Fermilab Steering GroupFermilab Steering Groupdevelop roadmap develop roadmap

for accelerator-based HEP program at Fermilabfor accelerator-based HEP program at Fermilab

http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/Longrange/Steering_Public/http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/Longrange/Steering_Public/

Young-Kee Kim

DOE Annual Program ReviewFermilab

September 25, 2007

0. What is the origin of mass for fundamental particles?1. Are there undiscovered principles of nature: New symmetries, new physical laws?2. Are there extra dimensions of space?3. Do all the forces become one?4. Why are there so many kinds of particles?5. What happened to the antimatter?6. What is dark matter?

How can we make it in the laboratory?7. How can we solve the mystery of dark energy?8. How did the universe come to be?9. What are neutrinos telling us?

Based on “Quantum Universe”and “Discovering Quantum Universe”

Fermilab’s Scientific ProgramFermilab’s Scientific Programenables our community to address:enables our community to address:

FermilabFermilab

2006-2007: Extraordinary years for Physics!Much more expected in the near future

Planning further aheadin accelerator-based HEP program:

Fermilab’s highest priorities – LHC/LHC upgrades & ILC

ILC Decision Timelines

Possible ILC Decision Timelines

LHC discoveries

International

Agreements

ILC

2010 ILC DecisionSite

selec

ted

US collidersShutdownGreat Opportunityfor ILC

EPP2010 & P5 Assumption

ILC

2010 ILC Decision

ILC RDR with Cost Estimate in Feb. 2007

Fermilab Director Pier Oddone Fermilab Director Pier Oddone formed Steering Group to develop roadmap formed Steering Group to develop roadmap

for Fermilab’s accelerator-based HEP program.for Fermilab’s accelerator-based HEP program.

March 22, 2007March 22, 2007

Steering Group Charge

In his remarks to HEPAP, Undersecretary Orbach requested a dialog with the HEP community:

"In making our plans for the future, it is important to be conservative and to learn from our experiences. Even assuming a positive decision to build an ILC, the schedules will almost certainly be lengthier than the optimistic projections. Completing the R&D and engineering design, negotiating an international structure, selecting a site, obtaining firm financial commitments, and building the machine could take us well into the mid-2020s, if not later. Within this context, I would like to re-engage HEPAP in discussion of the future of particle physics. If the ILC were not to turn on until the middle or end of the 2020s, what are the right investment choices to ensure the vitality and continuity of the field during the next two to three decades and to maximize the potential for major discovery during that period?"

Steering Group Charge (cont.)

With the encouragement of the Office of Science and the support of Professor Mel Shochet, the chair of HEPAP, Fermilab will develop a strategic roadmap for the evolution of the accelerator-based HEP program, focusing on facilities at Fermilab that will provide discovery opportunities in the next two to three decades. This roadmap should keep the construction of the ILC as a goal of paramount importance. To guide this proposal, the Fermilab Director has appointed a Steering Group consisting of members from Fermilab and the national particle and accelerator physics community to insure that the plan serves national needs. The Steering Group will also engage additional constituents in the analysis of the various physics opportunities.

Steering Group Charge (cont.)

The Steering Group will build the roadmap based on the recommendations of the EPP2010 National Academy report and the recommendations of the P5 subpanel of HEPAP. The Steering Group should consider the Fermilab based facilities in the context of the global particle physics program. Specifically the group should develop a strategic roadmap that:

1. supports the international R&D and engineering design for as early a start of the ILC as possible and supports the development of Fermilab as a potential host site for the ILC;

2. develops options for an accelerator-based high energy physics program in the event the start of the ILC construction is slower than the technically-limited schedule; and

3. includes the steps necessary to explore higher energy colliders that might follow the ILC or be needed should the results from LHC point toward a higher energy than that planned for the ILC.

Steering Group Charge (cont.)

I am asking Deputy Director Kim to chair the Steering Group.

Any recommendations that might be relevant to the FY09 budget should be transmitted as early as possible.

The Steering Group's final report should be finished and delivered to the Fermilab Director by August 1, 2007. This deadline would allow for presentations to the DOE and its advisory bodies before the structuring of the FY2010 budget.

