Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5...
Transcript of Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5...
![Page 1: Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5 recommendations regarding MAP Robert D. Ryne Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Presented](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062414/5f05dbd67e708231d4151133/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5 recommendations regarding MAP
Robert D. Ryne Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Presented at the MAP 2014 Spring Meeting May 27, 2014
![Page 2: Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5 recommendations regarding MAP Robert D. Ryne Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Presented](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062414/5f05dbd67e708231d4151133/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2011 IDS-NF Interim Design Report
May 27, 2014 R.D. Ryne | MAP Spring Meeting 2
Historical context: After ~30 years we are on the verge of having initial designs of all key accelerator systems for muon-based neutrino
factories and colliders @ Fermilab
1990 1980 2000 2010
Snowmass'96
2011: US muon R&D consolidated into a single entity, MAP
Snowmass 2013: Enabling Intensity & Energy Frontier Science w/ a Muon Acc. Facility in the U.S.
1982: Skrinsky & Parkhomchuk: Ionization cooling
2006: MCTF @ FNAL
Snowmass 2001: The Program in Muon and Neutrino Physics: Super Beams, Cold Muon Beams, Neutrino Factory and the Muon Collider
CERN studies 1999
Large muon collider (\-s=5TeV)
Fast accelerator 2 in LHC tunnel (2.5 TeV)
Fast accelerator 1 in SPS tunnel (400 GeV)
jHggsfactory (vs = 100GeV)v factory —> Gran Sasso
Fig. 1: Possible layout of a muon complex on the CERN site.
2001: US NuFac Design Study 1
2002: US NuFac Design Study 2
2001: Japanese NuFac Design Study 1
D2
SM3
C1
C2
M1
M2
SM2
D1 D2
D3
\≠
ND1
ND2
у\]㎜
SM1
C3
NM1
M3KD2
KSM1
KD1
KM1
KM2
KC1
NC1
B2
3BTM1 3BTD13BTD2
3BTC2
100m
3BTC1
FFAG-I 0.3-1GeV/c
1-3GeV/c
FFAG-3 3-10GeV/c
FFAG-4 10-20GeV/c
MSR 20GeV/c
FFAG based neutrino factory
FFAG-2
Figure 1.1: Schematic layout of a FFAG-based neutrino factory at the Tokaicampus
Possible staging approach towards fill-size neutrino factories that we con-sider is the following.
• Phase I: 1.0!1020 muon decays/year at the one straight section. Theinitial beam power of the 50-GeV PS is 1 MW. The muon energy inthe muon storage ring is 20 MeV.
• Phase II: 4.4!1020 muon decays/year at the one straight section. Thebeam power of the 50-GeV PS is upgraded to 4.4 MW by installingmore rf cavities in the 50-GeV PS ring. The muon energy in the muonstorage ring is from 20-50 GeV.
It is shown in Fig.1.3.The staging approach at the R&D period leads some specialized approach,
which is shown in Fig.1.2. Since we are considering the scheme of FFAG-based acceleration, it is conceivable to start with a small-size FFAG at up-stream, and add downstream FFAG’s in the later stage.
1.4.2 PRISM
In particular, at a very early stage, we consider to have a very small FFAGring for stopped muon experiments, where searches for muon lepton flavor
16
1997: Muon Collider Collab formed. Later becomes NFMCC
2007: IDS-NF initiated
2005- 2006: ISS
1980: A muon storage ring for neutrino oscillation experiments (Cline & Neuffer)
5Using The Fermilab Antiproton Debuncher as a Muon Storage RingCline & Neuffer, AIP Conf. Proc. 68, 846 (1980)
80 GeV Protons (1.8 x 1013 / pulse)(now 120 GeV from Main Injector)
8.9 GeV/c (�2%) negativelycharged particlesstored in the 505 mcircumference Debuncher Ring[A(x) = A(y) =25S mm-mrad]
Estimated 1010 muons/pulse from S�� PQ decay) within thering.
� ��� 108 Q per pulse down-stream of one straight section.
