The Proton Driver A New High Intensity Proton Source at Fermilab

1
The Proton DriverA New High Intensity Proton
Source at Fermilab

• Bob Kephart
• University of Illinois
• Dec 6, 2004

2
Outline

• Fermilab Long Range Plan
• Linear Collider and Proton Driver recommendations
• Physics case for an intense proton source
• Focus Long baseline neutrino experiments
• Mention Other physics possibilities
• Existing Fermilab proton source and its
  limitations
• Proton Driver design
• 8 GeV SCRF LINAC (bulk of the talk)
• Synergy with other SCRF projects
• ILC, RIA, etc
• Conclusions

3
The Fermilab Long Range Plan

• In May of 2004 Fermilab completed a Long Range
  Planning exercise
• The report is available at
• http//www.fnal.gov/directorate/Longrange/Long_ran
  ge_planning.html
• The vision expressed in that report is that
  Fermilab will remain the primary site for
  accelerator-based particle physics in the U.S.
  regardless of the siting or schedule for the
  International Linear Collider
• If successful as host to a linear collider
  Fermilab would be established as a world center
  for physics at the energy frontier for many
  decades.
• If a linear collider were constructed elsewhere,
  or delayed, Fermilab would strive to become a
  world center in neutrino physics, based on new
  multi-MW Proton Source (AKA Proton Driver)
• One possible scenario is that an SCRF Linac based
  Proton Driver is built at Fermilab as a first
  step towards a U.S. hosted International Linear
  Collider

Fermilab is pursuing Linear Collider and Proton
Driver RD in parallel. The recent ITRP decision
to use cold technology for the International
Linear Collider allows close alignment of these
paths.
4
The Physics Case for an Intense Proton Source

• A number of recent workshops have focused on the
  physics possibilities with intense (MW class)
  Proton Sources
• BNL/UCLA APS workshop
• BNL, March 3-5, 2004
• http//www.bnl.gov/physics/superbeam/presentations
  .asp
• Physics with Multi-MW Proton Source (SPL)
• CERN, May 25-27, 2004
• http//physicsatmwatt.web.cern.ch/physicsatmwatt/
• HIF04
• Elba Italy, June 2004
• http//www.pi.infn.it/pm/2004/
• APS Neutrino Study (year long effort)
• www.interactions.org/neutrinostudy
• Fermilab Proton Driver Physics Workshop
• Fermilab Oct 6-9, 2004
• http//www-td.fl.gov/projects/PD/PhysicsIncludes/W
  orkshop/index.html

5
Neutrino Physics

• At all of these workshops, the leading Physics
  case for an intense Proton source is provided by
  the study of neutrino oscillations. Why ?
• Recent experimental results provide stunning and
  compelling evidence that neutrinos have nonzero
  masses and mixings (K2K, SNO, LSND, KAMLAND, etc)
• The Standard Model cant accommodate neutrino
  mass terms, which require either the existence of
  right-handed neutrinos ? Dirac mass terms, or a
  violation of lepton number conservation ?
  Majorana mass terms
• Hence this sector of the Standard Model is
  broken
• Steve Geer at recent DOE briefing to Robin
  Staffin on the Physics case for the PD

6
Neutrino Oscillations

• Neutrino masses are small, difficult to measure,
  but .
• One way to probe small neutrino mass differences
  is to study neutrino oscillations. Namely where a
  neutrino of one type (e.g. ?? ) spontaneously
  transforms into another type (e.g. ?e )
• For this phenomenon to occur the neutrinos must
  have mass and the apparent conservation of lepton
  number must be violated
• The probability for 2-flavor neutrino
  oscillations is given by
• P sin2(2 ?) sin2(1.27 ?m2 L/E)
• Where
• ?m is the mass difference between the parent ?
  and its daughter
• L is the distance the neutrino travels in
  meters from birth to detection
• E is the neutrino parent energy, and
• ? is the mixing angle

7
Neutrino Experiments

• Many of the neutrino oscillation experiments have
  used neutrinos from the sun or those produced in
  the upper atmosphere by cosmics
• New generation experiments Use accelerator
  produced neutrino beams. One example is
  NUMI/MINOS which will start taking data in 2005
  with goal of measuring ?? ? ?e oscillations
• The MINOS near detector is located at Fermilab,
  and a far Detector in the Soudan mine in
  Minnesota ( 730 km away)

130M investment, performance limited by
intensity of Proton Source
8
Why are such neutrino experiments interesting ?