Steering Group Membership

Eugene Beier U. Penn

Joel Butler Fermilab

Sally Dawson BNL

Helen Edwards Fermilab

Thomas Himel SLAC

Steve Holmes Fermilab

Young-Kee Kim (chair) Fermilab / U.Chicago

Andrew Lankford UC Irvine

David McGinnis Fermilab

Sergei Nagaitsev Fermilab

Tor Raubenheimer SLAC

Vladimir Shiltsev Fermilab

Maury Tigner Cornell

Hendrick Weerts ANL

Fermilab and national particle and accelerator physics community

Steering Group’s Emphasis

• An intermediate physics-driven program

– Addressing the Quantum Universe questions

– Not likely answered by the Energy Frontier machines and non-accelerator based programs

• Alignment with ILC:

– Will this advance the ILC?– Development of an accelerator facility that helps ILC– Compatibility with the ILC Schedule

Engaging HEP community in the process

The Steering Group subsequently formed physics groups (subgroups)to provide advice on the best physics opportunities.

Physics groups drew upon university/lab scientists, largely from outside Fremilab.

Eugene Beier U Penn

Deborah Harris Fermilab

Ed Kearns Boston Univ.

Boris Kayser Fermilab

Sacha Kopp UT Austin

Andy Lankford (chair) UC Irvine

Bill Louis Los Alamos

Joel Butler Fermilab

Brendan Casey Brown

Sally Dawson (chair) BNL

Chris Hill Fermilab

Dan Kaplan IIT

Yury Kolomensky UCBerkeley/LBNL

William Molzon UC Irvine

Kevin Pitts UIUC

Frank Porter CalTech

Bob Tschirhart Fermilab

Harry Weerts ANL

Neutrino Science Precision Physics

Engaging HEP community in the process

• For all Steering group activities, include– Physics group members– ILC GDE leaders, HEP / ILC program managers in DOE and NSF– HEPAP Chair / Deputy Chair, P5 Chair– Chairs of Fermilab/SLAC Users Executive committees

• Public website:http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/Longrange/Steering_Public/– Agendas– Presentations– Minutes– Documents– Publicly accessible

• Meetings– Weekly teleconference– 2 face-to-face meetings– SG daily meeting

toward the end

2nd face-to-face meeting at Fermilab, July 9-10, 2007

Engaging HEP community in the process

• Reach out to HEP community for input / ideas

– Message sent out to DPF & DPB members– Meetings with FNAL staff– Meetings with HEP collaborations

• CDF, DZero, MINOS, MiniBooNE, MINERvA, NOvA, ILC TTC, US CMS, …

– Presentations at Users meetings / Town-Hall meeting• FNAL, SLAC

– Presentations (seminars) / Discussions• ANL, BNL, LBNL

– Many meetings with individuals– Fermilab Today articles– Meeting with ILC GDE Executive Committee– ….

Letters and Proposals from the Community

• Letters from the Community1. John Marriner (May 5, 2007)

2. Norman Gelfand (May 8, 2007)

3. Stanley Brodsky (May 31, 2007)

4. Steve Geer et al. (June 8, 2007)

5. Buck Field (June 12, 2007)

6. Chuck Ankenbrandt et al (June 12, 2007)

7. Maury Goodman (July 7, 2007)

• One Page Proposals from the community1. 6GeV ILC Test Linac - Giorgio Apollinari and Bob Webber (May 7, 2007)

2. LAr TPC in FNAL's Neutrino Beams - David Finley (May 29, 2007)

3. Precision Neutrino Scattering at Tevatron - Janet Conrad and Peter Fisher (May 29, 2007)

4. Very Large Cherenkov Detector - Milind Diwan et al (June 5, 2007)

5. From Tevatron to Muon Storage Ring - Terry Goldman (June 6, 2007)

6. Antimatter Gravity Experiment - Thomas Phillips (June 7, 2007)

7. Neutrino Oscillation with high energy/intensity beam - Henryk Piekarz (June 10, 2007)

8. Space-Time Ripples Study - Nikolai Andreev (June 11, 2007)

9. Fixed Targer Charm Expt - Jeff Appel and Alan Schwartz (June 11, 2007)

10. Stopped Pion Neutrino Source - Kate Scholberg (June 11, 2007)

11. UNO Experiment - Change Kee Jung (June 11, 2007)

12. n-nbar Transition Search at DUSEL - Yuri Kamyshkov (June 11, 2007)

13. 8GeV cw Superconducting Linac - Ankenbrandt et al. (June 12, 2007)

14. Neutrino Expt with 5kton LAr TPC - Fleming and Rameika (June 12, 2007)

15. MicroBooNE - Fleming and Willis (June 12, 2007)

16. delta_s - Rex Tayloe (June 14, 2007)

