DRAFT IV

　　　　 9/11/03

 

 

MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL

LINEAR COLLIDER STEERING COMMITTEE

 

14 August 2003

Fermilab, USA

 

Present:　　 R. Aymar, J. Brau, J. Dorfan, B. Foster, F. Gilman, P. Grannis (by speaker-phone), R. Heuer, G. Kalmus, S. Komamiya, G. Loew, L. Maiani, D. Miller, W. Namkung, R. Rubinstein (Secretary), M. Tigner (Chair), Y. Totsuka, A. Wagner, M. Witherell.

 

 

1.　　　　 Circulated:

　 Discussion paper from ALCSC, 14 August 2003 (Appendix I)

　 Procedures for recommending a technology for the linear collider (ELCSG) (Appendix II)

　 Beginning steps in organizing the international linear collider (USLCSC) (Appendix III)

　 Draft discussion paper from USCLSC (Appendix IV)

　 Report of the Sub-Group on Organizational Matters (ELCSG) (Appendix V)

　 Transparencies of G. Kalmus presentation (Appendix VI)

 

2.　　　　 ILCSC Accelerator Subcommittee

　　　　　 G. Loew described the membership and charge of this Subcommittee (Appendix VII). Much of its activity will be carried out by video and e-mail.

3.　　　　 ILCSC Parameters Subcommittee

　　　　　 R. Heuer reported that the Subcommittee charge had been approved about 2 months earlier, and there had been 2 subsequent meetings; much input is coming from the three regions, and the discussions seem to be converging towards a document in 4-6 weeks. The aim is a concise document giving (i) the 500 GeV baseline machine; (ii) energy upgrade; and (iii) all other options (high luminosity running, WW running, collider, etc.). Running scenarios will not be discussed.

4.　　　　 World-wide Study of Physics and Detectors for a Linear Collider

　　　　　 This group met on 13 August 2003, reported D. Miller. His main messages to ILCSC were (i) sign the consensus document on physics goals for a linear collider; (ii) come to LCWS04 in Paris 19-24 April 2004; (iii) test beam needs are growing, and information is being collected; (iv) keep up momentum towards a linear collider.

　　　　　 Miller noted that physics and detector studies are building steadily, and particle physicists are getting involved in linear collider accelerator work. His transparencies are given in Appendix VIII.

5.　　　　 ELCSG Report

　　　　　 B. Foster noted that an outreach subcommittee had been established, aimed at politicians immediately, and other scientists and the general public on a slower timescale. A website has been set up, and there is coordination with InterActions. Champagne has been donated for a competition prize for the best 30-second speech supporting a linear collider. The Kalmus Committee has reported (see Item 8). There have been discussions on CERN's role in the linear collider. Although there will be no available CERN funding until 2010 for a linear collider, many CERN member states would like to contribute to the linear collider as part of the CERN program. Support for the linear collider is very positive in some European countries (especially Germany and UK) and less so in others.

　　　　　 Foster noted the 30M Euro ESGARD request for particle accelerator activities, with unofficial approval at 50%, over 3 years; this is a "foot in the EU door". Foster's transparencies are in Appendix IX.

6.　　　　 ALCSC Report

　　　　　 A linear collider workshop was held at CAT, Indore, India on 17-18 April 2003, with over 100 attendees, reported W. Namkung. The JLC has been renamed GLC (Global Linear Collider). A Korean study group workshop on the linear collider was held in Seoul on 12 June 2003. Future activities include a Plenary ACFA meeting (Taiwan, October 2003), and an ACFA workshop on physics and detectors for a linear collider (TIFR, 15-17 December 2003); KEK and Japanese universities become National University Agencies in April 2004.

　　　　　 In the discussion, it was noted that the USLCSC had been invited to help organize a workshop in India in November 2003, and there was some concern that there could be interference with the ACFA workshop noted above.

　　　　　 Namkung's transparencies are given in Appendix X.

7.　　　　 USLCSC Report

　　　　　 J. Dorfan noted that J. Siegrist is heading a particle physics communications committee. N. Calder has a "2-minute" speech supporting the linear collider. The USLCSC meets every 4-5 weeks (by phone or in person). There are 3 subcommittees: (i) Detector/Physics (Chairs J. Brau, M. Oreglia); (iii) Accelerator (Chair G. Dugan); and International Affairs (Chair M. Tigner), which will have a report in October 2003 for the ILCSC February 2004 meeting (see Appendix XI).

　　　　　 Dorfan said that the Accelerator Subcommittee is carrying out a comparison of warm and cold technology US-based machines, which will be completed by the end of 2003. The warm and cold options will be compared using a common approach, with both options meeting the USLCSC physics requirements. Existing designs will be used, with only limited changes for comparison ease. There are 4 task forces: accelerator physics and technology; cost and schedule; civil construction and siting; availability (up-time). A risk assessment will be carried out by a team formed of some members of these 4 task forces. If possible the study results might be modified to conform to the international scope and parameters document should there be significant differences.

　　　　　 Dorfan emphasized that the USLCSC study is not a bottoms-up machine costing, but a difference costing. Two sites (California and Fermilab) will be studied, and both options will have twin tunnels.

