Transcript ILC 高エネルギー加速器研究機構 黒川 眞一

ILCをめぐる国際情勢
高エネルギー加速器研究機構
黒川 眞一
学術創成ILC研究会
KEK
2006年12月20日
ILC Organization Chart
ACFA
ICFA
ALCSC
ILCSC
FALC
GDE
Asia
Regional
Team
European
Regional
Team
American
Regional
Team
ICFA and the Linear Collider
ICFA has been helping to guide international cooperation on
and try to realize the Linear Collider more than 10 years .
Major steps:
1995: First LC TRC Report, under Greg Loew as Chair
1999: ICFA Statement on Linear Collider
2002: ICFA commissioned the second LC TRC Report,
under Greg Loew as Chair
2002: ICFA has established the ILC Steering
Committee (ILCSC) with Maury Tigner as the 1st
Chair
2004 ILCSC set up ITRP and ICFA/ILCSC have approve
ITRP recommendation
2005 ICFA/ILCSC has established GDE
Membership of the ILCSC(Present)
Directors
CERN
DESY
Fermilab
KEK
SLAC
LC Steering Group Chairs
Asian
European
American
Other
Chair(2nd )
China (IHEP Director)
Russia (BINP Director)
ICFA outside LC regions
Asia Rep.
Europe Rep.
American Rep.
Secretary
Robert Aymar
Albrecht Wagner
Pier Oddone
Atsuto Suzuki
Jonathan Dorfan
Won Namkung
Torsten Akesson
Satoshi Ozaki
Shin-ichi Kurokawa
Hesheng Chen
Alexander Skrinsky
Vinod Sahni
Sachio Komamiya
Francois Richard
Jim Brau
Roy Rubinstein
ILCSC Charter(2002)

Engage in outreach, explaining 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

Based upon the extensive work already done in the
three regions, engage in defining the scientific
roadmap, the scope and primary parameters for
machine and detector. It is particularly important
that the initial energy, the initial operations
scenario and the goals for upgradeability be
properly assessed. -> Parameter
Committee(Chaired by Rolf Heuer)
Parameters for the ILC (2003)
• Ecm adjustable from 200 – 500 GeV
• Luminosity   Ldt = 500 fb-1 in 4 years
• Ability to scan between 200 and 500 GeV
• Energy stability and precision below 0.1%
• Electron polarization of at least 80%
• The machine must be upgradeable to 1 TeV
ILCSC Charter (cont)

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. > ITRP (International Technology
Recommendation Panel)

Identify models of the organizational structure,
based on 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.
ITRP Recommendation
endorsed by ICFA in August 2004
ICFA has decided on superconducting
technology for the future linear collider (LC),
by endorsing the resolution of the ITRP. The
ITRP report emphasizes the importance of
world-wide unified approach as a single team
to design the international linear collider
(ILC).
-> ILCSC has established GDE
Global project named
International Linear Collider (ILC)
Global Design Effort (GDE)
•
•
•
ILCSC set up a committee with Paul Grannis as Chair
to select a Director for the GDE.
February 2005, at TRIUMF, ILCSC and ICFA
unanimously endorsed the Committee’s choice.
On March 18, 2005
Barry Barish
officially accepted
the position at
the opening of
LCWS 05 meeting
at Stanford.
Global Design Effort
The Mission of the GDE
• Produce a design for the ILC that includes a
detailed design concept, performance
assessments, reliable international costing,
an industrialization plan , siting analysis, as
well as detector concepts and scope.
• Coordinate worldwide prioritized proposal
driven R & D efforts (to demonstrate and
improve the performance, reduce the costs,
attain the required reliability, etc.)
