Barry Barish

1
Introduction

• Barry Barish
• PAC Valencia, Spain
• 13-May-10

2
Technical Design Phase and Beyond
TDR
TDP Baseline Technical Design
RDR Baseline
TDP-1
TDP-2
Change Request
New baseline inputs

RDR ACD (alternate concepts)

RD Demonstrations
design studies
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
3
ILCSC Science Goals 2003, 2006

• 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

The RDR Design meets these requirements,
including the recent update and clarifications of
the reconvened ILCSC Parameters group!
4
RDR Design Parameters
Max. Center-of-mass energy 500 GeV
Peak Luminosity 2x1034 1/cm2s
Beam Current 9.0 mA
Repetition rate 5 Hz
Average accelerating gradient 31.5 MV/m
Beam pulse length 0.95 ms
Total Site Length 31 km
Total AC Power Consumption 230 MW
5
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
• _at_ 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 RD, accelerator studies and value
  engineering
• The value costs have already been reviewed three
  time
• 3 day internal review in Dec
• ILCSC MAC review in Jan
• International Cost Review (May)
• S Value 6.62 B ILC Units

6
Evolving Design ? Cost Reductions
July 2006
Some possible cost reductions (e.g. single
tunnel, half RF, value engineering) deferred to
the engineering phase
7
RDR Complete

• Reference Design Report (4 volumes)

Physics at the ILC
Executive Summary
Detectors
Accelerator
8
2009 2012 Resource Outlook

• Flat year-to-year resource basis
• Focused on technical enabling R D
• Limited flexibility to manage needed ILC design
  and engineering development
• Well matched between ILC technical and
  institutional priorities with some exceptions
• Positron system beam demonstrations
• CF S criteria optimization and site development

9
The ILC SCRF Cavity

• Achieve high gradient (35MV/m) develop multiple
• vendors make cost effective, etc
• Focus is on high gradient production yields
  cryogenic
• losses radiation system performance

10
Global Plan for SCRF RD
Year 07 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012
Phase TDP-1 TDP-1 TDP-1 TDP-1 TDP-1 TDP-1 TDP-2 TDP-2 TDP-2
Cavity Gradient in v. test to reach 35 MV/m ? Process Yield 50 ? Process Yield 50 ? Process Yield 50 ? Process Yield 50 ? Process Yield 50 ? Process Yield 50 ? Production Yield 90 ? Production Yield 90 ? Production Yield 90
Cavity-string to reach 31.5 MV/m, with one-cryomodule Global effort for string assembly and test (DESY, FNAL, INFN, KEK) Global effort for string assembly and test (DESY, FNAL, INFN, KEK) Global effort for string assembly and test (DESY, FNAL, INFN, KEK) Global effort for string assembly and test (DESY, FNAL, INFN, KEK) Global effort for string assembly and test (DESY, FNAL, INFN, KEK) Global effort for string assembly and test (DESY, FNAL, INFN, KEK)
System Test with beam acceleration FLASH (DESY) , NML (FNAL) STF2 (KEK, extend beyond 2012) FLASH (DESY) , NML (FNAL) STF2 (KEK, extend beyond 2012) FLASH (DESY) , NML (FNAL) STF2 (KEK, extend beyond 2012) FLASH (DESY) , NML (FNAL) STF2 (KEK, extend beyond 2012) FLASH (DESY) , NML (FNAL) STF2 (KEK, extend beyond 2012) FLASH (DESY) , NML (FNAL) STF2 (KEK, extend beyond 2012) FLASH (DESY) , NML (FNAL) STF2 (KEK, extend beyond 2012)
Preparation for Industrialization Production Technology RD Production Technology RD Production Technology RD Production Technology RD Production Technology RD
7 January 2010 SCRF AAP Review
10
Global Design Effort
11
TTF/FLASH 9mA Experiment
Full beam-loading long pulse operation ? S2

• Stable 800 bunches, 3 nC at 1MHz (800 ms pulse)
  for over 15 hours (uninterrupted)
• Several hours 1600 bunches, 2.5 nC at 3MHz (530
  ms pulse)
• gt2200 bunches _at_ 3nC (3MHz) for short periods

XFEL ILC FLASHdesign 9mA studies
Bunch charge nC 1 3.2 1 3
bunches 3250 2625 7200 2400
Pulse length ms 650 970 800 800
Current mA 5 9 9 9
12
Making Very Small Emittance (Beam Sizes at
Collision)
13
R D Plan Resource Table