• Because there is a LOT that we dont know
• We dont know the masses of the neutrinos
• We do know that neutrino masses and mass
  splittings are tiny compared to the masses of any
  of the other fundamental fermions,
• but we dont know why this is the case.
• perhaps this points to new physics, which
  originates at the GUT or Planck Scale, perhaps it
  indicates the existence of new spatial
  dimensions.
• We dont know how many neutrino mass eigenstates
  there are.

9
Why are such neutrino experiments interesting ?

• If the LSND (Liquid Scintillator Neutrino
  Detector) experiment is confirmed, (ie where a
  very large value of Dm2 is observed) then there
  are more than 3 n mass eigenstates.
• However, only 3 contribute to the Z width ?
  existence of new sterile neutrinos that dont
  couple to the known leptons
• Currently the mini-BooNe experiment is running at
  Fermilab using neutrinos made with protons from
  the 8 GeV FNAL booster with the goal of
  confirming or refuting the LSND findings
• This is exciting stuff
• But the experiment is limited by the available
  proton flux at 8 GeV
• If LSND is not confirmed, then nature may contain
  only 3 neutrinos and, from the existing data, the
  neutrino spectrum looks something like

10
10
Normal
Inverted
?2
?1
or
(Mass)2
?m2atm
?2
?1
?m2sol 8 x 105 eV2, ?m2atm 2.5
x 103 eV2 Note in comparison ?m2LSND 0.2 lt
?m2 lt 2.0 eV2 is huge


We dont know which of these spectra is correct
11
Neutrino Mixing
11
Within the framework of 3-flavor mixing, the 3
known flavor eigenstates (ne, nm, nt) are related
to 3 neutrino mass eigenstates (n1, n2, n3)
(3?3)
(
)
(
)
We know that UMNS is very different from the CKM
Matrix
12
Neutrino Mixing
12
In analogy with the CKM matrix, UMNS can be
parameterized using 3 mixing angles(q12 , q23 ,
q13 ) and one complex phase (d)
(
)
C12C23 S12C13
S13 e-id -S12C23
C12C23 S23C13 -C12S23 S13 eid -S12C23
S13 eid S12S23 -C12S23
C23C13 -C12C23 S13 eid -S12C23 S13 eid
?12 ?sol 32, ?23 ?atm 35-55, ?13 lt
15 non-zero ? would lead to P(??? ??) ? P(???
??) ? CP violation Note the crucial role of s13 ?
sin ?13, if too small gtcant observe CP
13
How can you determine if the spectrum is Normal
Or Inverted ?
Exploit the fact that, in matter,
?e
( )
e
W
( )
e
?e
raises the effective mass of ?e, and lowers that
of ?e. This is usually referred to as the
matter effect
To resolve the mass hierarchy use the fact that
?e part of the ?3 mass eigenstate is very small
14
The spectrum with its approximate flavor content
?2
?3

?m2sol
?1
?m2atm
or

(Mass)2
?m2atm
?2

?m2sol
?3
?1
?? U?i2
??U? i2
?e Uei2
In matter, effective mass of ?3 doesnt change
much but that of ?1, ?2 does. Again, note the
crucial role of a small ?13
15
How can you determine if the spectrum is Normal
Or Inverted ?
the effective mixing angle with matter effects
is sin2 2?M sin2 2?13 1 S
. Signm2( ) - m2( ) At oscillation
maximum, P(??? ?e) gt1
Normal P(??? ?e) lt1 Inverted
30 E 2 GeV (NO?A) 10
E 0.7 GeV (T2K)

()
()



Higher Energy is Better
The effect is
16
How can you determine if the spectrum is Normal
Or Inverted ?