ILC DGE
ILC-MOU : Signed on May 10, 2005
Comment on ILC MoU
• GDE activities are done on the basis of this ILC
MoU
• Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP),
Kyungpook University of Korea and IN2P3 of
France have signed the ILC MoU
• This ILC MoU is valid until May 2008 and it shall
be reviewed at the time of transition from RDR to
TDR
The GDE Plan and
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Schedule CLIC
Global Design Effort
Baseline configuration
Reference Design
Project
LHC
Physics
Technical Design
ILC R&D Program
Expression of Interest to Host
International Mgmt
From Barry
ILC-Asia MOU
ATF MOU
CAT
CHEP
IHEP
KEK
PAL
TIFR
SLAC, FNAL, LBNL, Cornell
CERN, DESY, Q.M.U.L.,
R.H.U.L, Oxford, U.C.L.
IHEP, PAL, Tokyo, Kyoto,
Nagoya, Waseda, KEK
ILCSC has setup MAC as its sub-panel
March 2006
1. As one of the ILCSC oversight activities of GDE, MAC (Machine
Advisory Committee) has been formed in March 2006.
2. MAC reviews the GDE activities with respect to accelerators and
report to ILCSC, and, at the same time, give advice to GDE director.
3. MAC reviews BCD as soon as the document is released, and then、
review the activities of GDE at appropriate time until RDR is finalized.
4. MAC meets a few times a year during this period.
5. Number of MAC members is 10-12, and members shall be selected
mostly on the basis of their expertise and not on the basis of regional
balance.
ILC MAC members
Name
Affiliation
Expertise, etc
Ferdinad Willeke
DESY
Chair
Norbert Holtkamp
ORNL
linac, RF, LC, Project
Katsunobu Oide
KEK
e-ring, Accelerator Physics, Project
John Seeman
SLAC
e-ring, Accelerator Physics, Project, MDI
Mike Harrison
BNL
Resigned in December 2006 and replaced by
Don Hartill
Don Hartill
Cornell
Project (added in December)
Dave McGinnis
FNAL
RF, accelerator physics, project
Claus Rhode
TJL
cryogenics
Lenny Rivkin
PSI
low emittance ring, accelerator physics
Takaaki Furuya
KEK
SCRF
In-Soo Ko
PAL
linac, accelerator physics, project
Bernd Loehr
DESY
long term technical coordinator of ZEUS
Burt Richter
SLAC
project, Accelerator physics
Gunter Geschonke
CERN
RF, SCRF
Yuri Shatunov
BINP
accelerator physics, project
Shin-ichi Kurokawa
KEK
Chair of ILCSC, ex-officio
Maskazu Yoshioka
KEK l
Project (added in December 2006)
Roy Rubinstein
FNAL
Secretary
MAC meetings
•
•
•
•
1st : April 6-7, 2006, at FNAL
2nd : September 20-22, 2006, at KEK
3rd : January 10-12, 2007, at Daresbury,
4th : Spring, 2007, in BNL
Sponsors
• America:
 Total US$70k: DOE $50k, Fermilab $10k, SLAC $10k
 Supported 19 students, 7 lecturers
• Asia:
 KEK supported 36 students, 7 lecturers, US $ 90K
 KEK also covered all local expenses (meeting rooms, A/V, school
supplies, computers, local transportation, field trip, banquet, video
taping, etc.)
• Europe:





CERN: 5 students (one from Poland), 2 lecturers
DESY: 4 students, 2 lecturers
INFN: 2 students, 2 lecturers
IN2P3: 5 students (one from Russia)
U.K.: Oxford - 1 student, CCLRC - 1 student, EuroTeV - 1 student
Program
Saturday, May 20
Morning
09:00 –
12:30
Sunday, May 21
Evening
19:00 –
20:30
Tuesday, May 23
Lecture 5 – Damping ring basics
(180)
Susanna Guiducci (INFN-LNF)
 Betatron motion
 Synchrotron motion
 Beam energy
 Beam emittance
 Radiation damping
 Intrabeam scattering
Lecture 7 – ILC Linac basics (90)
Chris Adolphsen (SLAC)
 Linac basic principles
 SW linacs and structures
 SRF parameter constraints
 Beam loading and coupling
 Lorentz force detuning
Field trip to Kamakura
Lecture 4 – Bunch compressors
(60)
Eun-San Kim (Kyungpook Nat’l
Univ.)