• Resource total 2009-2012
• Not directly included
• There are other Project-specific and general
  infrastructure resources that overlap with ILC
  TDP

14
Updated ILC RD / Design Plan

• Major TDP Goals
• ILC design evolved for cost / performance
  optimization
• Complete crucial demonstration and
  risk-mitigating RD
• Updated VALUE estimate and schedule
• Project Implementation Plan

15
Major RD Goals for TDP 1

• SCRF
• High Gradient RD - globally coordinated program
  to demonstrate gradient by 2010 with 50yield
• ATF-2 at KEK
• Demonstrate Fast Kicker performance and Final
  Focus Design
• Electron Cloud Mitigation (CesrTA)
• Electron Cloud tests at Cornell to establish
  mitigation and verify one damping ring is
  sufficient.
• Accelerator Design and Integration (ADI)
• Studies of possible cost reduction designs and
  strategies for consideration in a re-baseline in
  2010

Global Design Effort
15
16
Why change from RDR design?

• Timescale of ILC demands we continually update
  the technologies and design to be prepared to
  build the most forward looking machine at the
  time of construction.
• Our next big milestone the technical design
  (TDR) at end of 2012 should be as much as
  possible a construction project ready design
  with crucial RD demonstrations complete and
  design optimised for performance to cost to risk.
• Cost containment vs RDR costs is a crucial
  element. (Must identify costs savings that will
  compensate cost growth)

17
Cost Containment is essential for ILC

• Our problem is worse than comparable projects
• International Space Station was dominantly a US
  project that was heavily supported by US
  industry, so it could absorb large increase
  without cancellation
• LHC has a large well-funded host laboratory that
  could absorb cost increase by stretching schedule
  and paying for it from future years
• ITER has more trouble and more jeopardy! A
  significant ( 25-30 increase) is causing
  enormous problems for the project.
• We need governments to take ILC seriously. That
  requires 1) science goals that are important
  enough to convince making the investment 2) a
  technical design and project that is considered
  robust and worthwhile 3) and finally, costs that
  are considered affordable and UNDER CONTROL.

18
TDR vs RDR Costs

• Will a 15 cost savings make a difference for
  project approval?
• We are on record for a cost of 6.6 BILCU (2007
  US) for the ILC. That cost has frightened
  governments!
• 15 savings corresponds to 1B, not a negligible
  amount
• We will have unavoidable areas of cost growth,
  probably greater than the anticipated savings.
• Significant net cost increase for the TDR over
  RDR will be considered (by some) as a signal of
  another out of control project.

19
PAC Report Nov 09

• The PAC supports the Minimum Machine
  activities to carefully review the RDR design,
  although it is not enthusiastic about the use of
  the term Minimum Machine. The Committee
  believes that this activity should not compromise
  the existing ILC physics goals, and reiterates
  its belief that the 1 TeV upgrade option should
  be maintained.

20
AAP Review - Conclusion (1)

• The SB2009 exercise was carried out to save cost
  and consolidate the design. The cost savings in
  SB2009 amount to 12.6 and are composed of
  several savings at the few per cent level. The
  AAP recognizes that a cushion of savings at this
  level will have to be identified to contain the
  cost of the project which is likely to change
  because of both a better understanding of the
  cost composition, of progress in optimization and
  of external influences such as the variations in
  cost of raw material and external services until
  the end of Technical Phase II.

21
Recommendations of GDE EC (1)

• After review and subsequent discussion of the AAP
  SB2009 Review Report, the GDE EC agreed and
  confirmed
• That containment of the capital cost (VALUE)
  estimate at the RDR level is a primary TD Phase 2
  goal. Our design activity is now aimed at making
  the project more robust against possible
  (expected) unit cost increases.
• To move forward with studies aimed at the
  possible adoption of the themes in SB2009
  proposal, but not necessarily the exact details.
• To establish a formal process to make these
  changes to the baseline in an open and
  transparent fashion, and where necessary after
  due process and consultation with all
  stakeholders.

