Linear Collider Options for SLAC

1
Linear Collider Options for SLAC

• Tor Raubenheimer
• SLUO Town Meeting
• November 25th, 2003

2
LC Group Membership

• Jim Brau
• Marty Breidenbach
• John Galayda
• Tom Himel (ex-officio)
• Ewan Paterson (co-chair)
• Tor Raubenheimer (co-chair)
• Marc Ross
• Bob Siemann
• Andy Wolski

3
Linear Collider Schedule

• 2004 Technology choice
• Formation of international design team and
  US bid to host
• Start of Project Engineering and Design
• Start of LC construction (6 year
  construction)
• 2014 Early physics at 250 350 GeV ??
• 2015 Construction project finished
• Energy upgrades start (Installation of 100
  GeV during each 3 month shutdown)
• 2023 Operation at 1 TeV

Optimistic schedule! LC is a twenty to thirty
year commitment.
4
S3 LC Group Goals

• What role does SLAC want in the linear collider?
• How do we design, construct and operate a linear
  collider while keeping a strong set of individual
  laboratories?
• What might the ownership pieces be for SLAC?
• What about other laboratories?
• How might one divide the LC project for
  construction and operation?
• How should SLAC organize itself to be most
  effective?
• Does site or the technology choice make a
  difference?
• Is GAN a viable path? If not, what?
• Do not focus on management models (although some
  discussion is necessary)
• USLCSG, ELCSC, ALCSC, ILCSC are all considering
  models

5
Discussions on Other Projects

• Howard Gordon LHC detectors
• Norbert Holtkamp SNS Accelerator
• Jim Strait LHC Accelerator
• Robert Brown ALMA
• Bob Goldston ITER
• David Burke NLC
• Mostly helped us understand management models,
  their limitations, and the implications
• Certainly possible to build a project
  collaboratively but may be hard to maintain
  relationships through operation

6
Linear Collider Assumptions

• Construction of a high luminosity 500 GeV e/e-
  linear collider upgradeable to 1 TeV or higher
  with 2 detectors
• NLC (normal conducting) cost details based on NLC
  1999 Lehman cost model
• Superconducting cost based on ratios of costs
  given in TDR but with a total assumed to be equal
  to NLC
• Fermilab cost study for TESLA under US accounting
  rules estimated a value slightly less than NLC
  for a collider upgradeable to 800 GeV
• Three project stages
• Design and engineering through 2008
• Construction from 2009 through 2015
• Operation after 2015 (not considered because of
  timescale
• Aggressive schedule

7
Accelerator Funding Assumptions

• Funding model 25 US contribution 35 extra to
  host
• The 35 is a large fraction of the civil
  construction and site work
• Feel this is reasonable to ask the host country
  to assume
• The 25 is based on the ratio of national GPD for
  the remaining 65
• America Asia Europe all contribute 20 to 25
  of the remainder
• Fractions are at the high end of the proposals
• ELCSG committed chaired by G. Kalmus proposed 25
  host-premium yielding a total US contribution of
  about 50
• http//committees.web.cern.ch/Committees/ECFA/Cern
  03KalmusReport.pdf
• Contributions mostly in-kind but also in cash
• Much of the project contingency would be held by
  a central office
• Operations support would require cash
  contributions

8
National GDP Percentages

• Many proposals assume base contributions are
  proportional to GDP
• Total GDP of three major regions is similar
• US is the single largest with 20 25

Europe35
Americas37
Asia 28
9
LC Management Models (1)

• No detailed assumptions on management models
  except to assume a central project office which
• Manages construction on the site including the
  conventional construction and technical system
  installation
• Must at least have control of a significant cash
  balance to ensure project completion
• Can redirect portions of project construction as
  necessary
• The central office might be a lead laboratory
  which has dominant control and sub-contracts out
  portions to other laboratories
• Similar to the LHC or SNS construction
• Collaborator ownership of contributions end
  (decrease) upon delivery
• Alternately, the central office might be a
  independent group which manages the collaboration
• Collaborators are responsible for operations,
  maintenance, and upgrades

10
ELCSG Management Model
11
ACFA Management Model
12
LC Management Models (2)

• Concern that it may be hard to prevent a central
  office (LCCO) taking a dominant position on the
  accelerator
• It would be hard to compete against LCCO for top
  people
• It would be hard to compete against LCCO for
  funding
• The collaborative model sounds like a better
  working environment however
• There is probably little difference to a foreign
  collaborator
• For example, the US LHC group has been working
  well with CERN and CERN has been encouraging an
  ongoing relationship
• There is also probably little difference before
  commissioning and operations which were at the
  end of the timescale considered
• The biggest impact might be in the US where
  multiple laboratories have a common funding source