 Bunch compressors
 Spin rotator
Lecture 6 – Damping ring design
(180)
Andy Wolski (Univ. of Liverpool)
 Options
 Lattice
 Parameter optimization
 Machine acceptance
 E-cloud, space charge and
instability issues
 Wigglers
 Kickers and other technical
systems
Lecture 11 – SRF cavity
technology (180)
Peter Kneisel (Jlab)
 Material issues
 Cavity fabrication and tuning
 Surface preparation
 Gradient limit and spread
 Power Coupler
 HOM Couplers
 Slow and fast tuner
 Path to ILC
Tutorial & homework
Tutorial & homework
Tutorial & homework
Tutorial & homework
Opening remarks (10)
Lecture 1 – Introduction I (90)
Fumihiko Takasaki (KEK)
 Why LC
 What’s ILC
 Layout of ILC
 Overview of issues
Lecture 2 – Introduction II (90)
Tor Raubenheimer (SLAC)
 Parameter choices & optimization
Afternoon
14:00 –
17:30
Monday, May 22
Lecture 3 – Sources (120)
Masao Kuriki (KEK)
 e- gun
 e+ sources
 Polarized sources
Lecture 8 – ILC Linac beam
dynamics (90)
Kiyoshi Kubo (KEK)
 Lattice layout
 Beam quality preservation
o RF field stability
o Wakefield and dampers
o HOMs
o Alignment tolerances
o Vibration problems
o Beam based alignment
Lecture 9 – High power RF (60)
Stefan Choroba (DESY)
 RF system overview
 Modulators
 Klystrons
 RF distribution
Lecture 10 – SRF basics (120)
Shuichi Noguchi (KEK)
 Superconductivity basics
 SRF peculiarities
 Cavity design criteria
 Various constraints
 ILC BCD Cavity
Program (cont…)
Wednesday, May 24
Morning
09:00 –
12:30
Lecture 12 – ILC cryomodule (60)
Carlo Pagani (INFN-Milano)
 ILC cryogenics and rational
 ILC cryomodule concept
Lecture 13 – Room-temperature
RF (120)
Hans Braun (CERN)
 Room temperature cavity and
gradient limit
 CLIC design
Thursday, May 25
Lecture 16 – Instrumentation &
feedback (180)
Marc Ross (SLAC)
 Beam monitoring
 Precision instrumentation
 Feedback systems
Friday, May 26
Bus from Sokendai to KEK
Saturday, May 27
Group A:
Lecture 19 – Detectors (90)
Hitoshi Yamamoto (Tohoku Univ.)
 ILC detectors
Lecture 20 – Physics (90)
Rolf-Dieter Heuer (DESY)
 ILC physics
 Physics beyond 1 TeV
 e-e- and - options
 ILC and XFEL
Group B:
Special lecture – ATF (60)
Junji Urakawa (KEK)
ATF experiments (120)
Afternoon
14:00 –
17:30
Lecture 14 – Beam delivery (120)
Andrei Seryi (SLAC)
 Beam delivery system overview
 Collimation
 Machine-detector interface,
shielding and beam dump
 Beam monitoring and control at
final focus
Lecture 15 – Beam-beam (60)
Daniel Schulte (CERN)
 Beam-beam interaction
Lecture 17 – Conventional
facilities (90)
Vic Kuchler (Fermilab)
 Overview
 Tunneling
 Site requirement
KEK tour
 B-Factory
 Photon Factory
 SRF
 ATF
Lecture 18 – Operations (90)
Marc Ross (SLAC)
 Reliability
 Availability
 Remote control and global
network
Group B:
Lecture 19 – Detectors (90)
Hitoshi Yamamoto (Tohoku Univ.)
