Transcript Document

ＩＬＣＳＣ
and
ALCSC
16 December 2003
TIFR Mumbai
INDIA
Sachio Komamiya
Graduate School of Science,
University of Tokyo
One Year History of
ILCSC Activities
2002 July 30 (Amsterdam) ILCSC was established by
ICFA. Chair: Hirotaka Sugawara
Mandate was decided by telephone conferences in spring 2002.
The ILCSC will,
1.Engage in outreach, explain the intrinsic scientific and
technological importance of the project to the scientific
community at large, to industry, to government officials, and
politicians and to the general public.
2. Based upon the extensive work already done in the three
regions, engage in defining the scientific roadmap, the scope
and primary parameters of machine and detector. It is
particularly important that the initial energy, the initial operations
scenario and the goals for upgradability be properly assessed.
3. Monitor the machine R&D activities and make
recommendations on the coordination and sharing of
R&D tasks as appropriate. Although the accelerator
technology choice may well be determined by the host
country, the ILCSC should help facilitate this choice to
the largest degree possible.
4. Identify models of the organizational structure, based
on the international partnerships, adequate for
constructing the LC facility. In addition, the ILCSC
should make recommendations regarding the role of
the host country in the construction and operation of
the facility.
5. Carry out such tasks as may be approved or directed
by ICFA.
Members of the ILCSC
Categories
Names
Directors
KEK
Y. Totsuka
Large labs
SLAC
J. Dorfan
DESY
A. Wagner
Fermilab
M. Withrell
RLCSC chairs
Asian
W. Namkung
(RLCSG
European
B. Foster
N.American (J. Dorfan)
Other Directors China
H.S.Chen
Russia
A.Skrinsky
ICFA outside LC regions
C. Garcia Canal
Community
Asia
S. Komamiya
representatives Europe
D. Miller
N.America
P.Grannnis
Chair person of the ILCSC
M.Tigner
2002 October （CERN ICFA Seminar)
Sugawara and Yamada proposed the pre-GLCC and GLCC .
2nd ILCSC
The Idea of Wise Persons Committee to recommend the technology was
proposed by Tigner.
2003 February 13 (Tsukuba)
3rd ILCSC
ACFA (W.Namkung) reported the Roadmap Report
It was decided that the Pre-GLCC to be discussed in the next ILCSC
2003 Spring
Parameter subcommittee was formed.
S.Komamiya D.Son (Asia)
R.Heuer (chair), F.Richard (Europe)
P.Grannis, M.Orglia (N.America)
Accelerator subcommittee was formed
G.Loew (chair)
K.Yokoya, M.Yoshioka, N.Toge, J.Urakawa (Asia)
G.Guignard, G.Geschonke, R.Brinkmann, O.Napoly (Europe)
G.Dugan, T.Raubenheimer, N.Solyak, A.Wolski (N.America)
2003 August 14 ４th ILCSC (Fermilab Lepton Photon)
ILCSC decided that “Wise Persons Committee” will
recommend LC Technology (warm/cold).
2003 September
Discuss about overall parameters of the
machine by “Parameter subcommittee” of ILCSC
http://www.fnal.gov/directorate/icfa/LC_parameters.pdf
Discuss about the status of R&D and cost issues
towards the technology choice by “Accelerator
subcommittee” of ILCSC
Discuss about Pre-Global Llinear Collider Center
(Global Design Organization)
2003 November 19 (Paris) ５th ILCSC
Nomination of the International Technical
Recommendation Panel (ITRP) members
(Wise Persons Committee): 4 X 3 =12
G.-S.Lee, A.Masaike, K.Oide, H.Sugawara (Asia)
J.-E.Augustin, G.Bellettini, G.Kalmus, V.Soergel (Europe)
J.Bagger, B.Barish, P.Grannis, N.Holtkamp (N.America)
Charge of the ITRP
The ITRP should recommend a LC technology to the
ILCSC.
On the assumption that a Linear Collider commences
before 2010 and given assessment by ITRC that
both TESLA and JLC-X/NLC have rather mature
conceptual designs, the choice should be between
these two designs. If necessary, a solution
incorporating C-band technology should be
evaluated.
………..
