead times – if US is to match the capability of Europe. Proposed plan provides for appropriate levels of SWF at the major laboratories, but falls short of the M&S needed to advance the R&D on a schedule aimed at 2010 decision to proceed. Proponents argue for more M&S funds for test facilities and industrialization in FY07 and FY08 to seed meaningful large scale tests by FY09 – FY10.

32. Guess at total ILC R&D need No coherent budget request from ART/GDE/Labs has yet been made for necessary R&D, preparation of site bid, test facilities, detector R&D. What we have is various estimated pieces over the last year, processed and evaluated by PG. The largest need not addressed in the OMB outyear budget is the funds for test facilities needed to develop procedures, test industry prototypes. Detector R&D funding needs (see below) and site evaluation funds are not met at needed level, but are smaller.

33. PG estimate of R&D need

34. PG Guess at need for FY07 – FY11 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

35. R&D profile comparison The OMB profile falls short of the ‘desired’ in the critical years FY07 to FY09 Desired profile integral= $717M OMB profile integral= $585M FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

36. Budget impact on schedule The ‘desired’ budget is consistent with having technical information and cost available in 2010 for a decision by governments to approve the ILC project. The detailed negotiation and establishing the organization would follow immediately. Given the time required to let contracts for tunnels, major technical systems, this would translate to construction start in 2012. We estimate an 8 year construction period, so completion in ~2020. The approximate impact of the OMB outyear guidance is to delay the technical readiness demonstration by about 1 year to permit a construction start in ~2013.

37. Summary R&D Funding • Evidence of increasing funding for ILC R&D in FY07 (and beyond) is very welcome! The trend is positive and speaks of commitment in SC to pursue ILC. • Budget levels for FY07 – FY09 are somewhat below that currently estimated to be needed to support the US share of R&D, GDE support, detector funding and the efforts on industrialization, test facilities and site preparation. • There is little hard information from GDE/ART on desired budget profiles. Grannis estimate gives shortfall of ($19M, $38M, $33M) for (FY07, FY08, FY09)

38. 4. Detector R&D Detector R&D worldwide is coordinated by the ‘Worldwide Study’ (WWS): Jim Brau, Francois Richard, Hitoshi Yamamoto are co-leaders. The American effort is led by Brau and Mark Oreglia. There is some co-ordination with GDE (WWS leaders are members) but GDE offers little direction as yet, and there is not a mechanism for advising on the split between ILC accelerator and detector spending. A panel was set up at Snowmass, chaired by Chris Damerell of RAL, to report detector R&D in all regions. As expected this report shows considerable regional disparity, with Europe in the lead. The recent EuroDet grant will bring about $7M of detector M&S funding over 4 years (matched by $14M from institutes mostly in SWF) in addition to considerable national spending (UK, Germany, France).

39. Detector R&D in FY06 We have advice from Laboratories on detector R&D spending in FY06 SWF ($K) M&S ($K) SLAC 2007 460 FNAL 1635 420 ANL 355 150 LBNL 335 145 BNL 100 0 TOTAL 4332 1175 O’hds included 5507 total University detector R&D SWF ($K) M&S ($K) DOE University 525 175 NSF University 88 30 Total University 613 205 SWF/M&S splits are guesses 818 total DOE+NSF

40. Preliminary & confidential detector R&D spending in various nations High priority needs for detector R&D over the next 3 – 5 years (Damerell report). ‘Established’ funding that is thought to be in hand (dark blue), and the ‘total’ thought needed (light blue). $10M 600 M&S FTE’s

41. Detector R&D There are two main areas of high priority need for detector R&D in the US, and worldwide. Energy flow calorimetry tests and simulations: ILC calorimeters seek to measure charged particles by tracking and subtract charged particle energy deposits in the calorimeter. It requires fine segmentation and new algorithms to separate charged and neutral. Vertex detectors are key to physics such as Higgs branching ratios, searches for new phenomena. They need to be kept thin (multiple scattering) and highly segmented and multiplexed. EM interference from the beam fields is an issue. Both these high priority programs need high quality test beams. It would be good if Fermilab can provide this, and thus become the center for ongoing ILC R&D. Other identified but unfunded needs are R&D on forward tracking (not presently covered) and particle ID.

42. Summary for Detector R&D • US (and Japan?) currently lag the European funding for detector R&D. • We will have a visit from the US detector leaders to outline their needs (May?) • Expect new proposal for calorimeter beam test. • My estimate is that over the next three years the current ~$6M funding needs to be about tripled to put US physicists in a competitive position to drive the experimental program for ILC. (This was included in the outyear funding guesses above.) • Coordination of work at Labs and universities is being attempted, but more effort here is needed. More increase in university program than at Labs is probably more needed.

