Describe the effect upon the laboratory of a the warm vs' cold decision b choice of site

1
Describe the effect upon the laboratory of a)
the warm vs. cold decision b) choice of site

• Norbert Holtkamp
• 6/29/2004
• Disclaimer This assessment is not based on
  physics, engineering or other sciences. It is
  largely a personal assessment taking into account
  what the lab directors and other proponents have
  said. It is a summary of what became obvious, and
  an attempt to provide information to judge which
  technology choice would do the least harm across
  the board.

2
DESY Impact on the Laboratory Cold

• LC would directly profit from XFEL 10 prototype
  experience with 180FTEs working on this
  technology (see table)
• Official
• More resources are necessary (but where do they
  come from since experts needed)
• Timescale fits with XFEL schedule since LC will
  take longer.
• Unofficial
• Cold decision will drain resources much needed
  for XFEL. (Threat to DESY)
• Accel Div can not support both activities
  successfully
• ?can see efffect LC group has 2 members at DESY

• Boost morale of HEP at DESY since there is no HEP
  future project aft 07.
• Leverage for DESY to reconsider recommendation
  from German gov.
• Integrates well with the FRP6 programs under way
  from European union on SRF (CARE)

3
DESY Impact on the Laboratory warm

• More resources are needed in this case too.
• DESY Accel Div contribution is minimized and
  focused on XFEL
• Detector and physics effort will be main
  contribution and the remaining HEP branch _at_ DESY
  after 07.
• Integrates well with the FRP6 program from EU for
  the Detector and physics part (Eurotev only).
• Collaboration with CERN will be more favorable
  (E. Elsen, coordinator for Eurotev at DESY)

4
DESY as a site

• Makes sense only if cold because of ground
  motion limitations. Warm machine will not work at
  DESY.
• Planning for 500/800 GeV is done. Probably the
  fastest track to LC in that energy range.
• planfeststellungsverfahren is done.
• Engineering layout done
• Environmental impact studies done
• Inter-government agreement between states in
  Germany signed
• BUT German government has chosen N O T to bid
  for site _at_ Hamburg for the time being. so
  its a mute point until this can be reversed.
  There is no plan for accelerator based HEP after
  07 in Germany at this point.
• Cold and DESY is little risk for successful
  construction
• Warm and DESY, no way but CERN would be more
  positive
• Warm and other site means little support from
  DESY, but CERN would be more positive.
• Cold and other site is helpful since 10
  prototype is underway and technology can be
  transferred with much to offer from DESY.

5
KEK Impact on the Laboratory

• Warm or cold, the ITER decision and JPARC and its
  recent extensions will determine to a much larger
  extent how much and how deeply Japan can get
  involved in a LC.
• JPARC schedule is consistent with more
  conservative LC schedule, but inconsistent with
  the communities plan (Totsuka san ..might
  loose support for LC if decision is not
  soon(2009)
• As other projects roll off, it is intended to
  utilize these resources for LC, if LC comes in
  time.

6
KEK Impact on the Laboratory Warm

• Would spark enthusiasm within KEK (and SLAC), but
  not so many other places.
• KEK would have to do much of the remaining
  technical RD (or SLAC), since there is no other
  labs with expertise in warm x-band rf.
• Aligns industrialization effort with technology
  choice. Right now almost only x-band technology
  is transferred (apart from klystron for TESLA).
  LC Forum also supports warm.
• KEK would keep the close tie to SLAC.
• CERN could be attracted more easy.
• Much of the expertise in Korea and China is in
  warm technology and can be utilized.
• The conflict between c-band and x-band will
  remain.
• Pretty much business like usual.

7
KEK Impact on the Laboratory cold

• Lab management will have difficulties to support
  this decision
• Justification to government agency for supporting
  warm for gt10y would have to be made.
• Significant manpower would have to move from
  x-band technology to cold. Also true for much of
  the infrastructure bought at KEK (see
  structures).
• KEK would have to redefine its position within
  the cold LC community rather than with SLAC and
  the continued focus on warm.
• Totsuka san would have to do a lot of convincing
  to have people move to a cold LC rather then on
  something else in HEP (muon collider, high
  intensity proton beams etc)

8
KEK Impact on the Laboratory Site

• Site decision is very important to Japanese HEP
  community. Probably even more so then technology.
  ACFA see LC as next big HEP project and the Asian
  region as its natural location.
• An off shore LC would certainly have Japanese HEP
  look very soon for other opportunities in Japan
  and probably attract a large workforce and
  funding, which turns it away from the LC.
• ASIA/ KEK would have a fully international HEP
  Laboratory
• KEK itself as a site is impossible, which is
  recognized by everybody.
• Technical possible to build cold or warm under
  Japanese ground conditions, but locations might
  be remote.