• Expression of Interest (EOI)1. mu to e conversion - William Molzon (May, 2007)

2. me to e conversion - E.J. Prebys, J.P. Miller et al (May, 2007)

3. Klong to pi0 nu nu - D. Bryman et al (June 11, 2007)

• Letter of Intent (LOI) 1. Low- and Medium-Energy Anti-Proton Physics - D. Kaplan et al (June 1, 2007)

Guidelines in forming the plan

Guidelines in forming the plan

1. The LHC program is our most important near-term project given its broad science agenda and potential for discovery. It is essential to support the physics analysis, computing, and accelerator and detector upgrades.

Guidelines in forming the plan

2. The particle physics community’s highest priority for investment toward the future is the ILC, based on our present understanding of its potential for breakthrough science.

Fermilab will continue to participate vigorously in the international R&D program for the ILC and to be one of the leaders in the global ILC effort. The laboratory will strive to make the ILC at Fermilab a reality by accomplishing the preparatory work required for the U.S. to bid to host the ILC.

Guidelines in forming the plan

3. There is a need for an intermediate science program in case the timeline for ILC is stretched out.

This program will be an opportunity to do exciting physics that complements discoveries at energy frontier facilities and to make further progress on ILC technology. The program should provide great discovery potential, support ILC R&D and industrialization as well as R&D on future accelerators beyond the ILC and the LHC. It should strengthen ties with the university community and with other laboratories. The plan must be robust and flexible.

Guidelines in forming the plan

4. Fermilab will continue a phased program of particle astrophysics including dark matter and dark energy. The program will allow complementary discoveries to those expected at the accelerator-based particle physics programs. These non-accelerator-based efforts are outside the Steering Group’s charge, and are not included in the plan.

Plan (Roadmap) for Fermilab

Plan for Fermilab (1)

• Fermilab’s highest priority is discovering the physics of the Terascale by participating in LHC, being one of the leaders in the global ILC effort, and striving to make the ILC at Fermilab a reality.

• Fermilab will continue its neutrino program with NOvA as a flagship experiment through the middle of the next decade.

Plan for Fermilab (2): ILC Onshore• If the ILC remains near the timeline proposed by the Global

Design Effort, Fermilab will focus on the above programs.

• If the ILC departs from the GDE-proposed timeline, in addition Fermilab should pursue neutrino-science and precision-physics opportunities by upgrading the proton accelerator complex.

– If the ILC start must wait for a couple of years, the laboratory should undertake the SNuMI (an upgrade of NuMI) project.

– If the ILC postponement would accommodate an interim major project, the laboratory should undertake Project X for its science capability and ILC alignment.

Plan for Fermilab (3): ILC Offshore

• If the ILC is constructed offshore, in addition Fermilab should pursue neutrino-science and precision-physics opportunities by upgrading current proton facilities while supporting the ILC as the highest priority.

– The laboratory should undertake SNuMI at a minimum.

– Alternatively, the laboratory should undertake Project X if resources are available and ILC timing permits.

Plan for Fermilab (4)

• In all scenarios,

– R&D support for Project X should be started now, with emphasis on

• expediting R&D and industrialization of ILC cavities and cryomodules,

• overall design of Project X.

– R&D for future accelerator options concentrating on a neutrino factory and a muon collider should be increased.

– The laboratory should support detector R&D and test-beam efforts for effective use of future facilities.

Intensity Frontier, Project X

Project X: Properties

ILC-identical (~1 – 8 GeV)

>2.0 MW at 50-120 GeVfor Neutrino Science, …

100-200 kW at 8 GeV for Precision Physics, …

ILC-like (0.6 – ~1.0 GeV)

Vehicle for National & International Collaboration

Project X Linac:

8 GeV H- Linac with ILC Beam Parameters (9 mA x 1 msec x 5 Hz)

Project X: Proton Beam PowerProject X: Proton Beam Power

Protons from Main Injector

NuMI (NOvA)SNuMI

NuMI (MINOS)

8 GeV protons available from Recyclerwith MI protons at 120 GeV

Power and Flexibility200 kW (Project X)

0* (SNuMI)

16 kW (NuMI-NOvA)

17 kW (NuMI-MINOS)

35-year-old injection(technical risk)

* Protons could be made available at the expense of 120 GeV power.