To reach its recommendation the Panel will hear from the design
proponents addressing the above issue.
……….
The panel will need to know if there is a significant cost difference
between the two designs being examined for completing the
500 GeV project and possibly any upgrade set forth in the ILC
Parameters Document.
……….
The panel is urged to report its recommendation as soon as
possible, with a firm deadline by the end of 2004.
………..
The Accelerator Sub-committee of the ILCSC is prepared to give
an extensive tutorial on the LC. This would inform the Panel
about LC issues and acquaint it with the experts from whom
they can solicit advice.
…………
It is expected that the presentation sessions will be open to the
scientific and funding agency communities.
We hope that there will be very serious and positive discussions
in the ITRP. Any new results after the ILCTRC-II must be
incorporated.
(1) Costing of the project
The cost issues were not discussed at the ILCTRC-II (Greg
Loew) Committee.
The cost must be evaluated in the same basis.
(2) Discerning judgement on Reliability, Stability, Maintainability,
and Availability of the accelerator system must be needed.
(3) Since the technology choice couples to many other issues,
discussions on broad issues are expected in the panel.
For example, the roles of the host and non-host
regions/countries must be considered.
The accelerator subcommittee of ILCSC must supply all the
available information to ITRP.
After the technology Choice
We need a realistic international organization to
proceed the international LC project.
International share of the accelerator R&D
without a hard commitment of the governments.
The KEK Globalization Committee had considered a
realistic way towards the construction of the
international LC.
The discussion at ILCSC shows essentially the same
direction as the Globalization Committee. Only the difference is
that the technology choice comes earlier than forming the preGLCC (Pre-Global Design Organization).
Organization (in the GLC Project Report）
Globalization Committee was formed at KEK in July 2001
Two extreme cases, (A) extension of existing laboratory and (B) creation of a new
international laboratory based on treaties, and in between the two cases were
discussed in the committee.
(B) is the preferred way.
Financial stability and
security, sharing of cost,
human resources and
responsibilities, desired
openness for the scientific
opportunity.
For Japan, hosting such
laboratory would be very
attractive and in accordance
with its national plan for
science and technology (S&T
basic low, S&T basic plan).
Pre-GLCC
Can be created now !
Now
GLCC
• A realistic way towards the GLCC (Global Linear Collider Center).
• Similar to the existing collaborations for high energy physics experiments.
• The foundation is based on MoU among laboratories and universities.
• Building up the co-working spirit by actual R&D works and designing works.
• Multi-international centers (like ITER) might be a realistic way to start with.
ILCSC （４ｔｈ ILCSC)
Task force of the (Pre-) Global Design Organization
Deliver a report to 6th ILCSC (February) Meeting
W.Namkung, Y.Totsuka, B.Foster, A.Wagner, J.Dorfan,
S.Ozaki(chair)
Discuss how to establish the Pre-Global Design
Organization after the technology choice.
Charge (CDR,TDR,R&D), Organization (head quarter,
regional centers, personnel), ……….
Currently under-discussions
Sub-group to understand costing issues for the Pre-GDO
K.Yokoya, J.Urakawa (KEK), N.Walker, F.Peters (DESY),
D.Burke, T.Lavine (SLAC), S.Ozaki (chair)
R&D costing definitions are very different from each country and
region. The approval processes of the R&D project and the
main project in each country/region must be understood.
Country-by country difference of the system.
Definition of the fiscal year.
Definition of the step of the project.
Distance between the scientists and the
financial agencies.
Accounting method of the budget.
I guess most of these problems are solvable.
In ITER these problems are more or less solved.
Current Activities of ILCSC
ICFA
(16)
Task force (6)
Pre-GDO Organization
ILCSC
Sub-group (7)
(13)
Pre-GDO R&D costing
Outreach
Subcommittee
Parameter
Subcommittee
Accelerator
Subcommittee
ITRP
(6)
(13)
(12)
World-wide study of
Physics and Detector at
Future Linear e+e- Collider
Organizing Committee (18)
A Possible Scenario
2004 January ITRP will start
2004 end
ITPR is planning to decide the
technology
(Even superconducting technology has
been selected KEK has key technology
to host the project.)
2005-2009
Pre-Global Linear Collider Center
(Pre-Global Design Organization)
CDR + TDR (based on R&D)
2009 ?