One pulse every 10 secs� ��� 1014 Q per year
We now know that for long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments, this beamintensity is too low by about five orders of magnitude !
Pion lifetime = 1 turn
1997: Workshop on physics at 1st muon collider and FE of a muon collider
1991 (Napa,CA): First workshop on muon colliders
1986 (Madison WI): AAC Symposium: Multi-TeV Muon Colliders (Neuffer)
1994 (Sausalito,CA): 2nd workshop on muon colliders: A Practical HE-HL mu-mu collider (Palmer/Neuffer/Gallardo)
1979: Colliding muon beams at 90 GeV (Neuffer)
P5 recommends MAP reassessment
I A u+ u- COLLIDER SYSTEM '1
Figure 1: Overview of the $-p' collider system, showing a muon (p) source based on a high-intensity rapid-cycling proton synchrotron, with the protons producing pions (n's) in a target, and the p's are collected from subsequent x decay. The source is followed by a p-cooling system, and an accelerating system of recirculating linac(s1 and/or rapid-cycling synchrotron(s), feeding u+ and p' bunches into a superconducting storage-ring collider for multiturn high-energy collisions. The entire process cycles at 10 Hz.
217 81 2
I'
81 2
I'
MASS, IBS, R&D demonstrations
![Page 3: Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5 recommendations regarding MAP Robert D. Ryne Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Presented](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062414/5f05dbd67e708231d4151133/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
What does the P5 report mean for MAP and for the IBS?
• As has already been mentioned this morning, MAP as we know it will change at the close of 2014
• Some activities will continue under GARD • Exact details remain to be worked out
– we anticipate that design activities related to Neutrino Factories will be incorporated into an "Accelerator Concepts" GARD program
– we anticipate that design activities for a collider will receive reduced priority
May 27, 2014 R.D. Ryne | MAP Spring Meeting 3
"... reassess the Muon Accelerator Program (MAP), incorporating into the general accelerator R&D program those activities that are of broad importance to accelerator R&D, and consult with international partners on the early termination of MICE. In addition, in the general accelerator R&D program, focus on outcomes and capabilities that will dramatically improve cost effectiveness for mid- and far-term accelerators."
![Page 4: Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5 recommendations regarding MAP Robert D. Ryne Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Presented](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062414/5f05dbd67e708231d4151133/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
• These changes have nothing to do with MAP technical progress, which is viewed as highly successful
• The changes reflect the near- and mid-term priorities set forth by P5 and accepted by HEPAP. – These priorities push the need for muon-based
accelerators further into the future
May 27, 2014 R.D. Ryne | MAP Spring Meeting 4
![Page 5: Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5 recommendations regarding MAP Robert D. Ryne Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Presented](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062414/5f05dbd67e708231d4151133/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Muon accelerators in the broader context
• As is clear from the P5 report and the Q&A following the P5 presentation, muon accelerators are viewed alongside ILC and future circular colliders as facilities of the late- mid-term and the far-term
• Each of these has pros & cons • The sheer size of ILC and FCC makes them very expensive
– recall the P5 recommendation to focus on R&D that will "dramatically improve cost effectiveness for mid- and far-term accelerators"
• ILC is not favorable power-wise for scaling much beyond 1 TeV • Muon accelerators have major technological challenges,
particularly with regard to cooling, hence feasibility as a collider is an open question
May 27, 2014 R.D. Ryne | MAP Spring Meeting 5
![Page 6: Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5 recommendations regarding MAP Robert D. Ryne Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Presented](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062414/5f05dbd67e708231d4151133/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Muons in context, cont. • Summary:
– ILC: big, O( $10 billion), limited energy-frontier capability, no impact to US domestic facilities
– FCC: big, $30-40 billion, energy frontier, no impact to US domestic facilities
– muon: small, potentially least expensive due to reduced size, impacts domestic intensity- and energy-frontier facilities, big technology challenges, feasibility not demonstrated
May 27, 2014 R.D. Ryne | MAP Spring Meeting 6
Our policy makers have strong incentive to continue muon R&D due to potential impact to domestic HEP research and potential
cost reduction of future facilities
![Page 7: Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5 recommendations regarding MAP Robert D. Ryne Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Presented](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062414/5f05dbd67e708231d4151133/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
DOE/OHEP is not giving up on muon accelerators
• P5 recommended continuing some muon R&D under GARD • Ending all muon R&D is counter to the P5 report
– "maintain a stream of science results while investing in future capabilities, which implies a balance of project sizes; maintain and develop critical technical and scientific expertise and infrastructure to enable future discoveries."