Possible Physics Opportunitieswith Project X

Neutrino Science

• Ultimate goal– use neutrinos to find answers to big questions like

• “Did we all come from neutrinos?”, “What happened to the antimatter?” (leptogenesis)

• “Do all forces and masses become one?” (unification)

• Neutrinos are different!– They may be their own antiparticles or obey a different set

of rules with respect to matter-antimatter (CP) asymmetry.– Their tiny masses suggest a “see-saw” with superheavy

partner ’s not yet detected.

Neutrino Science

• Re-running the Big Bang with all these properties gives leptogenesis– creation of matter from decay of superheavy ’s

• These properties may fit into a larger picture including the unification and supersymmetry

• This requires a broad ambitious program to detect CP violation in ’s, determine their mass hierarchy, the Majorana nature of mass, and how ’s mix.

Neutrino Science

An upgrade of the Fermilab proton complex

could greatly enhance FNAL’s current world-class program on neutrino science

by strengthening Fermilab’s flagship program of long-baseline neutrino-oscillation experiments

Neutrino Oscillation

Ability to resolve mass ordering at 95% CL (NOvA, NOvA + T2K)

NOvA will be competitive with the Japanese experiment T2K.

The ability of NOvA to determine the neutrino mass hierarchymakes the U.S. long-baseline neutrino program unique in the world.

Neutrino mass hierarchy

Neutrino Oscillation

Ability of NOvA experiment to observe sin2213 = 0at 3 significance

L = 810 km, 15 kTm32

2 = 2.4 x 10-3 eV2

3 years for each and

sin

2 2 1

3

10-2

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 CP-violating phase (radians)

NuMISNuMI

Project X

-

m2 > 0 m2 < 0

(Courtesy of Gary Feldman)

Neutrino OscillationMass Ordering CP Violation

2 100kt LAr detectors at 1st(700 km) & 2nd(810 km) oscillation maxima w/ NuMI beamlineOne 100 kt LAr (or 300 kt water Cerenkov) at 1300 km using a wide-band beam

95% CL (dotted) and 3 (solid) sensitivity with 3 years of each and

A largedetector in DUSEL would also be a world-class proton decay detector,

addressing “Do all the forces become one?”

(Courtesy of Niki Saoulidou)

Neutrino Oscillation (Mass Ordering)

2 100kt LAr detectors at 1st (700 km) and 2nd (810 km) oscillation maxima using NuMI beamline

100 kt LAr (or 300 kt water Cerenkov) at 1300 km

using a wide-band beam

95% CL (dotted lines) and 3 (solid lines) sensitivity. 3 years of neutrino and 3 years of antineutrino running

Project X J-PARC Upgrades

2 (thin lines) and 3 (thick lines) sensitivity.4 years of neutrino and

4 years of antineutrino running

4 MW beam

Phys. Rev. D72, 033003 (2005)

(Courtesy of Niki Saoulidou)

Neutrino Ocillation (CP Violation)

2 100kt LAr detectors at 1st (700 km) and 2nd (810 km) oscillation maxima using NuMI beamline

100 kt LAr (or 300 kt water Cerenkov) at 1300 km

using a wide-band beam

3 sensitivity.3 years of neutrino and

3 years of antineutrino running

2 (thin lines) and 3 (thick lines) sensitivity.4 years of neutrino and

4 years of antineutrino running

Project X J-PARC Upgrades

4 MW beam

Phys. Rev. D72, 033003 (2005)

(Courtesy of Niki Saoulidou)

Neutrino Oscillation

• Quite apart from their relative sensitivities, the Japanese and U.S. programs, when combined, would be much stronger than either one alone, because they would operate under different physical conditions.

• In the U.S. program, there could be a wide-energy-beam directed at a single large detector, possibly using liquid-argon technology, 1300 km away.

• In the Japanese program there would be a much lower-energy, and narrower-band beam directed at either a single large water-Cerenkov detector 300 km away, or possibly a split version of this detector, with part of it 300 km from the neutrino source and the rest in Korea, about 1000 km from the source.

• Thanks to these differences between the U.S. and Japanese programs, together they would provide a much better probe of the mysteries of the neutrino world than either one alone.

Other Possible Neutrino Programs

• Using 8 GeV protons– An experiment

• to study low-energy neutrino interactions for neutrino-oscillation expt.s such as MiniBooNE, NOvA, and T2K

• to develop liquid-argon detector technology

– An experiment• to measure strange quark contribution to nucleon spin.

