1. The SLAC Scenarios Study A Long range planning exercise Tom Himel SLAC EPAC June 12, 2003

2. EPAC Tom Himel 06/12/03 The Context The world HEP community has decided that a linear collider should be the next big thing SLAC will be a major participant in the design, construction, operation, and exploitation of this facility, independent of where it is sited and what technology is chosen. The PEP-II/BaBar program has an exciting future through this decade. With the Kavli institute, SLAC is extending into particle astrophysics in a big way. SPEAR-III and LCLS provide a bright future for the synchrotron radiation program

3. EPAC Tom Himel 06/12/03 The Questions How will SLAC participate in a LC? How will this depend on its location? How will it depend on the RF temperature? How much of SLAC’s resources will this take? Are there other interesting physics projects that SLAC should be involved in? This concentrates on HEP as SSRL has long term plans which the committee is integrating into it scenarios and Kavli has plenty of projects it may collaborate on. Where will we be a decade from now?

4. EPAC Tom Himel 06/12/03 Why Now The world will soon (hopefully) decide to build a LC and split up the responsibilities between countries and laboratories. We need to have a better idea of what we want to do and how what we do affects the lab and its users to aid in the negotiations. There will only be 1 or 2 experiments at the LC. There are other interesting physics projects that SLAC and its users could contribute to. These may require R&D or resource planning in the near future. There is a broad range of opinions about what SLAC should do. This indicates a need to organize the information we have so we can make informed decisions. Fermilab is doing a similar exercise. But we were first

5. EPAC Tom Himel 06/12/03 Process Include the broad SLAC community of users, staff and faculty. Holding a series of public seminars to gather information. These have invited speakers and plenty of time for informal discussion. They are available on the web for those who can’t attend in person. Input from users is being solicited in town meetings at each seminar day. Then the committee will meet and write a report. The report won’t have absolute recommendations. Rather it will give a few illustrative scenarios, depicting the size and vitality of the lab in each case.

6. EPAC Tom Himel 06/12/03 Who Persis Drell, Tom Himel co-chairs Subcommittee A (LC) Subcommittee B (other physics) Ewan Patterson co-chairLance Dixon co-chair Tor Raubenheimer co-chairJohn Seeman co-chair Jim BrauPat Burchat Marty BreidenbachEric Colby John GalaydaSu Dong Marc Ross Joann Hewett Bob Siemann Bob Jacobsen Andy Wolski Steve Kahn Homer Neal Bruce Schumm

7. EPAC Tom Himel 06/12/03 When Jan-FebOrganize Mar-AprHold seminar days JuneDefine a finite number of scenarios for further study and give a progress report to the community. Jul-SeptDetail the scenarios, draft a report, submit it to Jonathan

8. EPAC Tom Himel 06/12/03 List of seminar days 3/30Super B factory day 4/1 An International Linear Collider and What it Might Mean for SLAC by Dave Burke 4/18Neutrino physics day 4/21Colloquium on ITER, including management 4/24LHC day including upgrades and management 5/1Z/Higgs or “Shop” day 5/192 beam accelerator day 6/9Colloquium on ALMA, including management 6/13Particle Astrophysics day

9. EPAC Tom Himel 06/12/03 Web site Much of our work is available to the public on the web. Slides from all the talks Videos of the seminar days Peoples emailed remarks Links to supporting documents There is a link on the SLAC detailed home page under Scientific Information. http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/lc/local/scenario/default.htm

10. EPAC Tom Himel 06/12/03 Group A (LC) status Collecting budget figures for various SLAC programs and LC R&D and construction Spending (too) much time discussing management structure for a global LC as this may effect how much SLAC does. Is it so much more expensive to run an accelerator from multiple laboratories that budget concerns will keep it from happening? Can sociological problems be solved so people away from the host site are as involved and motivated as much as people at the host site? We need to take advantage of expertise at all the world labs to build the LC. Presently developing scenarios for a very centralized and a highly colloborative LC.

11. EPAC Tom Himel 06/12/03 Group B (Other Physics) status Concentrated on arranging seminar days The days have been very successful with good speakers and a lot of user participation 100-200 people present and > 1 hour of questions/discussion Have had a few emails with users’ comments, will be sending out a more explicit call for more, probably coupled with some type of round table discussion. Could still use a killer idea or two. Still a lot of synthesis work to do.

12. EPAC Tom Himel 06/12/03 Schedule We are probably a month behind our original schedule. The seminars extend into early June. We’re in the early planning stages of a progress report/town meeting at the SLUO meeting on July 11. Still hope to have a final report to Jonathan in September, but slippage to October is possible. Haven’t had to make many tough choices yet. We’ll have to see how that goes once we get to them.