Lecture 20 – Physics (90)
Rolf-Dieter Heuer (DESY)
Group A:
Special lecture – ATF (60)
Junji Urakawa (KEK)
ATF experiments (120)
Group A & B:
Student awards ceremony
Farewell party
Evening
19:00 –
20:30
Tutorial & homework
Banquet
Tutorial & homework
Free time
Free time
Students
• In six weeks (Jan 5 –
Feb 15) we received
535 applications from
44 countries
Regional Distribution of Applicants
196
200
167
160
131
120
80
• 74 students attended
the school
Regional Distribution of Students
40
36
30
20
20
Europe
America
20
10
0
Asia
41
40
0
Asia
Europe
America Unknown
Student Survey (cont…)
• Will you
recommend this
school to your
fellow students or
colleagues?
No answer,
3
Not sure, 6
No, 1
Yes, 62
• If opportunity
available, do you
plan to work on
the ILC or linear
colliders in the
future?
No answer,
2
Not sure, 7
No, 0
Yes, 63
Next ILC School
• The GDE Executive Committee has decided to
propose to sponsor and organize a second school
• The proposal will be presented to the ILCSC and
ICFA meeting on July 30th also in Moscow.
• ICFA approval is essential in order to get world-wide
support for funding.
• Possible place and time: Fall of 2007 in Erice
Asian ILC Schools
• In addition to this initiatives, to hold Asian
schools on ILC in China, India, Korea, etc., is
highly recommendable and valuable.
• ACFA has endorsed this initiative in September
ACFA meeting.
• Asian ILC School in India in 2007 is being
planned.
Recent and Future ILCSC
meetings
• July 30, 2006, in Moscow
• November 11, 20006, in Valencia
• January 12, 2007 (afternoon), in Daresbury (after MAC
on January 10-12). First RDR cost disclosure to ILCSC.
• February 8, 2007, in Beijing
• April MAC in BNL
• May or June 2007, in DESY (has yet to be fixed)
ILCSC in Moscow
• Revision of ILCSC Mandate
Revision of ILCSC Mandate was discussed and a draft
was proposed to ICFA (without any major changes).
ICFA has approved.
Revised Mandate of ILCSC (August 2006)
• The ILCSC, as a Sub-panel of ICFA, is established in
order to facilitate a global support towards the realization
of the International Linear Collider as a global
collaborative effort, drawing on input from regional
steering committees.
• The ILCSC has established the Global Design Effort
(GDE) Central Team to coordinate and direct the effort of
the teams in Asia, Europe and the Americas that
comprise the GDE. The ILCSC, representing ICFA, will
provide oversight to the GDE.
• The ILCSC will monitor the progress of the GDE
activities, including through reports by the GDE Director
and the assessment of technical progress through
reports by the MAC Chairperson.
Revised Mandate of ILCSC (wrt FALC)
• The ILCSC will work closely with the Funding Agencies
for the Linear Collider (FALC) and/or other national or
international agencies to facilitate the evolution of GDE
to an institution under international governance aimed at
the construction of the ILC.
• The ILCSC will assess and endorse budget requests for
the common operations fund of the Central Team that
the GDE Director will put forward to Funding Agencies
for the Linear Collider (FALC) for approval.
• Comment: FALC has changed its name from Funding
Agencies for Linear Colliders to Funding Agencies for
Large Colliders in May 2006
• FALC is now trying to write Terms of Reference
ILC Organization Chart
ACFA
ICFA
ALCSC
ILCSC
FALC
GDE
Asia
Regional
Team
European
Regional
Team
American
Regional
Team
The GDE Plan and
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Schedule CLIC
Global Design Effort
Baseline configuration
Reference Design
Project
LHC
Physics
Technical Design
ILC R&D Program
Expression of Interest to Host
International Mgmt
From Barry
Modified Mandate of ILCSC (wrt WWS)
• The Worldwide Study (WWS) will report regularly to the
ILCSC and advise it on ILC physics and detector issues,
while maintaining close contact with the GDE on the
development of detector concepts and detector R&D
• The ILCSC will monitor the progress of the detector and
machine detector interface development, including
through reports by the co-chairpersons of the WWS and
the Machine Detector Interface Committee (MDI).
ILCSC in Moscow (cont)
• RDR Cost Review
ILCSC felt that it should become involved in an international cost
validation process, not to evaluate costs, but to study the
methodology by which they are derived.