• Larger E is better but
• We want L/E to at the peak of the oscillation
• Therefore Larger E must be matched by larger L
• Using larger L ( ie long baselines) to determine
  if the neutrino spectrum is normal or
  inverted could be a unique contribution of a
  new intense proton source at Fermilab
• If ?13 is large enough then observation of CP
  violation in the lepton sector may be possible
• If CP violation is observed ?one possible
  explanation of why we exist ! (Leptogenesis)

17
SummaryThe Neutrino Physics Case for the PD

• Intense proton sources combined with large long
  baseline neutrino experiments allow one to
  perform precise and very interesting measurement
  of neutrino oscillation parameters
• An ultimate goal is the discovery of and
  measurement of leptonic CP violation
• Intermediate goals include
• Resolving the neutrino mass hierarchy problem
• Precision measurement of neutrino interaction
  cross sections

18
Other Possible Physics with Intense Proton Sources
e.g. BR (KL ? p o n n ) 3 x 10-11

• Rare decays
• (window for new physics)
• Intense Kaon beams!
• Muon physics (with intense muon beams)
• Rare muon decays, Search for lepton flavor
  violation m ? eg or m ? 3e
• Muon EDM, CP violation
• Precision measurements g-2 (statistics limits
  understanding systematics)
• Neutrino Factories
• Anti-Proton Physics
• When BTEV ends 2015 Fermilab will have by far
  the worlds most intense source of antiproton.
  What should we do with it ?
• Long pulse spallation neutron source, etc more
  in minute

19
Fermilabs Existing Proton Source

• FNAL Accelerator Complex
• 7 major accelerators !)

35 yrs old
35 yrs old
Drift Tube LINAC 750 KeV ? 116 MeV
Cockroft-Walton H- ions ?(750 KeV)
1994
New LINAC 116 MeV ? 400 MeV

• Proton Source Linac, Booster, Main Injector

20
Booster Main Injector
1999
35 yrs old
Main Injector Synchrotron 8 GeV ? 150
GeV Protons or Pbars for TeV Collider
? 120 GeV for PBAR production or to the NUMI
target
Booster Synchrotron 15 Hz resonant magnet
cycle 400 MeV H- stripped? 8 GeV Protons Protons
?MI or Mini-BooNE
21
Limitations of Existing P Source

• Preac/Linac
• Linac can 40 uA of H- _at_ 15 Hz, Not a performance
  limitation
• but the equipment is old (experts too!) gt
  reliability is an issue
• Booster
• Limits the performance of the proton source
• Apertures, space charge effects, and losses limit
  the number protons in a booster batch to 6E12
  protons (limit set by activation of equipment)
• Uses a 15 Hz resonant magnet cycle but heating in
  ramped elements limit cycles with beam to 10 Hz
  25 KW of beam power at 8 GeV
• Main Injector
• Designed to Accelerate 6 booster batches/cycle ?
  3E13 P/cycle
• 120 GeV cycle rate 5/15(injection) 1.5(ramp)
  1.83 sec/cycle
• MI Beam Power
• The Main Injector 0.3 MW at 120 GeV (1.5 E 20
  P/Snowmass yr)

22
Limitations of Existing P Source

• Fancy MI loading schemes could increase the
  maximum number of booster batches from 6 to ll in
  the future (slip stacking)
• Doubles the protons/cycle but this slows the
  cycle time
• Already with 6 booster batches 15 of the cycle
  time is used to fill the Main injector

23
Existing Fermilab Proton Source and its
Limitations

• Several studies have had the goal of
  understanding the limitations of the existing
  source and suggesting upgrades
• Proton Driver Design Study I
• 16 GeV Synchrotron (TM 2136) Dec
  2000
• Proton Driver Design Study II (draft TM 2169)
• 8 GeV Synchrotron May 2002
  
