Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5...

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

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

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


"... 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."

•  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


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


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


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

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."


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

Initial Baseline Selection (IBS) Prior to P5


•  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

Initial Baseline Selection (IBS) Post-P5


•  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:

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

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



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

Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5...

Documents

Transcript of Initial Baseline Selection Process · Initial Baseline Selection Process in view of recent P5...