• Using 800 GeV protons– An experiment

• to precisely measure the weak mixing angle.

Precision Physics

• Ultraprecise experiments with high intensity sources of muons and quarks provide unique discovery potential.

– The discovery of Lepton Flavor Violation (muon to electron conversion) could probe unification physics complementary to neutrinos and LHC/ILC programs.

– Precise measurements of quark flavor violation with kaons could complement LHC and probe even higher energy scales.

Charged Lepton Flavor Violation (CLFV)

• Discovery of masses and oscillations– Neutral lepton flavor quantum #’s are violated in nature.

• “Does lepton flavor violation also occur at an appreciable rate with charged leptons?”– SM predict negligible rates. Many new physics models

predict appreciable and potentially observable rates.– CLFV searches are powerful and promising probes for new

physics at and above the TeV scale.

Compositeness 103 – 104 TeV scale

Supersymmetric models predict Rμe~ 10-15 for weak scale SUSY

Muon-to-Electron Conversion

Rare muon processes provide the deepest CLFV probes.

e conversion:

Estimating the new physics expectations for different CLFV processesin a model independent way.

sets the scale of new physics. interpolates between models.

CLFV effective Lagrangian:

MEG experiment ~ 10-13

Potential FNAL e conv. expt.10-17 ~ 10-18 (Project X)

(Courtesy of Andre de Gouvea)

Precision Physics with Kaons• Theories of Terascale physics typically predict new contributions to flavor violating processes involving quarks• If LHC discovers SUSY particles, kaon experiments could distinguish SUSY breaking mechanisms.

• CERN NA48 (2012): ~200 K+ +events• J-PARC I (2012): ~20 KL 0events• J-PARC II upgrade (~2016) ~100 KL 0events • Potential Fermilab experiment

• K+ +events• ~800 (w/o Project X), ~2400 (w/ Project X)

• KL 0 events• ~80 (w/o Project X), ~800 (w/ Project X)

K Rare Decay:SM prediction: 10-10 ~ 10-11

Future experiments: assuming SM rates with a 4 year run:

Project X – Alignment with ILC and Future Accelerators

Aligned to ILC

• Identical to ILC:– ~263 Cavities– ~33 Cryomodules– ~13 Klystrons– Cryogenic distribution– Beam parameters

• ILC-like– ~42 Cavities– ~6 Cryomodules

ILC Beam parameters (9mA x 1msec x 5Hz)

• Cryomodule Industrialization– ILC RDR Regional Profile

• Doubling time = ~1 year• Year 1: 3 cryomodules / year• Year 4: 25 cryomodules / year

– Advancing technology• Find cheaper ways to produce

in large quantities

ILC-identical Linac (~1 – 8 GeV)ILC-like Linac (0.6 – ~1.0 GeV)

ILC LINAC

6 Klystrons (JPARC 2.5 MW)66 Triple Spoke Resonators11 Cryomodules

325 MHz 0.12-0.6 GeV

6 Cavites / Cryomodule

Project X 360 kW 8GeV Linac

19 Klystrons (2 types)422 SC Cavities 55 Cryomodules H-

Multi-Cavity FanoutPhase and Amplitude Control

2.5 MW JPARCKlystron

Modulator

SSR2SSR2SSR1 SSR2

ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILCILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC

ModulatorModulatorModulatorModulator Modulator Modulator Modulator Modulator

ModulatorModulator Modulator

8/9 8/9 8/9 8/9 8/9 8/9

ModulatorModulator

Modulator Modulator

1300 MHz 1.0-8.0 GeV11 Klystrons (ILC 10 MW MBK)263 ILC-identical Cavities 33 ILC-identical Cryomodules

1300 MHz 0.6-1.0 GeV2 Klystrons (ILC 10 MW MBK)42 ILC-like Cavities ( =1, 8/9 mode) 6 ILC-like Cryomodules

8 or 9 Cavites / Cryomodule

9 or 11 Cavites / Cryomodule

RFQ RT SSR1

Modulator

Front End Linac

TSR TSR TSR TSR TSRTSR TSR TSR TSR TSR

Modulator Modulator

ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILC ILCILC7 Cavites / Cryomodule

