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 outreach, 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 roadmap, 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) H.S.Chen Other Directors China 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 . pre2nd 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 Pre-

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 th 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 Pre(Global Design Organization)

2003 November 19 (Paris) th ILCSC Nomination of the International Technical Recommendation Panel (ITRP) members (Wise Persons Committee): 4 X 3 =12
G.G.-S.Lee, A.Masaike, K.Oide, H.Sugawara (Asia) J.-E.Augustin, G.Bellettini, G.Kalmus, V.Soergel (Europe) J.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 JLCconceptual 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. 2004. .. The Accelerator Sub-committee of the ILCSC is prepared to give Suban 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 ILCTRCincorporated. (1) Costing of the project The cost issues were not discussed at the ILCTRC-II (Greg ILCTRCLoew) 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 nonregions/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 prepreGLCC (Pre-Global Design Organization). (Pre-

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.
Gov Gov Gov Gov Gov Gov Group of Govs.

(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).

Inter-Gov. Organization

GLCC

Governing Council

Director
(or Directorate)

Scientific and Technological Divisions

Administrative Divisions

PrePre-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.
Director(s)

Advisory Council (International LC Steering Committee)

Accelerator Design Group Accelerator R&D Group Warm, Cold, Two-beam etc. or Injectors, Power, Structure, etc

Detector and Physics Group

Infrastructure Groups - Site studies - Cost estimation - Organizational Issues

ILCSC

ILCSC)

Task force of the (Pre-) Global Design Organization (PreDeliver 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 PreOrganization after the technology choice. Charge (CDR,TDR,R&D), Organization (head quarter, regional centers, personnel), . Currently under-discussions underSubSub-group to understand costing issues for the Pre-GDO PreK.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.

CountryCountry-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
(13)

Sub-group (7)
Pre-GDO R&D costing

Outreach Subcommittee

Parameter Subcommittee
(6)

Accelerator Subcommittee
(13)

ITRP
(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.) 20052005-2009 Pre-Global Linear Collider Center Pre(Pre(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 workbalance 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 HeadHead-quarter of the (Pre-) GDO of the International LC Project. (Pre(2) Kurokawa is planning to stregthen the Asia wide collaboration by using the multi-lateral traveling budget of JSPS. multi-

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
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 International Affairs and Outreach Subcommittee S.Komamiya D.Son Outreach WG

ACFA
D.D.Bhawalkar

ALCSC
W.Namkung

Accelerator Subcommittee S.Kurokawa K.Yokoya

Physics & Detector Subcommittee H.Yamamoto J.Taylor Physics and Dectector WG

Accelerator 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 NonACFA 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) (TechnoMore than 50 major companies and >100 academic researchers are participated in the forum. Three working groups (technology, infrastructure and (technology, International affairs) are actively working. affairs) 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. (preACFA recommended that KEK to be the Head-quarter Headof (pre-)GDO. (preThe base of the global collaboration is faithfulness.