1. Organizing the Linear Collider

2. Steps toward the ILC 1989 – 1996: Operation of the world’s only linear collider, the 90 GeV SLC at Stanford Linear Accelerator Center 1991 – 1996: Developed the conceptual framework for a 500 – 1000 GeV linear collider; built test facilities in US, Germany, Japan to validate approaches and test performance. Eight distinct technologies proposed. 1994 – 1995: First interlaboratory Technical Review Committee examined the proposed designs, identified strengths and issues for further R&D. Number of technologies reduced to five.

3. Steps toward the ILC 1996: Zeroth Order Design Report for room temperature X-band (11.4 GHz) collider. 2003: TESLA Design Report for superconducting L-band (1.3 GHz) collider. 2001 – 2003: Second Technology Review Committee evaluation of four remaining technologies. It identified R&D issues required for feasibility demonstration (R1); needed to finalize design (R2); needed to start production (R3); and desirable for technical or cost optimization (R4). 2001: Advisory panels in US (HEPAP), Europe (ECFA) and Asia (ACFA) recommend the ILC as the top priority for the future roadmap in high energy physics.

4. 2002: The Consultative Group on HEP (operating under OECD Science Forum) concurred that ILC should be the next global facility and should overlap with LHC operation. The OECD Ministerial Level “noted the worldwide consensus of the scientific community, which has chosen an electron-positron linear collider as the next accelerator- based facility to complement and expand on the discoveries that are likely to emerge from the Large Hadron Collider currently being built at CERN.” 2003: The ILC identified as the highest priority mid-term scientific facility for the DOE Office of Science in its twenty year facilities plan “Facilities for the Future of Science, A twenty-year outlook”. Steps toward the ILC

5. 2003: International Linear Collider Steering Committee (ILCSC) formed by International Committee for Future Accelerators (ICFA) operating under the International Union for Pure and Applied Physics. ILCSC charged to guide the specification of the Linear Collider, the choice of technology and the organization of the structures to manage it. 2003: An ILCSC subcommittee defined the ILC scope and parameters: 200 – 500 GeV collisions, upgradable to 1000 GeV; retain options for colliding photons, adding positron polarization, and dedicated operation at Z boson mass. 2003: Consensus document: “Understanding Matter, Energy, Space and Time: The Case for the Linear Collider” signed by over 2700 physicists worldwide

6. Steps toward the ILC 2004: ILCSC subcommittee convened to recommend the technology choice. The two primary candidates (room temperature X-band and superconducting L-band) were evaluated for (a) scope and parameters; (b) technical readiness and risks; (c) cost issues; (d) schedule issues; (e) physics operation; (f) wider implications for other sciences and society. “On the basis of that assessment, we recommend that the linear collider be based on superconducting rf technology. This recommendation is made with the understanding that we are recommending a technology, not a design. We expect the final design to be developed by a team drawn from the combined warm and cold linear collider communities, taking full advantage of the experience and expertise of both. “ August 2004: ICFA accepts the recommendation; the ILC is born. HEP community embraces the decision.

7. Engagement with funding agencies In 2004, the Funding Agencies for the Linear Collider (FALC) was formed, with current member nations: Canada (NRC), France (CNRS), Germany (BMBF), Italy (INFN), Japan (MEXT), Korea (MOST), UK (PPARC), the US (Orbach/DOE, Turner/NSF), and CERN (President of Council and Director General) representing other European nations. FALC is engaging with issues of organization, international agreements, costing schemes, funding for the GDE activities. Details of the arrangements are discussed by a Resources Board reporting to the chair of FALC, Roberto Petronzio of Italy.

8. Recent steps toward the ILC November 2004: First worldwide ILC workshop held in Japan with participation of experts drawn from the competing proposals. 2005: Formation of the Global Design Effort (GDE). Barry Barish selected as Director, with three regional directors for Asia, Europe and N. America and a central team of accelerator experts, cost engineers and civil engineers. August 2005: Second ILC workshop in Snowmass CO with 650 participants, held under the leadership of the GDE. Work to recommend the baseline design of the GDE, and to develop proposals for the experiments to do the science.

