wg3 – part 3 - design studies

WG3 – Part 3 - Design StudiesWG3 – Part 3 - Design Studies

• IntroductionIntroduction

• View from Europe View from Europe - RE- RE

• “ “ “ “ JapanJapan - Yoshi Kuno- Yoshi Kuno

• “ “ “ “ USUS - Mike Zisman- Mike Zisman

• Conclusions from the discussionConclusions from the discussion

IntroductionIntroduction

• Two years since Study IITwo years since Study II

• A lot has been done since thenA lot has been done since then

• Time to start thinking about a third studyTime to start thinking about a third study

• Much better:Much better: world studyworld study

• Europe, Japan and USEurope, Japan and US

• Parallel session of WG3 devoted to thisParallel session of WG3 devoted to this

• Views of each regionViews of each region

• Discussion on how to form world-wide studyDiscussion on how to form world-wide study

View from…….EuropeView from…….Europe

• No design study so farNo design study so far

• Work started late 1990sWork started late 1990s

• Much achievedMuch achieved

• Two layouts: Two layouts: CERN (complete)CERN (complete) RAL (under development) RAL (under development)

• Effort dramatically reduced by CERN budget cutsEffort dramatically reduced by CERN budget cuts

• ECFA task forces re-organised ECFA task forces re-organised European Neutrino GroupEuropean Neutrino Group

• Very important:Very important: rejuvenate EU activities rejuvenate EU activities

Design Study – European ViewDesign Study – European View

• Fixed by EU Framework 6 programmeFixed by EU Framework 6 programme

• FP5: FP5: 2 Neutrino Factory related bids, both failed2 Neutrino Factory related bids, both failed

• FP6: FP6: ESGARD formed - coordinated bid for accelerator R&DESGARD formed - coordinated bid for accelerator R&D

• Two areas of interest: Two areas of interest: Integrating ActivitiesIntegrating ActivitiesDesign StudiesDesign Studies

• IA proposal already submitted: IA proposal already submitted: LHC upgrade, LC, NFLHC upgrade, LC, NF

• Basically for improving existing infrastructureBasically for improving existing infrastructure

IA IA Neutrino Factory, superbeam, beta beam networkNeutrino Factory, superbeam, beta beam networkHIPPI JRAHIPPI JRA

FP6 Design StudiesFP6 Design Studies

EC will contribute to:EC will contribute to:

• Feasibility studies – Feasibility studies – paper studiespaper studies

• Technical Preparatory Work – Technical Preparatory Work – hardwarehardware

On new research infrastructures with a clear European On new research infrastructures with a clear European dimension and interest.dimension and interest.

Includes: Includes: future facilities of world-wide relevance notfuture facilities of world-wide relevance not existing in Europeexisting in Europe infrastructures constructed outside EU!infrastructures constructed outside EU!


Feasibility studiesFeasibility studies

Aim: Aim: Lay conceptual foundations for new infrastructureLay conceptual foundations for new infrastructure

Methods:Methods:

• Basic feasibility studyBasic feasibility study

• Explore new fundamental technologyExplore new fundamental technology

• Detailed engineering design, particularly most advancedDetailed engineering design, particularly most advanced

TPWTPW

Includes:Includes:

• Development and testing of critical components, sub-systems, Development and testing of critical components, sub-systems, materials or techniques, including softwarematerials or techniques, including software

Does not include:Does not include:

• preparatory work based on existing or proven techniquespreparatory work based on existing or proven techniques

• reproduction of available components or materialsreproduction of available components or materials


Funding:Funding:

• Total budget: Total budget: 200M€; 70M€ in first call200M€; 70M€ in first call

• EC contribution per project EC contribution per project 10M€10M€

• 50% matching required(?)50% matching required(?)

Timing:Timing:

• Call for proposals:Call for proposals: October 2003October 2003

• Deadline:Deadline: Spring 2004Spring 2004

• Evaluation results:Evaluation results: Summer 2004Summer 2004

• Contract signatures:Contract signatures: Start 2005Start 2005

Design Study BidDesign Study Bid

• EU will make FP6 Design Study bidEU will make FP6 Design Study bid

• Essential to re-build activities in EuropeEssential to re-build activities in Europe

• Host laboratory: Host laboratory: RAL RAL (possibly!)(possibly!)

