Neutrino Factory and Superbeam FP6 Design Study + World Design Study

1. Neutrino Factory and SuperbeamFP6 Design Study + World Design Study Rob Edgecock/RAL

2. Outline • Introduction to WDS • Scope • Current status • Plans • Introduction to FP6 Design Study • Basics • Steering committee • WP at time of ESGARD meeting • Participants • Status…….

3. Introduction Two feasibility studies so far in US: • FS 1: FNAL  performance not good enough  too expensive • FS 2:BNL  performance good enough still too expensive One feasibility study in Japan based on FFAG  produced in 2002 One feasibility study in Europe  based on the SPL  produced in 2003

4. Introduction Problems with all layouts and much R&D required: • Proton driver: know how to build, but must show it • Target: don’t know how to build, big problems with all proposed technologies • Collection: operation and lifetime are problems • Frontend: study II phase rotation very expensive cooling: not proven, very complex linear cooling channel: very expensive • Acceleration: must be quick RLAs are complex and expensive FFAGs require a lot of R&D • Detectors: Believe know how to build, but must be included in cost optimisation influence on neutrino params assessed

5. World Context • In run-up to NuFact’03, recognised community ready for a “third” study • This time: World Design Study • All three regions involved • With FP6 in sight, EU played a big role in setting up • Steering committee created at NuFact • Charged with determining scope of WDS….. • ……and initiating it US: Steve Geer Bob PalmerMike Zisman Japan: Yoshi Kuno Yoshi Mori Kenzo Nakamura Europe: Alain Blondel Rob Edgecock Helmut Haseroth

6. Scope • WDS must acknowledge existing “sub-collaborations” • Identified 6 such, most already formed or forming Mainly hardware R&D Mainly simulations and theory

7. Scope • Overall coordination of all sub-collaborations required in longer term • Not by us – we are merely encouraging creation of some • WDS: concentrate on simulations, theory, etc - continue studies of alternative options for machine - integrate alternatives via end-to-end simulations - select “best” based on cost/performance optimisation - include detector(s) in cost optimisation • Follows on directly from previous feasibility studies • Will require close collaboration with Physics and Detectors sub-collaboration • Good interaction with R&D sub-collaborations • Likely duration: 5 years, starting soon • Main deliverable: detailed design report

8. WDS Charge The feasibility of a Neutrino Factory has been demonstrated by a number of studies performed in the US, Japan and Europe. The cost, however, as determined by the second study in the US, was higher than is desirable and since it was published work has been on-going to find cheaper alternatives to the most expensive parts of the machine, while maintaining the performance. What is required now is a “third” feasibility study which brings these studies to a close, does end-to-end simulations of the machine and develops an overall cost optimisation of the machine plus detectors. For the “best” layout, more detailed engineering should be performed and a detailed design report produced. In detail, the charge is: • continue simulation studies of different elements of the accelerator complex • identify related R&D that needs to be done and initiate international collaborations to do it • once the studies of the different options in 1 are complete, do end-to-end simulations to demonstrate feasibility of at least one layout and perform cost optimisations with far detectors • if there is more one than layout, select the best based on cost and performance optimisations • write preliminary design report for selected option • perform detailed engineering studies of the selected option • at the end of the study, write a detailed design report

9. Next Steps……. • Now ready to get started • Plans will be presented to EU (EMCOG), Japan, US (MUTAC) • Ask for: - comments - endorsement • Once/if WDS is endorsed in all three regions: - identify likely contributors - develop detailed plans in collaboration - setup management structure, WP, etc - identify host laboratory - etc! • Likely launch: NuFact’04 in Japan

10. FP6 Design Study • Integral part of WDS • WDS developed with FP6 in mind • Structure similar to maintain close links • Important for us to demonstrate world context • Focus on elements of particular interest to EU • Keep as self-contained as possible • Some parts must be done in close collaboration • One main difference: FP6 includes Superbeam