• WWS
How will the selection of experiments be done, and with what
criteria? The discussion has just started. Should there be an ITRPlike committee? A more permanent body?
• Additional MOU Signatories
Center for High Energy Physics (CHEP), Kyungpook University and
IN2P3 has officially showed their interest. Following the procedure
outlined in the MOU, the requests will be forwarded to the existing
MOU signers for approval. (these proposal have been approved)
ILCSC in Moscow (cont)
• ILC School
May 06 SOKENDAI ILC School was a great success. SK
requests ILCSC’s input on the possibility of holding a
second such school. It was agreed that the school was
valuable in attracting interest in the ILC and in
accelerator physics in general. SK will contact GDE and
existing schools to see if a second ILC school can be
incorporated into one of the existing series.
•
ILC Parameters
In order to obtain a better understanding of the relation
between cost and performance, it was felt useful to ask
the Parameters Subcommittee (chaired by Rolf Heuer) to
re-examine its 2003 report. ILCSC decided to reactivate
the Parameters Subcommittee.
ILCSC in Moscow (cont)
• From RDR to TDR
Kurokawa questioned whether ILCSC should start
considering actions for the transition from RDR to TDR.
It was agreed that SK should make some proposals on
this subject for future ILCSC consideration.
ILCSC in Valencia
• MAC report
2nd MAC was held on September 20-22 at KEK. Ferdi
Willeke (MAC Chair) reported its report to ILCSC. Nick
Walker of GDE showed GDE’s response to ILCSC.
It was also agreed that to have replacement of one
member (Mike Harrison-> Don Hartill) and to add one
more cost expert to the MAC (ILCSC has selected
Masakazu Yoshioka of KEK).
• Parameters Committee Report
Rolf Heuer reported semi-final version of the report to
ILCSC. The final version will come out soon.
Preliminary Conclusions (1)
Luminosity
what‘s behind the statement in the 2003 document
“app. 500 fb-1 in the first four years of running, not counting year zero”
- Assuming design luminosity of 3x1034 /cm2/s running for a snowmass year of 107 s
yields 300 fb-1 of integrated luminosity.
- Note: 107 s correspond to 120 (240) days running with 100% (50%) efficiency
In 2003 we assumed design luminosity only in year 4 and took 250 fb-1 for that year.
We assumed a steady increase in instantaneous luminosity from
year 0 (0% of design lumi) to year 1 (10%), year 2 (30%) and year 3 (60%) to year 4.
Result: 500 fb-1 in the first four years of running, not counting year zero
The statement
“Doubling the integrated luminosity to a total of 1 ab-1 within two additional
Years”
is a natural consequence of having achieved design luminosity in year 4
Preliminary Conclusions (2)
Luminosity
All measurements are statistically limited, lowering luminosity by a factor 2 results in
doubling the running time. Since we are interested in integrated luminosity:
Q1: Can we assume a longer running time per year?
Q2: Is cost saving possible by running with lower current but w/o reducing the number
of bunches? Reduces luminosity and beamstrahlung so that some effects cancel:
The assumptions in 2003 were (reasonable?) estimates.
However, these assumptions indicate that the loss in integrated luminosity is not
dramatic if one starts with lower design luminosity and/or reduced number of bunches
in the first few (0 to 2 ?) years provided the design luminosity is (successively)
re-established in the following years.
A steeper increase in luminosity performance than anticipated in the 2003 document
through successive installation of the remaining parts could then still deliver the
desired integrated luminosity within the anticipated time frame.
Nonetheless:
Reducing luminosity should be the very last option.
Staging in the first few years to be discussed.
No permanent de-scoping.
Preliminary Conclusions (3)
Beamstrahlung
Most measurements suffer from increased beamstrahlung
thus requring more luminosity for achieving same accuracy
On the other hand reduced beamstrahlung results in luminosity gain
Reduced beamstrahlung equivalent to some luminosity gain
dependend on physics channel (e.g. MH at E=350 GeV)
Consequence:
 with reduced beamstrahlung slightly lower current acceptable
Higher beamstrahlung undesirable (to be quantified)
Preliminary Conclusions (4)
Energy
Highest possible energy is called for but at present there is no known measurement
which could not be done at slightly reduced energy.