13
Reasons for SLAC Participation in LC

• The LC will be the premier accelerator project in
  the world and we will want to be involved
• Largest knowledge base for a linear collider
  exists at SLAC
• Strengthen/upgrade SLACs core competencies
• Very exciting project will attract very good
  people
• Most of SLACs technical and theoretical
  innovative ideas have originated from problems
  tied to building/operating accelerators
• Need to have a large flux of problems and need to
  have sufficient funds to explore technical
  options ? need operating accelerator
• Tight coupling between accelerator and detector
  groups
• As a large project, the LC can also assist a
  change in direction by providing a smooth
  transition to employment at a new LC laboratory

14
Central Project Office

• A Central Project Office is assumed to be formed
  at the start of construction
• Two versions considered
• Primary laboratory model
• Sub-contract major portions of construction to
  participating labs
• Collaboration with strong central management
• Collaborators with in-kind and cash contributions
• Believe that the later would be a better model
  for SLAC participation however
• Small differences in terms of the contributions
  during construction
• Commissioning responsibilities are likely smaller
  in the primary laboratory model as the lab would
  assume control earlier
• Operating responsibility would be small in
  primary lab model but quite possibly end up being
  small in the other case as well

15
Global Accelerator Network (GAN)

• Discussed frequently!
• Everybodys favorite acronym but what does this
  really mean?
• People like to focus on operational model of
  distributed control rooms but is the important
  aspect?
• Remote control of accelerator is certainly
  technically possible
• How to give control for aspects of the
  accelerator and maintain this during the
  operation phase?
• Special problem for the US where multiple
  laboratories compete for limited HEP funding
• Why should DOE maintain multiple LC centers?
• Need critical mass to attract excellent people
• How to prevent central project office from
  assuming full control?
• No answers, these questions still need to be
  resolved

16
Questions Regarding Participation during LC
Operations

• In either management model, it is likely that
  many (good) people will move towards the LC site
  after construction
• Project office will strive to grow and capture
  good people
• Hard to attract new people
• Dont want become backwater laboratory with 2nd
  rate people
• Hard to see artificial boundaries limiting the
  size of the project office
• Greater impact in the US with multiple HEP
  laboratories
• In CA, the project office would likely have a
  strong tie to SLAC
• In IL, the project office would probably be at
  FNAL
• SLAC may have a larger operating role at an
  offshore site than a US site
• Is this a problem? No, but it implies a
  different path for the lab.
• Some development work for upgrades may continue
  at collaborating institutions but this will be
  technology dependent
• SLACs participation during operations phase is
  likely dependent on technology and site location

17
Linear Collider Cost Model NC

• Used 1999 Lehman costs with update for EDIA
• Present cost and cost ratios differ but not
  enormously
• Total cost was 5.1 B without contingency or
  escalation
• Technical costs 2.2 B
• Global costs 2.9 B dominated by the civil
  construction
• Technical costs were divided by Area and
  Technical system
• Area (Injector, Main Linac, and BDS)
• Technical (LLRF, Modulators, Klystrons,
  Structures, Distribution, Magnets, Vacuum,
  Instrumentation, and Installation)
• Technical system installation costs were assigned
  to project office
• RD costs were assigned to the respective Areas
• Global costs were divided as
• Civil 1.7 B
• OPC, Control System, Manufacturing, and
  Management 300M each

18
Linear Collider Cost Model SC

• Used TDR cost ratios but a total cost similar to
  the NC case
• FNAL report estimated the TDR cost using US
  accounting ruleswith a resultsimilar to NLC
• Cost fractionsare similar
• Big differencesin civil and Linac
  Modulesversus Linacstructures
• TESLA DR isslightly more but other parts of the
  injector are less

19
Central Project Office Portion

• In our models, the central project office might
  manage
• 80 of the civil construction
• 20 of the civil cost is assumed offset through
  equipment contributions
• Technical system installation
• Smaller amounts for installation setup and
  oversight managed by Areas
• 50 of the OPC covering 67 of the Startup and
  Pre-Ops costs
• The pre-construction RD and commissioning
  portion of the OPC is assigned to the Areas
• 40 of the management and support costs
• This totals to 40 of the total project cost w/o
  contingency
• The project office would also hold the project
  contingency which would be a large fraction of
  the total contingency