• Much better if Much better if part of world-wide design studypart of world-wide design study

• FP6 allows for/encourages thisFP6 allows for/encourages this

• May also provide some fundingMay also provide some funding

• Aim: Aim: ?DR for a Neutrino Factory ~2009?DR for a Neutrino Factory ~2009

View from……JapanView from……Japan

• Design study published July 2002Design study published July 2002

• Little support from KEK managementLittle support from KEK management

• Based on FFAGsBased on FFAGs


Staging

• High Power Proton Driver– Muon g-2

• Muon Factory (PRISM)– Muon LFV

• Muon Factory-II (PRISM-II)– Muon EDM

• Neutrino Factory– Based on 1 MW proton beam

• Neutrino Factory-II– Based on 4.4 MW proton beam

• Muon Collider

Physics outcomesat each stage


• Would support a world-wide design studyWould support a world-wide design study

• Concern expressed about overlap due to FFAGsConcern expressed about overlap due to FFAGs

• Would prefer some level of overlap for activeWould prefer some level of overlap for activeparticipationparticipation

• Timescale depends on J-PARCnu, LC, etcTimescale depends on J-PARCnu, LC, etc

My interpretation of conclusionsMy interpretation of conclusions

View from……..USView from……..US

Two feasibility studies so far in USTwo feasibility studies so far in US

FS1:FS1:

• Instigated by FNAL directorInstigated by FNAL director

• MC invited to participateMC invited to participate

• Focus was on feasibilityFocus was on feasibility

• First attempt to specify NF from end-to-endFirst attempt to specify NF from end-to-end

• Design based on (reasonably) well understood Design based on (reasonably) well understood technologytechnology

• No attempt to optimise costNo attempt to optimise cost

• Cost was a deliverableCost was a deliverable

• Feasibility was establishedFeasibility was established

• Performance poor, costs highPerformance poor, costs high


FS2:FS2:

• Collaboration between MC and BNL directorCollaboration between MC and BNL director

• BNL managers able to draw on resourcesBNL managers able to draw on resources

• Goal: maintain feasibility, but improve performanceGoal: maintain feasibility, but improve performance

• Cost optimisation again given lower priorityCost optimisation again given lower priority

• Performance: Performance: 6x Study I6x Study I

• Cost: Cost: 75% (but only one RLA)75% (but only one RLA)

• Still too highStill too high


FS3:FS3:

• Need to reduce costNeed to reduce cost

• Much progress already:Much progress already:Neuffer RF phase rotationNeuffer RF phase rotationFFAG ring or VRCSFFAG ring or VRCSRing coolersRing coolers

• Need to look for optimum betweenNeed to look for optimum betweenProton driverProton driverCoolingCoolingAccelerationAccelerationDetectorDetector

• But But much better if world-wide studymuch better if world-wide study

• Possible host site (MICE): Possible host site (MICE): RALRAL

DiscussionDiscussion

Should there be a world-wide design study?Should there be a world-wide design study? YesYes

How should we proceed?How should we proceed? Create a steering groupCreate a steering group

US:US: Steve GeerSteve GeerBob PalmerBob PalmerMike ZismanMike Zisman

Japan:Japan: Yoshi KunoYoshi KunoYoshi MoriYoshi MoriKenso NakamuraKenso Nakamura

Europe:Europe: Alain Blondel(?)Alain Blondel(?)Rob EdgecockRob Edgecock

Helmut HaserothHelmut Haseroth

What should be included?What should be included? Accelerator and detectorAccelerator and detector

Name?Name? WDS1(?)WDS1(?)

DiscussionDiscussion

Timescale?Timescale?

Format?Format?

Host laboratory?Host laboratory?

Aim?Aim?

Etc…..Etc…..

wg3 – part 3 - design studies

Documents