22
SB2009 Themes
Cost Savings 13
N Walker
23
Proposed Design changes for TDR
RDR
SB2009

• Single Tunnel for main linac
• Move positron source to end of linac
• Reduce number of bunches factor of two (lower
  power)
• Reduce size of damping rings (3.2km)
• Integrate central region
• Single stage bunch compressor

24
Achieving ILC Cost Containment

• We must continually balance science performance
  with cost and risk to propose a convincing
  construction project.
• We must have continuing close GDE / detector /
  physics studies and interaction to evaluate
  science impact of proposed changes to ILC
  baseline.

25
7.5 m Diameter Single Tunnel

• Egress passageway not needed
• 7 m Ø ok

25
26
7.5 m Diameter Single TunnelHigh-Level RF
Solution

• Critical technical challenge for one-tunnel
  option is the high level RF distribution.
• Two proposed solutions
• Distributed RF Source (DRFS)
• Small 750kW klystrons/modulators in tunnel
• One klystron per four cavities
• 1880 klystrons per linac
• Challenge is cost and reliability
• Klystron Cluster Scheme (KCS)
• RDR-like 10 MW Klystrons/modulators on surface
• Surface building shafts every 2 km
• Challenge is novel high-powered RF components
  (needs RD)

26
27
Technical Design Phase and Beyond
change control process
AAP PAC Physics
TDP Baseline Technical Design
TDR
RDR Baseline
SB2009 evolve
TDP-2
TDP-1
Beijing Workshop
CERN Workshop
Change Request

RDR ACD concepts

RD Demonstrations
ADI studies
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
28
Top Level Change Control Process
keywords open, transparent
28
29
TLCC Process

• Albuquerque, PAC (Nov 09), DESY, AAP, Beijing,
  PAC (May)
• Builds on and extends work done during 2009 ADI
  process
• Generate plans/studies to be done in preparation
  for the BAWs

29
30
TLCC Process

• Open plenary meeting
• Two-days per theme
• Two themes per workshop
• Two four-day workshops
• Participation (mandatory)
• PM (chair)
• ADI team / TAG leaders
• Agenda organised by relevant TAG leaders
• Physics Detector Representatives
• External experts
• Achieve primary TLCC goals
• In an open discussion environment
• Prepare recommendation

30
31
TLCC Process
Physics and detector input / representation
mandatory
When Where What
WAB 1 Sept. 7-8, 2010 KEK Accelerating Gradient Single Tunnel (HLRF)
WAB 2 Jan 17-21, 2011 SLAC Reduced RF power e source location
32
TLCC Process

• Final formal step (recommended by AAP)
• Change Evaluation Panel
• Chaired by director
• Experts to evaluate impact on performance, cost,
  schedule, risk
• Decision by Director
• Accepts becomes baseline
• Rejects sent back for further work

32
33
Technical Design Phase and Beyond
change control process
AAP PAC Physics
TDP Baseline Technical Design
TDR
RDR Baseline
SB2009 evolve
TDP-2
TDP-1
Beijing Workshop
CERN Workshop
Change Request

RDR ACD concepts

RD Demonstrations
ADI studies
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
34
Project Implementation Plan
ILCSC
35
ILC RD Beyond 2012 ?

• The AAP points to uncertainties beyond 2012 in
  their conclusions
• Some aspects of the RD for the ILC will have to
  continue beyond 2012.
• The milestone 2012 is however timely placed. The
  LHC will be providing operating experience of a
  large facility and with some luck the first
  physics discoveries will emerge.
• The HEP community is thus well prepared for the
  decision for the next facility. In a sense the
  construction of the ILC seems the natural
  evolution of that process, in which case the
  efforts for the ILC have to be ramped up without
  delay.
• Nature may be less kind or science policy makers
  not ready for a decision on the next big HEP
  project. In this case the large community must be
  engaged to facilitate the decision for the
  construction of the next HEP project.
• We need to prepare for uncertainties in the path
  to the ILC after 2012, including what LHC tells
  us.

36
Timescales TDR to ILC(or beyond 2012)

• Steps to a Project Technical (2-3 years)
• RD for Risk Reduction and Technology Improvement
• Systems Tests (e.g. S2 completion ILC-like beam
  tests)
• Engineering Design
• Industrialization
• Project Implementation
• Government Agreements for International
  Partnership
• Siting and site-dependent design
• Governance
• Time to Construct
• 5-6 years construction
• 2 years commissioning
• Project Proposal / Decision keyed to LHC results
• ILC Could be doing physics by early to mid- 2020s

37
Five Themes to Develop
N Walker
Remains special case