Governmental discussions
(organization, cost sharing, site)
2009 ??
Start construction
We need to learn from ITER
Advantages and disadvantages of the each stage of
organization of ITER must be carefully investigated.
As far as the structure of the international organization
is concerned, we can learn from CERN and ITER.
The international project must be stable, otherwise it will
cause a fatal damage to the scientific community.
We must learn from the case of the SSC project.
It is very dangerous if the major decisions are given
mainly by the politics. The decisions may well be
connected to, for example, national defense policies.
The Global LC is a major challenge of the HEP society.
In the past no one wants to listen to ICFA and many accelerators
are duplicated in the same energy regions. However It was
healthy, since the competition stimulates the scientific activities.
SPEAR DORIS
PETRA PEP
SppS
TEVATRON
SLC
LEP
SSC
LHC
KEKB
PEPII etc
Now LC must be a global project, since no single region can pay
for the construction budget. To make this global system to work,
we need some mechanism which avoid to have obvious losers in
the global LC community. Although work-sharing and the regional
balance are very important, the host must have heavy
responsibilities Including the budget.
The Global Linear Collider is not the last machine
of the international HEP society.
Major ACFA Activities on LC
2003 February 12
ACFA Linear Collider Symposium
The GLC (JLC) Project Report was open to the public.
2003 April
ACFA LC Seminar was held in CAT Inodor, India.
ACFA selected GLC for the new project name.
JLC ⇒ GLC
2003 October
The 8th ACFA Plenary meeting was held in National
Synchrotron Radiation Researh Center, Hsinchu Taiwan.
(1) With an unanimous vote ACFA proposed KEK to be the
Head-quarter of the (Pre-) GDO of the International LC Project.
(2) Kurokawa is planning to stregthen the Asia wide collaboration
by using the multi-lateral traveling budget of JSPS.
ALCSC: Mandate
The ALCSC will:
- Promote Global Linear Collider Project as an international
project based on the GLC Project Report, and make every effort to
host the project.
- Monitor and direct the international LC accelerator R&D and physics
and detector studies in Asia.
- Make an effort to form an international team (pre-GLCC) based on
the bottom up procedure with possible international partners before
forming the projec based on the governmental approvals.
- Communicate with LCSC (LCSG) of other regions and as well as with
ILCSC.
Organization of ALCSC
W.Namkung
Executive Board
Australia S.N.Tovey
China
H.S. Chen
India
D.D.Bhawalkar
KEK
Y.Totsuka
Japan
S.Komamiya
Korea
J.S.Kang
Taiwan W.S.Hou
Other
V.V. Thuan
Physics & Detector
Subcommittee
H.Yamamoto
J.Taylor
International Affairs
and Outreach
Subcommittee
S.Komamiya
D.Son
ACFA
D.D.Bhawalkar
Accelerator
Subcommittee
S.Kurokawa
K.Yokoya
Accelerator WG
ALCSC
Physics and
Dectector WG
Outreach WG
LC Executive Committee of KEK
2003 April Chair: Hirotaka Sugawara ⇒Yoji Totsuka
Members: Administration from KEK
Accelerator Physicists
Experimental Physicists
(inside and outside of KEK)
Since April 2001, 24 meetings are held.
Report LC R&D results,
Discuss international LC issues connected to GLC.
Time to time extended meetings with Non-Japanese
ACFA members.
LC Forum of Japan
Japanese Industries are very interested in GLC
To promote GLC with a collaboration of Industries with
Reserach Institues, Universities、we set up a forum
under JHEPC October 2002.
Chair: Ozaki (Techno-economy Lab. Thinktank)
More than 50 major companies and >100 academic
researchers are participated in the forum.
Three working groups (technology, infrastructure and
International affairs) are actively working.
They send delegations to India, CERN and DESY.
Summary
The international Linear Collider Steering Committee is
moving rather fast.
In the current plan, in the end of 2004 the technology will
be recommended by the International Technology
Recommendation Panel (ITRP).
The (pre-)Global Design Organization will be formed.
ACFA recommended that KEK to be the Head-quarter
of (pre-)GDO.
The base of the global collaboration is faithfulness.