325 MHz 0-10 MeV1 Klystron (JPARC 2.5 MW)16 RT Cavities

325 MHz 10-120 MeV1 Klystron (JPARC 2.5 MW)51 Single Spoke Resonators5 Cryomodules

TSR

ILC-2: 12 cryomodules, 96 cavities, 12 quads 2.4 – 5.2 GeV

ILC : 12 cryomodules, 104 cavities, 4 quads 5.2 – 8.0 GeV

+

+

ILC- 8/9: 6 cryomodules, 42 cavities, 12 quads 0.6 – 1.0 GeV

ILC-1 : 9 cryomodules, 63 cavities, 18 quads 1.0 – 2.4 GeV

ILC Damping Ring

In Tevatron Tunnel

Aligned to ILC

Preassemble and test the ILC Damping Ring

e- Linac withILC Beam parameters (9mA x 1msec x 5Hz)

ILC Linac

Muo

n

Stora

ge R

ing

First Stage of Future World Facilities

DUSELneutrino

beam

Capture / Cooling

First Stage of Future World Facilities

Muon Collider

Muon Acceleration

Capture / Cooling

4 km

Draft “Internal” Report

submitted to Pier Oddone

on August 7, 2007

Final Report

September 18, 2007

Steering Group’s Internal ReportReviewed by Accelerator Advisory Committee

Accelerator part of the ReportAugust 8-10, 2007

Presented by John Corlett today

Next Steps

Jul2007

Aug2007

Sep2007

Oct2007

Nov2007

Dec2007

Jan2008

Feb2008

Mar2008

Apr2008

May2008

Jun2008

Jul2008

Jun2007

P5 Review

FNALAAC

Review

SG Reportto P5

FNALPAC

Review

SG Reportto HEPAP

Steering Group (SG) Reportto Pier Oddone

FY10 BudgetPreparation

SG ReportPAC

P5 Reportto HEPAP

SG Reportto HEPAP

Public Report

We are here!

Communication with the community about the Report

• FNAL staff and users– Aug. 24: FNAL All Hands meeting – Oddone/YKK– Sep. 14: Meeting with FNAL Users’ Executive members – Oddone/YKK– Sep. 27: Town-Hall meeting with FNAL Users - YKK

• Seminars, Town-Hall meetings– Seminars (Abroad): Imperial College, RAL, Oxford Univ. (Oct. 1), …– Seminars (US): U.Florida, U.Chicago, UIUC (Oct.), Maryland (Nov.), …– Town-Hall meeting: American Linear Collider Physics + GDE (Oct. 22)

• Workshops at FNAL– Accelerator: November, organized by McGinnis, Holmes, et al– Physics: Fall 2007, in discussion with FNAL UEC

• DPF, DPB– We will send a message to DPF and DPB members.

• Thanking them for their input/ideas to the Steering Group process• Announcing workshops

Workforce Planning

• Workforce Planning exercise (FY08 – FY12)– 1st iteration complete.– Large uncertainties

• e.g. LHC/CMS upgrades, Tevatron decommissioning, increase in ILC R&D, Project X R&D, …

– This process will be re-iterated for more accurate results.

• Project X: Nation-wide efforts– Various models

• Council• Central Design Group• …

– Possible discussion item at the “November” workshop

Conclusions• The Steering Group plan gives the highest priority to energy-

frontier physics with the LHC and the ILC, where experiments will search directly for the physics of the Terascale, addressing the most compelling questions of 21st-century particle physics.

• If the ILC is delayed, the Steering Group’s plan keeps Fermilab and U.S. particle physics on the pathway to discovery in the domain of neutrinos and precision physics, while advancing the technology of the ILC. The field of neutrino science and precision physics offer promising pathways to physics breakthroughs not accessible to the LHC, the ILC or nonaccelerator physics.

• If the ILC start is postponed significantly, the Steering Group proposes Project X, an intense proton-beam facility: a linear accelerator with the planned characteristics of the ILC at ~1% of the ILC’s length, combined with existing Fermilab accelerator rings.

Conclusions (cont.)

• An intensity-frontier program, Project X, that provides unique experiments to address these profound questions would serve many scientific users.

• Project X would prepare future generations of U.S. particle physicists to exploit the potential of accelerator-based scientific opportunities in the U.S. and worldwide.

• Project X would help pave the way to the extremely powerful energy- and intensity-frontier facilities of the long-term future beyond the ILC (a neutrino factory and a muon collider).

What are neutrinos telling us?How did the universe come to be?

Are there undiscovered principles of nature?What happened to the antimatter?

Do all the forces become one?