20
What Role for SLAC?

• Assume that SLAC would want a major role in the
  LC
• Play a leadership role in the LC design effort
• Primary efforts in
• Accel. Phys. (beam line design, modeling, and
  commissioning)
• High power rf Polarized e- source
• Also want to develop technologies that might be
  useful for SLAC
• S-band rf sources and structures
• What should be the scale of a contribution?
• US project with 60 US contribution
• 40 to US Project office 10 SLAC 10 other
• Foreign LC with 25 US contribution
• 5 foreign project office 10 SLAC 10 other
• SLAC FNAL would have major US portions
• Other laboratories (LBNL, BNL, Cornell) might
  work through them

21
Cost Model Matrix

• Matrix the project assigning responsibility for
  Area Subsystems and different Technical Systems
  to different parties
• Example Warm US LC
• Injector system ? SLAC Main linac ? KEK BDS?
  UK
• X-band structures ? SLAC KEK Magnets ? FNAL
  DESY
• Etc.

22
Sites Technology Options

• SLAC can contribute 10 to LC independent of
  site and technology however the details will
  differ
• Major design effort at SLAC (2 of TPC )
• Projects can be broken into numerous pieces that
  would be interesting
• Look for topics with large accelerator physics
  contribution
• Look for early contributions eases transition
  from design stage
• Look for early commissioning get established on
  the project quickly
• Injector system seems like a good match for
  either technology
• Represents roughly 3 of TPC
• BDS is a good match to LCD but is a smaller
  contribution 1.5 TPC
• Other 5 depends on technology
• The NC X- and S-band rf couple well with SLAC
  future and expertise
• The SC 1.3 MHz klystrons still need development
  and might be interesting
• Beam line instrumentation might be interesting
• Magnets or vacuum or 1.3 GHz waveguide

23
Model for aCalifornia Normal Conducting LC(CA
NC LC ??)

• SLAC might assume responsibility for
• Major role in design effort (2 TPC)
• Injector subsystem (includes DR) (3 TPC)
• Complicated accelerator physics issues
• Early commissioning
• S-band power and structures (technical portion of
  Injector) (2 TPC)
• Possible use for SLAC linac upgrade
• 50 of the X-band klystrons and X-band structures
  (3 TPC)
• Continue development of high power rf
• This amounts to 10 of TPC
• FNAL might contribute remaining 10 of the US
  contribution
• Alternate options would include the BDS
  responsibility
• Good match to LCD but
• Late commissioning and small contribution in
  matrix model 1.5

24
Model for German SuperConducting LC

• SLAC might assume responsibility for
• Major role in design effort (2 TPC)
• Injector subsystem (includes DR) (2 TPC)
• Complicated accelerator physics issues
• Early commissioning
• 50 of 1.3 GHz klystrons (1 TPC)
• Further development using klystron dept.
• Beam line instrumentation (3 TPC)
• Important subsystems tied to knowledge from SLC
• This also amounts to 10 of TPC
• FNAL might contribute remaining 10 of the US
  contribution

25
Model for SLAC Effort on LC Accelerator

• Maximum of roughly 250 people on the project
• Requires rapid buildup which would be hard with
  PEP-ii upgrades and LCLS at the same time
• Mix of people is similar to other projects as
  well as NLC group
• Topics chosen for participation are personnel
  intensive
• NLC funding model is frugal with EDIA 22 of TPC
• SLAC portion of project is much higher in EDIA
  40 of the laboratory contribution
• Effort is maximum early in the project 2010-2011
• Design effort and Injector systems are all
  required early
• Tapers off to be similar to present NLC effort
  assuming some continuing participation

26
LC Detector Assumptions

• Much more straightforward than the accelerator
• SLAC would like to have major responsibility for
  one of the two detectors
• Detectors are expected to cost 350 M each
• Collaborative construction model is natural
• 50 contribution to 350 M detector
• 50 physicists and main engineering group at SLAC
• Some prototyping and possibly responsibility for
  major assemblies
• SLAC should strive to be US collaboration host
• Reasonable if CA site unlikely if IL site
  possible if offshore site

27
Summary

• Developed models for SLACs contribution to a LC
• SLAC should aspire to make a 10 contribution to
  an LC independent of site and/or technology
• Where should SLAC put it efforts
• Play a leadership role in the LC design effort
• Primary efforts in
• Accelerator Physics (beam line design, modeling,
  and commissioning) High power rf technologies
  Polarized e- source
• Also want to develop technologies that might be
  useful for SLAC (S-band undulators
  instrumentation)
• Injector systems of either an NC or SC is an
  excellent match
• The beam delivery system is a smaller piece but
  also a good match
• Technology and site choices do matter for the
  long-term (20 years) involvement in the linear
  collider
• More likely to remain involved in operations with
  a local site and involved in rf upgrades on a
  normal conducting collider