• 2 MW upgrade to Main Injector
  May 2002
• 8 GeV Superconducting Linac
  Feb 2004
• Proton Team Report (D Finley) Oct
  2003
• Report http//www.fnal.gov/directorate/program_pl
  anning/studies/ProtonReport.pdf
• Limitations of existing source, upgrades for a
  few 10s of M.
• On the longer term the proton demands of the
  neutrino program will exceed what reasonable
  upgrades of the present Booster and Linac can
  accommodate ?FNAL needs a plan to replace its
  aging LINAC Booster with a new more intense
  proton source (AKA a Proton Driver)

24
Proton Driver Study in Progresshttp//www-bd.fnal
.gov/pdriver/

• High Level Parameters
• 0.5-2.0 MW beam power at 8 Gev
• 2.0 MW beam power at 120 GeV
• 6 x power of current Main Injector
• Two Possible implementations
• 8 GeV Synchrotron
• 8 GeV SCRF Linac
• FLRPC Linac is preferred
• Better performance
• More Flexible
• Comparable in cost
• LC connection (TESLA technology)

25
PD 8 GeV SC Linac

• Design concept originated with Bill Foster at
  FNAL
• Observation / GeV for SCRF has fallen
  dramatically ?Can consider a solution in which H-
  beam is accelerated to 8 GeV in a SC linac and
  injected directly into the Main Injector
• Why an SCRF Linac looks attractive
• Probably simpler to operate vs. two machines
  (i.e. linac booster)
• Produces very small emittances vs. a synchrotron
  (small halo losses in MI)
• Can delivers high beam power simultaneously at 8
  120 GeV
• Many components exist (fewer parts to design vs
  new booster synchrotron)
• Use TESLA klystrons, modulators, and
  cavities/Cryo modules
• Exploit development/infrastructure from RIA, SNS,
  JLAB, JPARC etc
• Can be staged to limit initial costs grow
  with neutrino program needs

26
PD Status and Plans

• Following the FLRPC recommendations FNAL started
  an serious effort to develop the SCRF linac
  design and the Physics case
• Bill Foster Machine Design
• Steve Geer Physics case
• The Aug 04 ITRP selection of cold technology
  for the International Linear Collider provides a
  HUGE boost for idea of an SCRF linac based PD at
  FNAL
• Much of the development and infrastructure needed
  for a Proton Driver or a cold-technology
  International Linear collider are identical
• A superconducting linac-based Proton Driver might
  have many possible future missions

Goal DOE CD-0 approval in 05
27
8 GeV Superconducting Linac
Anti- Proton
28
Baseline 2 MW 8 GeV LINAC
8 GeV 2 MW LINAC
Warm Copper
Modulator
Modulator
325 MHz
36 Klystrons (2 types)
Drift Tube Linac
(7 total)
Klystrons
31 Modulators 10 MW ea.
2.5 MW
325 MHz
7 Warm Linac Loads
0 - 87 MeV
DTL 1
DTL 2
DTL 3
DTL 4
DTL5
DTL6
RFQ
RFQ
H -
48 Cryomodules
384 Superconducting Cavities
Squeezed Tesla cavities
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
1300 MHz
0.087 - 1.2 GeV
B0.47
B0.47
B0.61
B0.61
B0.61
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
5 TESLA Klystrons, 10 MW each
96 cavites in 12 Cryomodules
"TESLA" LINAC
24 Klystrons
1300 MHz Beta1
288 cavites in 36 Cryomodules
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
12 cavites/ Klystron
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
29
Cavities and Cryomodules
Tesla SCRF Cavity
Cryomodule at Tesla Test Facility
The Cavities and Cryo-modules for 85 of the
Proton Driver will be nearly identical to those
developed by the TESLA collaboration for the
International Linear Collider
30
What is a Tesla Cryo-Module?
12 Meter long Cryostat Eight 9-cell cavities of
pure Nb Cavities are cooled with 1.8 K superfluid
He Cavities are surrounded by thermal radiation
shields (4 80 K) Couplers carry 1.3 GHz RF
energy from room temp into the cavity Support,
alignment structures tuners, magnetic shielding,
etc/
31
SCRF Cavities

