Introduction Barry Barish PAC Valencia Spain 13 May10

Introduction Barry Barish PAC – Valencia, Spain 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 1

Technical Design Phase and Beyond TDP Baseline Technical Design RDR Baseline design studies 2009 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain New baseline inputs TDP-1 2010 TDP-2 TDR Change Request RDR ACD (alternate concepts) R&D Demonstrations 2011 Global Design Effort 2012 2013 2

ILCSC Science Goals – 2003, 2006 • Ecm adjustable from 200 – 500 Ge. V • Luminosity ∫Ldt = 500 fb-1 in 4 years • Ability to scan between 200 and 500 Ge. V • Energy stability and precision below 0. 1% • Electron polarization of at least 80% • The machine must be upgradeable to 1 Te. V The RDR Design meets these “requirements, ” including the recent update and clarifications of the reconvened ILCSC Parameters group! 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 3

RDR Design Parameters Max. Center-of-mass energy Peak Luminosity 500 Ge. V ~2 x 1034 1/cm 2 s Beam Current 9. 0 m. A Repetition rate 5 Hz Average accelerating gradient 31. 5 MV/m Beam pulse length 0. 95 ms 31 km ~230 MW Total Site Length Total AC Power Consumption 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 4

RDR Design & “Value” Costs 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 R&D, 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) Summary RDR “Value” Costs Total Value Cost (FY 07) 4. 80 B ILC Units Shared + 1. 82 B Units Site Specific + 14. 1 K person-years (“explicit” labor = 24. 0 M person-hrs @ 1, 700 hrs/yr) 1 ILC Unit = $ 1 (2007) Σ Value = 6. 62 B ILC Units 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 5

July 2006 Evolving Design Cost Reductions Some possible cost reductions (e. g. single tunnel, half RF, value engineering) deferred to the engineering phase 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 6

RDR Complete • Reference Design Report (4 volumes) Executive Summary Accelerator 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort Physics at the ILC Detectors 7

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 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 8

The ILC SCRF Cavity - Achieve high gradient (35 MV/m); develop multiple vendors; make cost effective, etc - Focus is on high gradient; production yields; cryogenic losses; radiation; system performance 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 9

Global Plan for SCRF R&D Year Phase Cavity Gradient in v. test to reach 35 MV/m Cavity-string to reach 31. 5 MV/m, with onecryomodule System Test with beam acceleration 07 2008 2009 TDP-1 Process Yield 50% 2011 2012 TDP-2 Production Yield 90% Global effort for string assembly and test (DESY, FNAL, INFN, KEK) FLASH (DESY) , NML (FNAL) STF 2 (KEK, extend beyond 2012) Production Technology R&D Preparation for Industrialization 7 January 2010 SCRF AAP Review 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain 2010 Global Design Effort 10

TTF/FLASH 9 m. A Experiment Full beam-loading long pulse operation “S 2” Bunch charge n. C # bunches XFEL ILC FLASH design 9 m. A studies 1 3. 2 1 3 3250 2625 7200* 2400 Pulse length ms 650 970 800 Current m. A 5 9 9 9 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain • Stable 800 bunches, 3 n. C at 1 MHz (800 ms pulse) for over 15 hours (uninterrupted) • Several hours ~1600 bunches, ~2. 5 n. C at 3 MHz (530 ms pulse) • >2200 bunches @ 3 n. C (3 MHz) for short periods Global Design Effort 11

Making Very Small Emittance (Beam Sizes at Collision) 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 12

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 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 13

Updated ILC R&D / Design Plan Major TDP Goals: • ILC design evolved for cost / performance optimization • Complete crucial demonstration and riskmitigating R&D • Updated VALUE estimate and schedule • Project Implementation Plan 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 14

Major R&D Goals for TDP 1 SCRF • High Gradient R&D - globally coordinated program to demonstrate gradient by 2010 with 50%yield; ATF-2 at KEK • Demonstrate Fast Kicker performance and Final Focus Design Electron Cloud Mitigation – (Cesr. TA) • Electron Cloud tests at Cornell to establish mitigation and verify one damping ring is sufficient. Accelerator Design and Integration (AD&I) • Studies of possible cost reduction designs and strategies for consideration in a re-baseline in 2010 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 15