43. Next steps for detector R&D Test beam demonstration of particle flow calorimetry technique – so far its all on paper! Establish choices for vertex detector technology – winnow the 10 candidates down to a few most promising. Develop and test the new GEM/micromega detectors for TPC readout. Test beam studies and make choices for detector technology for hadron calorimetry – RPC’s, scintillator tiles, GEMs. Experimental study of digital vs. analog hadron calorimetry. Building the detectors takes almost as long as accelerator; should plan to have firm technical designs by end of decade.

44. 5. Governmental activities – FALC and beyond Funding Agencies for Linear Collider (FALC) formed in 2003 Typically Science Minister level, but variable (from DOE, Orbach and Staffin; NSF is Turner). Nations involved: US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Italy, CERN (for smaller CERN member states), Japan, Korea, India, (China). Roberto Petronzio of INFN Italy is the current chair. FALC formed the FALC Resources Group to conduct more detailed discussions and fact finding. ILCSC chair now sits on FALC and FALC RG; FALC Res. Gp. invited to ILCSC to give coordination. ILCSC (not FALC) is the responsible body for GDE oversight.

45. FALC FALC has recently agreed on a common fund mechanism for GDE support (administrative support, computing, web, Machine Advisory Committee expenses). Common fund to be split equally among regions. In Americas, 80% DOE, 10% NSF, 10% Canada. Current worldwide level is about $400K/year. Additional needs are identified for software for cost estimation and project management. GDE personnel costs are borne by the home institutions/agencies (DOE supports Barish, NSF supports Dugan and Willis; FNAL supports Garbincius). In Nov. 2005 meeting, FALC decided to form a subcommittee to advise on ILC organization. Staffin to be the Americas representative. First meeting Mar. 6 within DOE SC to develop a position, needs further discussion. There was support for going to an interim oversight body formed by funding agencies.

46. Toward ILC organization and site • Site and organization are interrelated – each action requires some input from the other. • Need an identified site to establish a real project cost. • Real cost and site are needed to engage governments in decision to proceed. • Thus propose a stepwise process: • Interim international ILC organization (FALC successor) to oversee GDE during the R&D and technical design phase – no commitment yet to project, but international agreement to pursue the R&D. • Develop the procedure for proposing and selecting site; aim for site selection (or 2) by 2008 if possible (to keep TDR pace). • Prepare final design & cost estimate based on proposed site, commit to ILC project with international agreement in ~2010 – 11. Construction start in 2012. (Consistent with technical schedule and cost profile above.)

47. Toward ILC organization and site The ITER agreement is a good template for ILC organization. It has the advantage of being agreed to by many of the potential ILC partners (EU, US, Russia, Japan, India, Korea, China). ITER provisions for the legal basis of the organization, personnel policy, financial sharing arrangements (not the details), intellectual property can be taken over with little change. Different national shares for construction and operations. Propose a Council to oversee ILC, with equal number of regional representative nations. (Not all nations – Labs or Consortia would not be on Council at any time). It may be necessary to establish regional councils to satisfy regional differences for selecting Council representation, adjusting intra-regional contributions … A procedure for site proposals and selections should be put in place by FALC by 2007. Final technical design depends on knowing site.

48. Issues for US bid to host Visa access for foreign nationals – those working directly for the ILC organization, those seconded by their government, experimental users, family members – must be rationalized. The visa issue is a strong concern of our potential partners in choosing a US site. Work permits for spouses/partners of foreign nationals. Getting the best people often requires opportunity for spouses to work. Relationship between ILC Laboratory and host lab (FNAL) needs to be regularized so as not to damage the fabric of either entity. There should not be large salary disparities. Arrangements for sharing infrastructure – shops, guest services, procurement departments – must be spelled out. The norm is for international organization employees to pay no tax in the host country. Requires negotiation. Waiver of customs on in-kind contributions.

49. Summary – International Organization • The ILC progress requires some effort now by potential international partners (through FALC): • Establish an interim organization to manage GDE though the R&D and TDR phase. • Establish predicted levels of R&D funding • Establish procedure for site proposals and selection process. • Dedicated US effort should be focussed on the US bid to host activities. LCSGA is undertaking a task force to prepare integrated national proposal.

50. Next steps for organization By mid-2007, establish an intgerim oversight organization for GDE by funding agencies. Presumably this is done by an interagency MoU. By early 2007, establish the timeline and procedure for site selection that aims at fixing two sites by early 2008 and a final site (subject to later project approval) by late 2008.