• Superconducting cavities are remarkable !
• Single cavities have achieved accelerating
  gradients of gt45 MV/M this is a Huge number
  Think 45 KV/mm !
• Superconducting cavities also exhibit some of the
  highest Qs ( stored energy/energy loss per
  cycle) of any system observed in nature.
  Qs gt few x 1010 are typical
• Gradients in cavities are typically limited by
  field emission, breakdowns, or quenchs
• Material control and cleanliness are crucial

32
How do you build a SCRF Cryomodule ?

• Cavities are fabricated from pure Nb Sheet
• Nb is machined, deep drawn, electron Beam welded
  to form the basic cavity
• Cavities then are chemically etched, baked, and
  cleaned with utra-pure high pressure water (goal
  smooth surface, no micro size or larger
  contamination which can cause field emission)
• Work is done in Class 10 clean rooms (similar to
  chip fabrication)
• The highest gradients are achieved with a final
  electro-polish step 25 ?
  35-40 MV/Meter. (Individual cavities are tested
  after this step.)
• Cavities are then dressed with a helium vessel
• Input couplers are added to pass room temp RF
  into 1.8 K cavity environment
• Cavity string assembly ( 8 cavities) is last
  clean room step
• Next is cold mass assembly, alignment,
  insertion in outer vessel
• Finally, the cryomodule is tested (requires
  cryogenics high power RF )
• All of this requires a lot of
  infrastructure (eg DESY spend 140 M to build
  TTF I II.
• Fortunately, a lot of SCRF infrastructure already
  exists at US universities national labs (e.g.
  recent SNS construction)

33
TESLA Cryomodule Assembly
34
(No Transcript)
35
Copy of TTF
Fermilab
For A0 and DESY XFEL
36
RF Power Klystrons

• RF power for the Proton Driver would be provided
  by high power (10 MW) 1.3 GHz klystrons
• Three companies have developed these for TESLA
  (Thales, CPI, Toshiba)
• Modulators would be identical to
  those used by TESLA (built by Fermilab)

37
RF Power Modulators

• Biggest single component in RF cost for a PD or a
  LC
• Fermilab designed and built the modulator for the
  TESLA TTF, Its been in service and reliable at
  TTF since 1994
• Modulators for the Proton Driver and ILC could be
  very similar

38
RF System for 1.2? 8 GeV Linac

• The Proton Driver design assumes TESLA-style RF
  power distribution works
• One TESLA multi-beam Klystron per 12 Cavities
• A Proton Linac (b lt 1) requires a fast ferrite
  E-H tuner to control the phase and amplitude to
  each cavity
• Also needed if Linac is to alternate between e
  and P.
• The fundamental technology to do this was
  developed in the 1960s for phased-array radar
  transmitters.
• This technology work is crucial to the financial
  feasibility of the Proton Driver ( klystron
  modulator are 2 M)
• Fermilab began RD last year to develop the
  required phase shifters (two in-house designs
  ordered one commercially from AFT)

39
RF Fan-out for 8 GeV Linac
40
RF Fanout at Each Cavity
41
ELECTRONICALLY ADJUSTABLEE-H TUNER
FERRITE LOADED SHORTED STUBS CHANGE ELECTRICAL
LENGTH DEPENDING ON DC MAGNETIC BIAS.
TWO COILS PROVIDE INDEPENDENT PHASE AND
AMPLITUDE CONTROL OF CAVITIES
42
Linac Cost Optimizations Options