– "in the general accelerator R&D program, focus on outcomes and capabilities that will dramatically improve cost effectiveness for mid- and far-term accelerators."
– "Our society’s capacity to grow is limited only by our collective imagination and resolve to make long-term investments that can lead to fundamental, game-changing discoveries, even in the context of constrained budgets."
May 27, 2014 R.D. Ryne | MAP Spring Meeting 7
Muon accelerators, if feasible, would be a game-changing technology
• OHEP is directing us to reduce and refocus our muon activities to the medium-term
![Page 8: Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5 recommendations regarding MAP Robert D. Ryne Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Presented](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062414/5f05dbd67e708231d4151133/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Initial Baseline Selection (IBS) Prior to P5
May 27, 2014 R.D. Ryne | MAP Spring Meeting 8
• A site-specific set of designs for staged facilities at Fermilab – nuSTORM, NUMAX, Higgs Factory, Multi-TeV colliders
• Designs based on available knowledge at the time – Choose our initial baselines, then study in more detail and
optimize in MAP FP-II • Designs have evolved due to opportunities identified
by MASS – better staging, reduced cost
![Page 9: Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5 recommendations regarding MAP Robert D. Ryne Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Presented](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062414/5f05dbd67e708231d4151133/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Initial Baseline Selection (IBS) Post-P5
May 27, 2014 R.D. Ryne | MAP Spring Meeting 9
• Target is medium-term neutrino facilities – long-term (collider) design will be phased out
• More focused • Still includes muon cooling
– but since muon collider design will have reduced priority, some cooling subsystems will not be considered
Key differences compared with present IBS:
![Page 10: Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5 recommendations regarding MAP Robert D. Ryne Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Presented](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062414/5f05dbd67e708231d4151133/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
May 27, 2014 R.D. Ryne | MAP Spring Meeting
The IBS process has had a huge impact on moving us from "exploring concepts" to "selecting initial baselines"
• We will retain the key elements: – Concept specification – Lattice files & performance evaluation – Lattice file sign-off – Global optimization (where appropriate) – Interface parameters – Technology specification – Technology sign-off – Final review (+ initial review in some cases)
10 10
![Page 11: Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5 recommendations regarding MAP Robert D. Ryne Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Presented](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062414/5f05dbd67e708231d4151133/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Refocused effort under GARD will have reduced scope and budget
• Proton Driver: No requirement for multiple beams on target
• Front End: No requirement for 4 MW upgrade • Cooling: Focus on Initial Cooling and (what was
formerly called pre-merge) 6D cooling • Acceleration: only up to NuMAX energy • NF Decay Rings: intact • Collider Ring: reduce design activity and document • Collider MDI: reduce design activity and document
– but some energy deposition studies will remain • Front End; Muon acceleration for NuMAX
May 27, 2014 R.D. Ryne | MAP Spring Meeting 11
![Page 12: Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5 recommendations regarding MAP Robert D. Ryne Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Presented](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062414/5f05dbd67e708231d4151133/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
May 27, 2014 R.D. Ryne | MAP Spring Meeting 12
Summary
• As Mark has stated earlier this morning: – prepare for DOE review of MAP in early July – prepare a transition plan under which certain MAP activities
will be carried out under GARD
• IBS process will transition into an "Accelerator Concepts" GARD effort starting in FY15 – this MAP meeting is an opportunity to begin planning this
transition, identify & prioritize design activities to be transferred to GARD