11. Design Study Basics • Name: NufactDS • Duration: 48 months • First 18-30 months: investigate different options ranked lists of options • Rest: produce single NF layout, cost optimised with detectors  design report • ~8 WPs defined • Currently two types: FS and TPW (R&D) • Steering Committee created Nov. 2003 • Website: http://hepunx.rl.ac.uk/~edgecock/NufactDS

12. Steering Group Director: Ken Peach Coordinator: Rob Edgecock Japanese representative: Yoshi MoriUS representative: Mike Zisman BENE representative: Vittorio Palladino Proton Driver: Roland Garoby Chris PriorTargetry: Roger BennettJean-Eric CampagneMICE: Alain BlondelJohn Cobb FFAGs: Francois Meot?Accelerator FS: Helmut Haseroth Rob Edgecock Physics & Detectors: Mauro MezzettoPilar Hernandez Paolo Strolin

13. Work Packages

14. WP2 - Targets Plans: Determine feasibility of target technologies: - liquid mercury jets in 15T and high energy density proton beam (nToF) - solid targets: a programme of shock and lifetime tests planned and funded - granular targets: tests of heat removal and lifetime - contained mercury: lifetime of windows etc Simulation of proton beam interactions with targets, including activation Engineering of target station, inc. beam dump, remote handling, safety, etc Deliverables: Feasibilities of target technologies. “Best” technology. Energy depositions, activations, etc. Engineered target station. etc

15. WP3 - Collection Plans: Determine feasibility of horn collection - construction of horns and HV- pulse inner horn in stages - lifetime tests with final params - test of outer horn in stages Simulation of heat deposition from beam Integration of horn with target Engineering of horn in target station Deliverables: Plan for horn construction and testing. Tests of horns with correct parameters. Lifetime of horns. Estimate of heating. Eng. drawings for target and horn integration.

16. WP4 – MICE & Frontend Plans: Focus on two parts of MICE: - high precision emittance measurement tracking detectors (FT, TPG) TOF SC spectrometer magnets - efficient high power RF tube construction of NF prototype (use on MICE) Possibly also R&D on frontend (e.g. high-Tc SC magnets, LH2 absorbers in rings, etc) Deliverables: Low mass, high precision method of emittance measurement. Efficient, pulsed high power RF tube. MICE and verification of ionisation cooling! etc

17. WP5 – FFAGs Plans: Work centred in Japan and US, so our contribution must be in collaboration. We will study FFAGs in FS, but possible R&D is on SC dipoles for FFAG rings. Aim would be design and build a prototype during the DS. Deliverables: Design of one or more FFAG magnets. Prototype of one type.

18. WP6 – Machine FS Plans: Overall aim is a cost optimised NF layout. Start with study of options: Proton driver - done by BENE/HIPPI Target - mainly WP2 Collection - mainly WP3 Frontend - develop alternatives, e.g. funnelling, inv. phase rot., no/reduced cooling, rings Acceleration - focus on FFAGs: study lattices, tracking, etc; RLAs for comparison Comparison of options, cost optimisation Deliverables: Criteria for option selection. Reports on options studied Ranking of options for different parts machine. Costings. Cost optimisation. End-to-end layout, inc. engineering

19. WP7 – Physics and Detectors Plans: Detector issues: - which/how many detector technologies? - part of cost optimisation - implications on/of machine params, e.g E - etc Physics issues: - European roadmap - implications for machine params, e.g. E/L - proton driver energy, inc. HARP - etc Deliverables: Performance/cost comparison of detectors. Implications on machine parameters. Overall cost optimisation. Number/type/size/locations(?) of detectors. European oscillation roadmap

20. Status • Presented to ESGARD on 2nd February • Difficulties not hidden • In particular, certain problems cannot be solved by 4th March • Conclusion was obvious • ESGARD recommendation: submit next year • Shame, but beneficial in most respects • Preparations continue…….. • (GLC no better prepared)