9
SLAC Impact on the Laboratory

• Independent of technology, SLAC has the majority
  of the expertise to operate a LC. This is a very
  different situation the in ee- storage rings or
  other colliders.
• This is good since that leads to a very
  professional approach
• It is bad since man y decision are based on the
  specific SLAC experience
• SLAC/J.Dorfan is the only director that made a
  convincing argument that the lab wants to be
  involved in any case to pretty much the same
  extent but may be with different focal points.

10
SLAC Impact on the Laboratory Warm

• Would spark enthusiasm within SLAC (and KEK), but
  not so many other places.
• It would fuel SLACs arrogance of being right
  after all and it would show.
• All available expertise would be brought to work
  immediately with a fast track to realization
  (provided there is no more technology hick ups
  during the coming RD)
• SLAC would have to do much of the remaining
  technical RD (or KEK), since there is no other
  labs with this expertise. A lot of RD money
  would poor into SLAC for that reason(, but not
  into other places).
• SLAC is more in a leadership position than in one
  of collaboration between equal partners.
• Overall Things would pretty much go like they
  have been over the last 10 years.

11
SLAC Impact on the Laboratory Cold

• It would show that for whatever reason ITRP
  disregards the proposal by the two strongest LC
  proponents to use their preferred technology.
• Cold is a difficult sell at SLAC and people can
  not be forced to work on it. It will need force
  to push this at SLAC.
• Would lead to an attempt to built a small scale
  LC on the campus with very high gradient rf _at_ 300
  GeV.
• It would force SLAC into a equal partnership
  with other labs that have expertise in this area.
• It would have an adverse affect on the KEK
  collaboration, since a decision has to be made to
  go with the ITRP recomm. or go with KEK to a warm
  LC.
• It would significantly reduce warm rf RD at SLAC
  (and therefore in the US).
• It would SLAC leave with a vast infrastructure of
  no use for anything (other than B.Siemans RD)
  and in position to defend why last 10 years DOE
  money was spend on it.

12
SLAC Impact on the Laboratory Site

• SLAC itself as a site is impossible, which is
  recognized by everybody.
• Technical possible to build cold or warm under CA
  ground conditions.
• Cost of living, operations and traffic as well as
  environmental impact speaks against it.
• A LC site close to SLAC would guarantee a larger
  workforce from SLAC on the LC (since nobody from
  SLAC wants to move out of the bay area See Fermi
  experience).
• A LC site close to SLAC would make it more likely
  to be accepted by KEK and Japanese/Asian
  collaborators.

13
CERN Impact on all other Laboratories

• DESY does not represent European vision of HEP
  alone
• CERN cold
• CERN will be very much against this, since it
  does not align with CERNs technology choice. LC
  in Europe, threatens CERN position as lead HEP
  lab in Europe. Building cold a CERN, is unlikely.
• CERN warm
• A warm linac will make CERNs participation more
  like since it fits CERNs goals.
• A warm linac can not be build at DESY, which is
  good for CERN.
• CERN present position is a devastating disaster
  for HEP community and ICFA. But unlikely to
  change.
• It is hard to imagine how to get CERN on board
  for a near term LC, especially a cold one.

14
FERMI Impact on all other Laboratories

• SLAC and its user community represent the smaller
  fraction of HEP in the US. FERMI represents the
  majority, it is therefore much more important to
  get FERMI on board than SLAC (bluntly said).
• The 40 y history of mistrust makes it very
  difficult to have the Fermi community agree on
  technology that is so dominated by SLAC and its
  sole expertise.
• Ultimately it is more important for FERMI to be
  the site than to have the technology. It is a
  very controversial topic though since not
  everybody believes that a LC will be built.
• FERMI needs a future for the Lab afte the
  Tevatron
• FERMI can not be forced in position of
  compliance. That will create a veto for the LC.
• This was underestimated by SLAC and by others.
• Fermi has the most obvious site
• Fermi has the vast majority of the HEP employees.
  

15
Summary

• Its no fun!!
• It hasnt been for more than 10 years.
• Either decision will have negative impacts on a
  set of laboratories and individuals.
• If the decision is warm, cold RD will continues
• If decision is cold warm RD will probably only
  be done at CERN
• The two biggest proponents and hardest working
  labs on LC want warm.
• The larger community consensus is behind cold.
• Either way, someone will loose and thats the
  problem.