Removing safety margins in energy reach is acceptable. Max. lumi not needed
at the top energy (500 GeV), however, 500 GeV should be reachable
assuming nominal gradient before knowing more about physics scenarion
realised
Positron Polarisation
Many measurements gain from positron polarisation, thus also requiring less
luminosity for same accuracy.
Positron Polarisation is very beneficial in many scenarios, including SM
scenarios  this option mandatory to be kept open
Note: Recently the possibility of initial positron polarisation as high as 30% was
mentioned for the ILC baseline configuration (eq. to 10% lumi gain?)
Assuming this, a slight reduction in luminosity seems acceptable
 to be verified and quantified by the physics groups
Preliminary Conclusions (5)
Number of IRs
Two experiments are required.
If large cost saving with one IR: Push-Pull could be an option.
However:
- reasonably short switch over times (1week or so?) in order not to loose much lumi
- frequent moves desired (every 2-3 months?) in order to treat both exp‘ts equally
Two detectors highly desired, one IR feasible
 See report by the push-pull task force
Energy upgrade to approx. 1TeV
An option mandatory to be kept open
Preliminary Conclusions (6)
Gamma-Gamma
Should be kept as an option for the reasons given in the 2003 document.
However:
more realistic studies plus possibly investments are required.
Giga-Z
to be kept as an option for the reasons given in the 2003 document
Outlook
Parameter group meeting here in Valencia
to
produce a preliminary written version of conclusions
taking into account YOUR comments and discussions with GDE
ILCSC in Valencia(cont)
From RDR to TDR
From the Minutes of ILCSC Moscow
• Kurokawa questioned whether ILCSC should start
considering actions for the transition from RDR to TDR.
The GDE MOU does not cover the TDR phase, and it is
unlikely that FALC will take over the oversight of GDE at
least in the early stages of TDR. How do we define
TDR? What should be ILCSC’s role in this transition?
What kind of discussion and preparation are necessary?
• It was agreed that Kurokawa should make some
proposals on this subject for future ILCSC
consideration.
Plans
until
Beijing
(Feb.
'07)
November
December
January
February
2006
2007
Valencia
Further cost consolidation
CCR preparation & submission
Cost & Design Freeze 30/11
Prepare for Full Cost Review
SLAC Cost Review 14-16/12
Final cost corrections and
documentation
MAC 10-12/01/07
Agency cost briefings
RDR prepare 1st drafts
RDR final editing
Beijing: RDR draft published
What Happens after Beijing?
• Public Release of Draft RDR and Preliminary
Costing at Beijing
– Cost Reviews, etc
– Finalize RDR by Summer 2007?
• Enter into Engineering Design Phase
– Planning underway internally
– Design will evolve through value engineering and
R&D program,
– Some potential changes will effect MDI and we will
need to continue close collaboration
– General Goal is to have Construction Proposal
ready by 2010
Discussion on RDR to TDR
A first discussion concerning the next
steps took place at Valencia and ILCSC
and ILCSC has decided its action. It was
agreed that ILCSC would ask GDE to give
its input to ILCSC at the occasion of
ILCSC meeting in Beijing in February 2007.
Discussion will be continued further after
Beijing meeting.
Action by ILCSC agreed upon
• As an oversight body of GDE, ILCSC should
evaluate the RDR (on the basis of report given
by GDE, the MAC report, and information given
by WWS). This evaluation process will need a
few months after the RDR report is issued.
• The Machine Advisory Committee (MAC) should
evaluate the RDR from technical view point and
report to ILCSC.
Action by ILCSC(cont)
• ILCSC will ask the GDE to provide a proposal
and schedule how to move forward from the
RDR to the TDR, including the design of
accelerators, cost estimate, organizational
structure, world-wide cooperation, coordination
of world-wide R&D activities, and relation with
the physics community.
• ILCSC will then evaluate the proposal given by
the GDE.
