1. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 1  Now in international R&D phase (baseline design defined); validate technology, engineering design, cost.  Current R&D expenditures equal in Asia, Europe, US.  ILC project requires LHC science validation, government agreement on cost share, site, organization. Aim FY2012 start.  Major benefit from R&D phase – SC RF technology ILC R&D and SCRF

2. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 2 SCRF opens opportunities Development of SCRF for HEP finds broad application in many sciences. In addition to these US facilities, SCRF accelerators exist in Canada, Switzerland, England, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, China, Korea, India, Australia, … High energy accelerators Neutrino sources Nuclear structure Heavy ions Light sources Energy recovery linacs Free electron lasers Neutron sources Photoinjectors Transmute nuclear waste SCRF enables:

3. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 3 SC RF Infrastructure Chemical Polish Electropolish Weld free cavity formingChemical / electropolish Rinse, bake Vertical / horizontal test Cryomodule assembly String test Intensive R&D; extensive test facilities DESY photos

4. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 4 US lags Europe and Japan in developing high gradienet superconducting rf technology. With ~20,000 SCRF cavities in ILC, it is probable that all three regions must contribute. Hosting ILC requires SCRF industrial and testing capability in the US. DESY Tesla Test Facility: Cost was >$150M (~FY1995), SWF not included. Where we are now ( FNAL Meson Lab) High Gradient Superconducting rf acceleration – the key ILC technology Current estimate for 6 year cost of SCRF infrastructure and industrial procurement of cavities and cryomodules is ~$300M

5. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 5 FY2008 plan ($75M ILC + $47M SCRF) 1.ILC component R&D (~$37M) 2.SCRF infrastructure (~$25M) 3.Industrial SC component procurement (~$22M 4.Engineering design (largely manpower) (~$12M) 5.Detector R&D (~$20M) 6.Site evaluation (~$4M) 7.Management (~2M)

6. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 6 Out year projections ILC R&D, design SCRF infrastructure, industrial transfer

7. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 7 FALC = Funding Agencies Linear Collider (US DOE, US NSF, Canada, Germany, France, UK, Italy, CERN (smaller EU nations), Japan, S. Korea (India, China, Russia to be added?)  Established common fund for GDE.  International review of Reference Design cost estimate (2007)  Document technological benefits of ILC for governments/industry  Coordinate planning of large world projects (ILC, LHC upgrade, intense sources, CLIC R&D) TO DO:  Establish procedure and time table for site proposals, evaluations (needed to complete TDR).  Formalize oversight and organization structure of GDE FALC

8. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 8 International discussions China - visit 6/06 – “will join ILC” S. Korea - first ILC funding 2006 Japan: Diet Federation: “support realization of ILC” India - visit 10/06 discuss partnering with US on SCRF Russia - waiting to complete LHC commitment Europe - LHC priority. CERN Council: “‘fundamental to complement LHC with ILC.” US – NAS panel: “US should launch major ILC R&D” Canada: minimal now, but interest

9. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 9 Estimated Time Line 2006200720082009201020112012 Ref Design, cost, review Engineering design FALC proposal for site selection process Interim R&D oversight organization for GDE R&D Identification of site (or 2?) Final site specific TDR ILC organization draft plan Preconstruction planning Formal negotiation of ILC lab agreements Project start RDR cost LHC results GDE FALC Govts offramps Key

10. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 10 backups

11. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 11 EPP2010 Report “The US should launch a major † program of R&D, design, industrialization, and management and financing studies of the ILC accelerator and detectors.” (as the highest priority future effort. CERN Council European strategy for particle physics (2006): “It is fundamental* to complement the results of the LHC with measurements at a linear collider.” “The first general meeting of the [Japanese] Federation of Diet members to promote the realisation of ILC … As an important international project in the fundamental sciences, the Federation decided to give strong support toward the realisation of the ILC.” (ILC News, 6-22-06) * CERN strategy group lexicon: † EPP2010 identified R&D costs as $500M over FY2007 -- 2011. Adding FY2006 actual and FY2012 estimate, detector R&D, SCRF infrastructure raises this to $820M. I think Robin wanted something like this; can simplify as desired.

12. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 12 International discussions China: Staffin/Minister of Science and Technology in June 2006: “we will join the ILC”; discussing R&D involvement at $10M level India: Staffin/Minister of Science and Technology in October 2006: Indian partnership with US in SCRF at $10M level? So. Korea: first ILC specific funds allocated in 2006 Japan: Formation of Federation of Diet members for realizing the ILC (Sugawara), with statement of intent to propose ILC in Japan. Priority of JPARC had prevented official discussion of ILC in Japan; now MEXT expresses its desire to pursue ILC. First infusion of significant funds for detector R&D (JSPS). Russia: Funding constraints, difficulty in securing the Russian contribution to LHC hinders formal ILC role, but the accelerator expertise helps ILC R&D. Canada: minimal involvement, but growing.

13. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 13 International discussions Europe: Situation in Europe is complex. (Orbach visit in August 2006.) Top priority is LHC, with LHC upgrade prominent in many nations priorities. CERN Council Strategy Group rated ILC as “fundamental”. Council is emerging as primary European strategic planning group. CERN continues to pursue CLIC R&D as potential future project; expert evaluation sees CLIC as being beyond the horizon of next decade. Germany is leading the XFEL construction project. France is most aligned to CERN future plans. UK is contributing large funding to ILC, with focus on beam delivery system, detector R&D. Tension between CERN and US over operating costs, LHC upgrades will tend to limit European funding for ILC in US.

14. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 14 GDE FY2007 plans (ok for backup)  Complete Reference Design, cost estimate. Aim for international review under FALC oversight (Lehman from US).  R&D on critical baseline elements and alternates holding promise for cost saving or improvement in reliability.  Restructure the GDE to begin the Technical (engineering) Design activities.  Develop world R&D plan. At present 4 planning task forces:  cavities and cryomodule  string tests  damping rings  final focus/beam delivery)

15. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 15 Past investment by HEP in SCRF has led to current facilities CEBAF and SNS. The future of light sources (for material science, environmental studies, structural biology), energy recovery linacs, rare isotope accelerators, heavy ion research, and intense neutrino beams depends on expanding the capability of SCRF. Shorter high gradient linacs should provide spin-offs for medical and industrial applications (e.g. neutron therapy) In the near term high gradient SCRF relies on the ILC R&D program. The chief broader benefit of the ILC R&D program is acquisition of the SCRF technology. HEP has enabled past advances in other fields: the SPPS and LCLS at SLAC for short time resolution imaging, structural biology, plasma studies, chemical kinetics are dependent on the investment and experience at the SLAC linac. Superconducting rf acceleration – the key to future accelerators

16. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 16 DOE/OHEP has recognized the generic importance of SCRF R&D and infrastructure and will define a budget category for it in FY 2007. Budget $23M (if FY2007 appropriation is at $60M). The FY2008 over target request of $47M for SCRF infrastructure and industrial partnership is essential for advancing ILC R&D, and for establishing the basis for future SC facilities. Without such infrastructure and industrial capability, the advanced DOE/SC accelerator facilities will not be possible. Developing high yield, cost-effective and reproducible SC cavities is the highest priority for the ILC R&D program worldwide. Superconducting rf acceleration – the key to future accelerators

17. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 17 SC RF Effort Coordinating role at Fermilab, with infrastructure development for cavity, cryomodule and string tests. ANL: High volume facility for surface preparation using buffered chemical polishing and electropolishing. TJNAF: Development of new materials and maintain modest volume capability for cavity fabrication and electropolishing. LANL: test stand for single cavities SLAC/LLNL: develop high power rf power systems Universities* (Cornell, Michigan State, William&Mary, Old Dominion, Wisconsin, Northwestern): modest surface preparation facilities, develop new electropolishing techniques, new cavity fabrication techniques, materials research. * DOE and NSF support

18. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 18 US FY2007 plans (assuming $60M)  ~$120M in work package requests for R&D and engineering design from labs and universities, prioritized to fit $60M budget. * Generic R&D examples: high availability power supplies, beam simulations, laser development, high power rf sources, SCRF materials research ….  Top R&D priority is getting reliable 35 MV/m cavities and infrastructure needed to refine process and test prototypes.  By end 2006, complete a 3 year R&D plan for US R&D: goals, resource needs, milestones, deliverables. (Must be iterated with GDE guidance on worldwide plans)  Detector R&D multiyear plan with goals, milestones, resource needs. CategoryBudget% request ILC specific R&D$6.957% Generic* R&D$4.432% SCRF infrastructure/industry$23.242% Engineering design$9.459% Management$4.674% Detector$5.035% Reserve$6.5

19. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 19 Deployment of FY2007 Labs effort FNAL (47%): SCRF cavity, cryomodule; SCRF test infrastructure; beam optics; civil construction; outreach; magnet design. SLAC (37%): rf power sources and tests; rf distribution; high availabilty power supplies; controls; electron/positron sources; damping ring optics; bunch compressor; beam alignment; wakefield studies; magnet design; electron cloud tests; beam instrumentation. ANL (5%): damping ring design; cavity surface treatment. BNL (3%): final focus magnets. LBNL (3%): damping ring design; positron source; vacuum engineering. LLNL (3%): rf couplers; rf pulse power systems; positron target; beam position monitor. TJNAF (1%): cavity surface treatment, large grain Nb cavity development. LANL (1%): cavity testing.

20. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 20 FY2008 plans ($75M ILC + $47M SCRF) 1.ILC R&D: Prototype & tests of key components – undulator for photons and positron source target, damping ring collective effects, final focus magnets and optics design, bunch compressor beam elements, ILC cryomodule fabrication, … (~$20M) 2.Generic R&D also needed for ILC: test high efficiency dc to pulse power modulators, develop and test high efficiency klystrons; test new cost reducing rf power components; test high availabilty power supplies, prototype large grain niobium cavities, … (~$17M) 3.Engineering design (largely manpower) (~$12M) Sum of ILC R&D and design (items 1 -3) : $49M

21. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 21 FY2008 plans ($75M ILC + $47M SCRF) 4.Detector R&D: prototype energy flow calorimeters and test beam studies, development of pixel detector electronics with analog energy/time information, develop compact silicon sensors for muon/tracking signal collection, prototype data concentrators and signal multiplexing, integrated detector design, … ($20M). [This would raise the US detector R&D effort to that in Europe.] 5.Site evaluation: characterization of geological features of candidate sites, preliminary environmental assessment, impact of local land use, … ($4M) 6.Management: GDE common fund, salaries of top management; US communicator and public outreach … ($2M)

22. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 22 FY2008 plans ($75M ILC + $47M SCRF) 7.SCRF infrastructure: facilities for electropolishing, chemical polishing of Nb surfaces, electron beam welding stations, horizontal test stands for fully dressed cavities for high power tests (with cryogenic, rf, intrumentation infrastructure), cryomodule test stand (1 cryomodule = 8 cavities), facilities for string tests of rf units with beam (1 rf unit = 3 cryomodules, one quadrupole, powered by one klystron), … ($25M) 8.Industrial SCRF procurements: SCRF cavities for testing process steps & installation in test cryomodules, rf couplers, rf power components (klystrons, modulators, distribution), cryomodules, … ($22M) Total SCRF infrastructure and R&D (items 7,8) ($47M) With over target budget for SCRF infrastructure and ILC R&D, will be able to prepare cryomodule and string tests during FY 2008 – 2010, on timeline to match efforts in Europe and Japan and enable consideration of ILC project.

23. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 23 Out year projections The R&D phase of ILC R&D should follow a profile similar to that of a construction project. The synergy with SCRF activity is important to ILC as well as serving the broader DOE SC program. EPP2010 estimate (adding infrastructure, detector R&D not included) is a five-year integral of $820M. Without the SCRF effort the profile fails to meet the need to validate the ILC design or put the US in a position to make a credible bid to host.

24. Office of Science U.S. Department of Energy 24 $50M $100M $150M $200M $250M 2001 20022003200420052006200720082009 2010 2011 2012 ILC R&D SCRF Detectors Out year projections