• Staging Extend Klystron Fanout 121 ? 361
• Drop beam current, extend pulse width
• Drop rep. rate ? avg. 8-GeV power 2 MW? 0.5 MW
• But still delivers 2 MW from MI at 120 GeV with
  existing MI ramp rates
• SCRF Front End? (using RIA Spoke Resonators)
• Assumed Gradients for TESLA cavities
• Baseline 5 GeV linac by assuming TESLA 500
  gradients,
• Deliver 8 GeV linac by achieving TESLA 800
  gradients.
• 384 Cavities ? 240 cavities Linac Length
  650m ? 400

43
Staged2 MW_at_120 GeV .5 MW_at_8GeV,SCRF FE
8 GeV 0.5 MW LINAC
"Pulsed RIA"
Modulator
325 MHz
11 Klystrons (2 types)
Klystron
SCRF Linac
11 Modulators 20 MW ea.
3.0 MW
Multi-Cavity Fanout at 10-20kW/cavity
Phase Amplitude Adjust via Fast Ferrite Tuners
325 MHz
1 Warm Linac Load
RFQ
RFQ
H -
54 Cryomodules
0 - 120 MeV
550 Superconducting Cavities
TESLA
Modulator
Klystrons
1300 MHz
10 MW
B0.47
B0.47
B0.61
B0.61
B0.61
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
B0.81
2 Klystrons
96 cavites in 12 Cryomodules
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Modulator
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
Beta1
8 Klystrons
288 cavites in 36 Cryomodules
44
Cost Driver Klystrons per GeV
45
325 MHz RF System
MODULATOR FNAL/TTF Reconfigurable for 1,2 or 3
msec beam pulse
110 kV
10 kV
IGBT Switch Bouncer
CAP BANK
Charging Supply 300kW
Single JPARC Klystron 325MHz 3 MW
10kV
TOSHIBA E3740A
Pulse Transformer Oil Tank
TESLA TTF
WR2300 Distribution Waveguide
RF Couplers
120 kW
20 kW
400kW
20 kW
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
I Q M
Fast Ferrite Isolated I/Q Modulators
Cables to Tunnel
M
E
B
T
R F Q
S
S
R
S
S
R
D
S
R
D
S
R
H-
Medium Energy Beam Transport Copper Cavities
Radio Frequency Quadrupole
Cryomodule 1 Single-Spoke Resonators
Cryomodule 2 Double-Spoke Resonators
JPARC
RIA
46
JHF 325 MHz RFQ and Klystrons
Facilitate a TESLA-Compatible Front End
JHF 325 MHz RF Quad
JHF 325 MHz 3 MW Klystron
TESLA frequency 1300 MHz 4325 MHz
47
SCRF Front End (Pulsed RIA)?

• RIA group at Argonne has made great progress
  using spoke resonators to achieve high gradients
  for betalt1 cavities.
• Using these in 1 msec pulsed mode looks
  considerably cheaper than a warm-copper front end
  (if one already has the cryoplant).
• FNAL/ANL collaboration
• Shared SCRF infrastructure (chemistry)
• Investigating common designs, shared production
• Plan to test RIA cavities in Pulsed mode (U of I
  grad student)

48
Topologically same as a shorted coax
49
Main Injector Upgrades

• With a Proton Driver beam in the Main injector
  will increase by a factor of 5 from its design
  value of 3.0 E 13 protons per pulse to 1.5 E 14
• The main injector beam power can also be
  increased by shortening the MI ramp time.
• Requires additional magnet power supplies
• Becomes practical with a linac, injection time
  1 ms
• More protons/cycle and/or faster ramp times ?
  more MI RF power required
• But shorter ramp time ? beam power goes up.

