1. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 1 ILC Report Barry Barish Caltech / GDE 1-Dec-06 RDR Design Freeze

2. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 2 Progress toward RDR

3. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 3 Baseline to a RDR Jan JulyDec 2006 Freeze Configuration Organize for RDR Bangalore Review Design/Cost Methodology Review Initial Design / Cost Review Final Design / Cost RDR Document Design and CostingPreliminary RDR Released FrascatiVancouverValencia

4. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 4 Vancouver Cost Data

5. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 5 Costs by Area System

6. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 6 Costs by Technical & Global System

7. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 7 Optimizing Cost to Performance RDR MBCCB 2  14mr IRs supported central injectorssupported Removal of service tunnelrejected conventional e+ sourcerejected RF unit modifications (24  26 cav/klys) supportedsubmitted reduced RF in DR (6  9mm  z ) supportedin prep DR race-track lattice (CFS)supportedin prep reduced static cryo overheadsupportedin prep removal linac RF overheadsupportedin prep single-stage bunch compressorrejected e- source: common pre-acceleratorsupportedin prep

8. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 8 Vancouver Costs for BDS Cost drivers –CF&S –Magnet system –Vacuum system –Installation –Dumps & Collimators Total Cost Additional costs for IR20 and IR2

9. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 9 2/20 mrad  14/14 mrad Motivation –Reduce costs 2 mrad beam line expensive, risky, especially extraction line Common collider hall –Advantages Improved radiation conditions in the extraction lines Better performance of downstream diagnostics Easier design and operation of extraction optics and magnets Reduced back scattering from extraction line elements –Disadvantages Impact on physics (appears minor at present). Simpler incoming beam optics R&D on small crossing angles will continue as alternative

10. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 10 On-surface Detector Assembly Vancouver WBS considered the underground halls sized at 32m (W) x 72m (L) each to allow underground assembly of the largest considered detector. Conventional Facilities Schedule gives detector hall is ready for detector assembly 5 yrs from project start –If so, cannot fit our goal of “7years until first beam” and “8years until physics run” Surface assembly allows to save 2-2.5 years and allows to fit into this goal –The collider hall size may be smaller (~40-50%) in this case –A building on surface is needed, but savings may be still substantial Optimization needs to be done

11. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 11 CMS assembly approach Assembled on the surface in parallel with underground work Allows pre-commissioning before lowering Lowering using dedicated heavy lifting equipment Potential for big time saving Reduce size of underground hall required On-surface assembly

12. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 12 Cost details of new 14/14 baseline Updates from CF&S Magnets to be included Should we go to a single IR and push pull system and save 30% of BCD costs?

13. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 13 Push-Pull Evaluation Initiated by GDE & WWS at the end of September Detailed list of questions to be studied developed: Large group of accelerator and detector colleagues, from ILC and other projects, is participating in design and discussion of these question The task force of detector experts was formed to contribute to detailed evaluation of the whole set of technical issues http://www-project.slac.stanford.edu/ilc/acceldev/beamdelivery/rdr/docs/push-pull/

14. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 14 Cost Reductions Logged Our efforts at Valencia identified another 4.91%!

15. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 15 ILC Documents Several reports for different audiences Brochure – non-technical audiences, ready now “Quantum Universe” level booklet ~30 pages Executive Summary ~ 30 pages Physics motivation, accelerator and detectors RDR Report ~ 300 pages high level description of the accelerator DCR Report ~ 250 pages physics and detectors

16. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 16 RDR Report RDR is a high level description of the accelerator, CFS, sites and costs A snapshot of what we propose to build –not a history of R&D, design evolution, and alternatives Editors: –Nan Phinney (SLAC), Nobu Toge (KEK), Nick Walker (DESY) Original schedule was complete draft now, but has been pushed back because of cost iterations

17. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 17 Reviewing RDR & Costs

18. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 18 Plans until Beijing (Feb. '07) NovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruary Valencia Further cost consolidation CCR preparation & submission Cost & Design Freeze 30/11 Prepare for Full Cost Review SLAC Cost Review 14-16/12 MAC 10-12/01/07 Final cost corrections and documentation Agency cost briefings Beijing: RDR draft published RDR final editing RDR prepare 1 st drafts 2006 2007

19. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 19 Charge for MAC Review On Wednesday 10, Thursday 11 and Friday 12 (until noon) January 2007, there will be an ILC MAC meeting at the Cockcroft Institute, Daresbury, UK. The major item for the meeting is the ILC cost and overall design, with specific MAC tasks: –Review the soundness of the overall RDR concept, identify any areas of concern, note what R&D is still needed, and comment on whether the performance parameters can be met. –Review the cost methodology and identify any areas of concern. This will be the first occasion at which costs will be presented outside of the GDE.

20. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 20 What Happens after Beijing? Public Release of Draft RDR and Preliminary Costing at Beijing –Cost Reviews, etc –Finalize RDR by Summer 2007? Enter into Engineering Design Phase –Planning underway internally –Design will evolve through value engineering and R&D program –General Goal is to have Construction Proposal ready by 2010

21. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 21 Proposed RDR Review Process

22. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 22 Siting Aspects of RDR & Candidate Sites

23. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 23 Site Aspects of RDR Three Samples Sites –ILC Conventional Facilities Group: Jean-Luc Baldy (CERN), Vic Kuchler (Fermilab) and Atsushi Enomoto (KEK) + Support Group –Sample Site Analysis - Europe (CERN); Japan (?); US (Fermilab) also, TESLA for reference and Russia unsolicited –Conventional Facilities are expensive! Make narrow definition for “host costs” - goal ~ 25% of total.

24. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 24 Costs by Technical & Global System

25. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 25 Site Aspects of RDR Three Samples Sites –ILC Conventional Facilities Group: Jean-Luc Baldy (CERN), Vic Kuchler (Fermilab) and Atsushi Enomoto (KEK) + Support Group –Sample Site Analysis - Europe (CERN); Japan (?); US (Fermilab) also, TESLA for reference and Russia unsolicited –Conventional Facilities are expensive! Make narrow definition for “host costs” - goal ~ 25% of total. Costing Regional – Best estimates in “own” system of costing. They are close to equal, meaning the RDR siting chapter can concentrate on requirements, technical features, cost drivers, safety issues, other issues etc. Need “true” candidate sites within ~ 1-2 years for realistic engineering design. How do we solicit candidate sites

26. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 26 Coordinating Global R&D

27. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 27 The ‘S’ R&D Task Forces S0 High-Gradient Cavities S1 High-Gradient Cryomodule S2 Test Linac S3 Damping Ring S4 Beam Delivery S5…Sn To address priority R&D items, RDB has convened several ‘task forces’. S0-S3 will report on Friday AM GDE plenary

28. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 28 The ‘S’ R&D Task Forces Addresses current ‘poor’ yield for EP cavities Primary goal: establish parameters for routinely producing 35 MV/m EP’d cavities –required  80% yield S0 High-Gradient Cavities S1 High-Gradient Cryomodule S2 Test Linac S3 Damping Ring S4 Beam Delivery S5…Sn H. Hayano, T. Higo, L. Lilje, J. Mammosser, H. Padamsee, M. Ross, K. Saito

29. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 29 Summary Status of Costing –First costing available at Vancouver (July) –Cost to performance optimization Status & Plans for design modifications –Several proposals accepted and some rejected –Changes having physics impact (Valencia) –Complete RDR by Beijing Meetings Global planning for critical R&D beginning –Formation of ‘S’ task forces

30. 1-Dec-06 HEPAP Univ. Subpanel Global Design Effort 30 Some Key Issues The RDR –The RDR is a snapshop of the concept and scope of the costs; NOT A MATURE DESIGN –It is an “optimized concept” for the physics scope (ILCSC parameters) without doing detailed engineering (value engineering) and future R&D (demonstrations and alternatives) –Engineering Design will be more cost effective, lower risk and maintain the physics scope. Next Phase – Expensive –Resources and Organization ??? –Involve University Community in Acc Design/ R&D –Detector R&D  Road map - collaborations/detectors