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 R&D 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) 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 16

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. 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 17

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 $1 B, 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. 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 18

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 Te. V upgrade option should be maintained. ” 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 19

AAP Review - Conclusion (1) • “The SB 2009 exercise was carried out to save cost and consolidate the design. The cost savings in SB 2009 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. ” 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 20

Recommendations of GDE EC (1) • After review and subsequent discussion of the AAP SB 2009 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 themes in SB 2009 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. 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 21

SB 2009 Themes Cost Savings ~ 13% N Walker 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 22

Proposed Design changes for TDR RDR SB 2009 • 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. 2 km) • Integrate central region 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort • Single stage bunch compressor 23

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. 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 24

7. 5 m Diameter Single Tunnel • Egress passageway not needed; • 7 m Ø ok 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 25

7. 5 m Diameter Single Tunnel High-Level RF Solution • Critical technical challenge for one-tunnel option is the high level RF distribution. • Two proposed solutions : – Distributed RF Source (DRFS) • Small 750 k. W 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 R&D) 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 26

Technical Design Phase and Beyond change control process AAP PAC Physics RDR Baseline CERN Workshop Beijing Workshop TDP-1 SB 2009 evolve TDP Baseline Technical Design TDP-2 TDR Change Request RDR ACD concepts R&D Demonstrations AD&I studies 2009 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain 2010 2011 Global Design Effort 2012 2013 27

Top Level Change Control Process Issue Identification • Planning • Identify further studies • Canvas input from stakeholders • … Baseline Assessment Workshops Formal Director Approval • Face to face meetings • Open to all stakeholders • Plenary • Change evaluation panel • Chaired by Director keywords: open, transparent 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 28

TLCC Process Issue Identification • Planning • Identify further studies • Canvas input from stakeholders • … • 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 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 29

TLCC Process Baseline Assessment Workshops • Face to face meetings • Open to all stakeholders • Plenary • 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 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 30

TLCC Process Beamline Assessment Workshops • Face to face meetings • Open to all stakeholders • Plenary Physics and detector input / representation mandatory When WAB 1 Sept. 7 -8, 2010 Where KEK What 1. Accelerating Gradient 2. Single Tunnel (HLRF) WAB 2 Jan 17 -21, 2011 SLAC 3. Reduced RF power 4. e+ source location 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 31

TLCC Process Formal Director Approval • Change evaluation panel • Chaired by Director • 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 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 32

Technical Design Phase and Beyond change control process AAP PAC Physics RDR Baseline CERN Workshop Beijing Workshop TDP-1 SB 2009 evolve TDP Baseline Technical Design TDP-2 TDR Change Request RDR ACD concepts R&D Demonstrations AD&I studies 2009 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain 2010 2011 Global Design Effort 2012 2013 33

Project Implementation Plan ILCSC 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 34

ILC R&D Beyond 2012 ? • The AAP points to uncertainties beyond 2012 in their conclusions: – “Some aspects of the R&D 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. 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 35

Timescales: TDR to ILC (or beyond 2012) • Steps to a Project – Technical (2 -3 years) – – R&D for Risk Reduction and Technology Improvement Systems Tests (e. g. S 2 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- 2020 s 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain Global Design Effort 36

Five Themes to Develop N Walker Industrialisation in-kind contribution models Site requirements Project Schedule Remaining Technical activities Project Implementation Plan 13 -May-10 PAC - Valencia, Spain SCRF Technology R&D (General) AD&I (CFS) ains Rem case ial spec • Regional expertise, global Industrialisation • Average accelerating gradient • Cost (cryomodule, mass-production models) • Sources • DR (e-cloud) • BDS / MDI • Consolidation of baseline(s) • Design choices (parameters, layout etc. ) • Design work (documentation) Cost & Schedule • ICET (schedule tool) • Traceable, defendable • Justification TDR Risk • R&D (and engineering) beyond 2012 • Impact (design, cost, schedule) • Mitigation (fall-back solutions) Global Design Effort >2012 37