50
120 GeV Main Injector Cycle with 8 GeV Linac
Standard Ramp

• Fill time is negligible gt could increase MI ramp
  rate

51
Baseline Proton Driver MI 0.8 sec cycle
52
Comparison of PD options
RDK unofficial

• With an 8 GeV SCRF Linac one can imagine upgrade
  paths to MI beam powers beyond 2 MW

53
Synergies with other Projects

• Synergy with many other SCRF projects
• CBEAF upgrades, SNS, RIA, light sources,
  e-cooling _at_RHIC, eRHIC, etc
• Strong connection with a Cold Technology LC
• Both require extensive SCRF infrastructure
  development
• The last 85 of the Proton Driver linac (1 GeV to
  8 GeV) is comprised of b1 TESLA modules and can
  serve as a large scale demonstration of the 4000
  cryo-modules and RF equipment needed for the ILC
• Proton Driver 1 of a LC gt improve the LC
  cost estimate ( will pay for itself )
• Can be used to study ILC reliability and
  alignment issues
• The synergy between ILC RD and Proton Driver is
  further reinforced by the almost complete overlap
  of a PD and ILC module RD and test plans
• SCRF PD could be made to accelerate electrons
• With a low emittance source ? LC beam studies
• Possibly serve as part or all of a LC ETF
• All of this can happen while the LC project is
  trying to organize complex international
  agreements and funding

54
Timescale for a Proton Driver ?

• Always hard to guess
• Technically limited schedule
• CD0 in 05
• CD1 in 06 (preliminary acquisition strategy,
  PEP, conceptual design report, project scope,
  baseline cost/schedule range, PMP, Hazard
  analysis, etc)
• CD 2/3a in 07-08 (project baseline approved,
  approval to start construction)
• Funds in FY09 ? Availability of funding from DOE
  may push this later
• Once funding is approved, typical projects of
  this scale ( MI, SLAC B factory, KEK-B, SNS) have
  construction times of 4-5 years
• The timescale will also depend on how the Linear
  Collider plays out, over the next few years
  (e.g. PD ETF ?)
• Its up to us to make the physics case that a
  Proton Driver is required and that it should go
  as fast as possible
• Making the PHYSICS CASE is crucial in all of this
  !

55
CONCLUSIONS

• It seems likely that a new intense proton source
  will be proposed for construction at FNAL
• Similar in scope to the Main Injector Project
  (cost/schedule)
• A 8 GeV Synchrotron or a Superconducting Linac
  appear to be both technically possible. However
  the SCRF linac strongly preferred if it can be
  made affordable
• The FNAL management has requested that the 8 GeV
  linac design be developed including cost
  schedule information
• A Technical Design will be developed (charge to
  Bill Foster)
• The Physics Case needs to be further developed
  (charge to Steve Geer)
• These will make it possible to submit a Proton
  Driver project to the DOE for approval and
  funding in the near future

56
Proton Driver RD

• Neutrino Detector Design
• Nova ( NuMI off-axis detector) proposal to PAC
• FLARE ( large LAr surface detector)
• Large water Cerenkov ? BNL proposal similar to
  K2K ( deep underground, also could do Proton
  Decay)
• Underground cavern construction issues
• Beam Optimization
• Wide vs Narrow band neutrino beam
• Energy choice
• Optimal vs practical baselines ? (L/E ratio)
• Beam lines ? ( eg for places other than towards
  Soudan)

57
Proton Driver RD

• High Power Target Design ( 2-4 MW)
• Target Stations
• Particle collection elements (eg Horns)
• Beam Dynamics
• H- stripping
• Multi-turn phase paint injection in the Main
  Injector
• Main injector
• Beam activation of components
• Collimators
• RF upgrade
• Magnet ramp upgrades

58
PD/ILC RD Plans

• SCRF Cavity Development
• Beta 1 SCRF cryo-modules in both US and with
  international partners ( e.g. DESY, KEK)
• Develop Beta lt 1 elliptical cavities
• Develop Low Beta spoke resonator cavities in
  collaboration with RIA (ANL MSU)
• Superconducting Module Test Facility (SMTF)
• RF Power
• Cryogenics
• Infrastructure (most of this common to ILC and
  PD)
• Many University scale RD projects (for PD and
  ILC)