Action by ILCSC(cont)
• Based on this evaluation, ILCSC will recommend
to ICFA on how to move from RDR to TDR
phase and report to FALC. The proposal should
include:
a) Definition of the scope of the TDR and the
action necessary to reach this scope
b) Organizational structure
c) Legal framework (e.g. MoU) for the RDR to
TDR phase
• Two important issues: 1) how to establish
scheme for global-coordinated R&D for ILC (real
work); 2) how to make GDE on much solid
footing.
ILCSC in Valencia(cont)
• GDE Common Fund
Plan for GDE common fund for FY2007, 2008, 2009,
was shown by GDE. Discussion shall be continued to
coming ILCSC meetings.
• ILC School
ILCSC has approved to prepare to hold the 2nd ILC
School in Erice in fall of 2007. Contact with existing
accelerator schools shall be carefully done.
• WWS
Jim Brau showed a first plan and time line for selecting
two experiments. Elaborated plan will be given to ILCSC
in Beijing for its discussion.
ILCSC in Valencia(cont)
• Mandate of the next MAC (January 10-12,
in Daresbury)
# Review the soundness of the overall RDR
concept, identify any areas of concern, note
what R&D is still needed, and comment on
whether the performance parameters can be
met.
# Review the cost methodology and identify any
areas of concern.
ILCSC in Valencia(cont)
• Additional ILCSC meeting in Daresbury
Taking into account that the cost will be first
disclosed at the next MAC meeting in Daresbury,
it was decided that we would hold an additional
ILCSC meeting on January 12 at Daresbury
from the close-out session of the MAC meeting.
ICFA members who do not serve on the ILCSC
will also be invited.
Agenda of Beijing ILCSC meeting
February 8, 2007
• Joint ICFA/ILCSC meeting in the morning of Feb.
8 to discuss the RDR and its cost estimate.
• Press release is planned to be held around noon
time.
• ILCSC will continue its discussion in the
afternoon (MAC Report; GDE Response to MAC
Report; Parameters Subcommittee Report;
WWS; FALC-RG; RDR to TDR (continued);
Regional Reports).
Tentative Outcome of FALC in Tsukuba
November 20, 2006
• It was agreed that a single international cost review of
the RDR should take place.
• The ILCSC could be invited to organize this review.
ILCSC will nominate 2 members per region and add a
few members if it thinks appropriate, taking into account
expertise of members. In addition to it two members per
region will be selected by FALC.
• This review should focus on cost trends and relative
costs of sub-systems as they relate to potential scope
changes to be incorporated in the TDR, their relevance
to the R&D program needed to complete the TDR, and
the methodology used in the estimate.
• This review will be held in May and June.
Situation in China
• In China a 香山科学会議 was held on
December 5-7, where ILC was discussed.
This is the first official meeting wrt ILC in
China. The subject was “What is the role
of China Confronted with the International
Linear Collider (ILC), a Large Scientific
International Project”.
Situation in China (cont)
Excerpt from message sent by Gao Jie of IHEP
• But concluding spirit from the Chinese scientists who attended the
meeting, support the idea for China to join actively ILC collaboration
from physics, detector and accelerator point of view, and others. So I
think we achieved the goal we expected. However, it will take
relaxation time to feel some reaction. Personally, I think the
relaxation time should extend till the end of June 2007, when
CCAST, Prof. T.D. Lee as director, will hold a physics meeting to
discuss ILC related physics, and after that he might say some words
supportive, which will be influential. I think ILC Perfume Montain
Meeting Conclusion +T.D. Lee's supportive word will put things
forward.
• As information CCAST agreed me to held an ILC accelerator
meeting next year in Beijing, maybe in Nov. about 50 participants.
Situation in India
• Indian ILC Forum has been established recently.
• R&D on ILC will surely be included within the
next 5-year science plan of India starting from
April 2007.
• Indian DAE chairman, Dr Kakodkar showed his
great interest in ILC when KEK delegate (KEK
DG and others) visited India in October.
Thank you for your
Attention !