9. Official ILC web site launched www.linearcollider.org

10. The GDE Plan and Schedule 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Global Design EffortProject Baseline configuration Reference Design ILC R&D Program Technical Design Bids to Host; Site Selection; International Mgmt LHC Physics

11. The GDE Plan and Schedule Make Baseline Configuration Design (BCD) by end of 2005 – choices on the 48 defining questions that specify the machine. Identify alternatives to the BCD which could reduce cost or alleviate risk, but need further R&D. Place the BCD under configuration control January 2006. Regulate changes so that design is defined at all times. During 2006, prepare the Reference Design Report, cost estimate and detector concepts based on the evolved BCD. 2007 – 2008: Prepare the Technical Design Report at a detailed engineering level, with costing for specific sites.

12. The Reference Design Report The Reference Design will be based on representative sites from the three regions, taken to span the range of geology, seismic properties, civil construction issues. The GDE process for the Reference Design will be fully international; R&D will be proposal driven and funded by regional agencies. Three regional costing engineers will develop a common framework for assessing costs. The goal of the Reference Design is to develop a reference cost with uncertainties, within which the project will be proposed to governments. Regional directors will manage regional resources and work packages.

13. The Technical Design Report TDR is intended for the end of 2008 The technical effort for the engineering design and detailed cost document can be prepared by the GDE on this time scale, but it will require:  Appropriate funding levels for accelerator system R&D are needed to demonstrate technical feasibility, do value engineering, industrialization, civil construction etc. R&D funding estimates are at the level of 15% of project cost, including preparation of proposals to host in each region.  A final design depends on the site selected, hence on the international site negotiations.  Agreement on costing methods (or assessment of value shares like ITER).  Provision of adequate detector R&D funds: detector construction takes as long as building the accelerator.

14. US Considerations The Director of the Office of Science has announced the US desire to host the ILC, and site it near Fermilab in Illinois. Site evaluations are being developed. The US position is that new physics at the Terascale should be seen to validate the ILC project. Most likely this would come from early LHC running, but there are possible enabling discoveries from the Tevatron, from underground dark matter experiments, or possibly from ongoing precision measurements. The critical current need is for adequate R&D funding to enable US leadership in the ILC and to prepare for hosting it in the US.

15. What did we learn from the SSC? 1.The project should be international from the outset. 2.The project should have wide support within the scientific community. 3.Costing must be done from the beginning according to agreed upon rules; it should include some way of handling contingency costs, escalation, commissioning and operations costs and indirect costs. 4.Strong management and good organization is essential. 5.Political events will color the outcome. For the ILC, 1 and 2 are in place. 3 is part of the GDE plan. We recognize the importance of 4. 5 is probably beyond our ability to control.

16. The lessons from ITER ITER is on the same scale as the ILC; we must profit from the ITER experience. Varying costing methods, currency fluctuations, effect of in-kind contributions require a sharing of responsibility based upon VALUE ASSESSMENTS (the ITER Unit). Shares in the project are based on these value units. Completion of agreed work packages must include the necessary flexibility needed to deliver them. Thus national assessments of the local cost ($, €, ¥, ₤ …) must be done carefully. The obligations of partners for the duration of the project must be agreed upon; the protocols for establishing these varies among countries.

17. Summary  There has been substantial progress in defining the ILC and organizing the international effort for over a decade. Excellent progress over the past three years.  There is good communication between funding agencies (FALC) and the technical community (GDE/ICFA).  The will to go forward rests ultimately upon the scientific potential for new discoveries at the Terascale. Scientists agree that this potential is outstanding.  An interim organization and plans for the next steps are in place.  Agreement to proceed will require decisions at the highest levels of governments.

18. There are large hurdles still to surmount, but the scientific opportunity is great and the momentum has been good.