　　　　　 In the discussion that followed, some ILCSC members said that they would have preferred that the cost comparison be international rather than carried out by the USLCSC, and that they hope the USLCSC work can later be incorporated into that of the ILCSC Accelerator Subcommittee, and using parameters from the ILCSC Parameters Subcommittee.

　　　　　 The transparencies shown by Dorfan are in Appendix XII.

8.　　　　 ELCSG Report on Organisational Matters

　　　　　 The ECFA Subgroup on Organisational Matters report was discussed by G. Kalmus, who commented that the study was carried out independent of the final linear collider site location. Kalmus discussed the over 20 recommendations of this detailed study, which is given in Appendix V; his transparencies are in Appendix VI.

　　　　　 ILCSC members complimented Kalmus on the breadth and detail of the study. Discussion centered on how to organize the Pre-Global Linear Collider Center (Pre-GLCC), with the need for some funding from agencies prior to an international agreement for the lab, and perhaps with no site yet chosen. It was felt that an international agreement cannot be a pre-requisite for the design effort, but this will need understanding by the funding agencies.

9.　　　　 Pre-Global Linear Collider Center

　　　　　 Reports were given by the three regions.

　　　　　 J. Dorfan said there should be a Central Management Group (20-30 people) in progress at the time of the technology decision at ~ the end of 2004. There should be a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) and a Technical Design Report (TDR), the latter in 2007. He noted that the ITER TDR was valuable in the US government's decision to rejoin that project. The work will be carried out in the three regions according to the central plan. It is hoped that during the first phase, a host will come forward, so that the TDR will be site-specific.

　　　　　 W. Namkung said that as noted in the ALCSC discussion paper (Appendix I), a (Pre-GLCC) group should be formed by the leading labs before governments get involved and before the legal establishment of the GLCC.

　　　　　 A. Wagner said a Pre-GLCC should be set up before the technology choice. There should be 3 regional core design groups (each including representation from the other two regions), coordinated by an ILCSC design group; this latter group would report to the ILCSC. As envisaged by Europe, the GLC Design Group has less authority than in the US proposal; it will oversee, but not micromanage the project. The regional working groups will have an equal-partner status in the project, similar to a large particle physics experiment.

　　　　　 In the discussion, it was noted that there were differences in the three proposals, but enough similarities that they can be expected to converge. There will be significant costs during the preliminary phase (~ $100M/year?), which needs the agreement of the funding agencies, and deliverables must be defined. The Pre-GLCC will demonstrate to governments that the international scientific organization can work well.

　　　　　 It was agreed to set up a task force to clarify the activities of the Pre-GLCC. Members would be the three Chairs of the regional steering committees (J. Dorfan, B. Foster, W. Namkung) with A. Wagner, Y. Totsuka and a Chair. One suggestion for a possible Chair was S. Ozaki. The task force, for which M. Tigner will produce a charge, should report at the November 2003 ILCSC meeting. [Note added in proof: First meeting of the TF was held Sept. 11 under the chairmanship of S. Ozaki.]

10.　　　 Wise Persons Committee

　　　　　 There was extensive discussion over the original ILCSC proposal that each region suggest 4 names out of which 3 would be chosen by the ILCSC, to make up a 9-person committee. The final outcome was that each region would suggest 4 names, and all would be put on the Wise Persons Committee; the ILCSC will choose the Chair from among the 12 members. Of the four members suggested by each region, one should be a particle theorist, and the other three not defined between particle physicists, accelerator physicists not associated with a linear collider technology, and people outside the field.

　　　　　 It is expected that names of committee members will be forwarded by the regions in September 2003, and the committee will be announced after the November 2003 ILCSC meeting and vetting by ICFA.

11.　　　 Milestones for the ILCSC

　　　　　 M. Tigner will e-mail a list of milestones to members.

　　　　　 The Wise Persons Committee report should be available before the end of 2004, if possible. Before that, the committee has to be set up, and ICFA has to agree; the ILCSC will have to study the report when produced, and ICFA will have to approve it. J. Dorfan noted that ICFA approvals can be obtained by e-mail, rather than waiting for the next ICFA meeting. The appointment of the Wise Persons and their Chair will be by letters from the ICFA Chair, and their first meeting should be in January 2004.

12.　　　 Funding Agencies Meeting

　　　　　 L. Maiani reported on the 30 July 2003 meeting in London. There is a 2-page statement under preparation to be issued about the meeting, which was attended by representatives of Canada, CERN, France, Germany, Italy, UK and US. The next meeting, possibly also in London, is set for February/March 2004, and it is hoped that representatives of China and Japan will also attend. No decisions were taken at the July 2003 meeting, and it is felt that the group is still in the formation stage. [Note added in proof: The ‘public’ report of this meeting has been mailed to ICFA members and Panel Chairs and is available at

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~hll/USLCSG/Misc/LC_international_report_july_03.doc

13.　　　 Next ILCSC Meeting

　　　　　 It was tentatively agreed that the next ILCSC meeting will be in Paris on Wednesday 19 November 2003.