Fermilab
Long Range Planning Committee
Linear Collider Subcommittee Work Plan
(Draft 5/1/03)
Membership
J. Butler
M. Carena
S. Holmes
R. Kephart
Y-K. Kim
S. Nagaitsev
R. Patterson
Goals
1. Understand the ramifications of successfully competing to bring the linear collider to northern Illinois and make recommendations on the steps that should be taken to assure the strongest possible Fermilab presentation within the U.S. “bid to host”.
2. Understand Fermilab’s role in gaining approval for an internationally based linear collider. Outline the options for Fermilab involvement in construction and operations, both in the case of a linear collider sited in northern Illinois and one sited elsewhere, and make recommendations on the scope of activities and level of laboratory effort that should be devoted to these activities.
Scope of Work
Physics
Review the physics opportunities defined within the Physics Subcommitee and outline a “physics strategy” based on illumination of areas of opportunity beyond the reach of the LHC. (Do this without ever using the word “complementary”).
Accelerator
Outline a program that establishes Fermilab as the leading contender for siting a linear collider, including accelerator R&D, siting studies, and outreach. Explore options for Fermilab’s role in the construction of a linear collider in the scenarios in which it is constructed in northern Illinois or elsewhere. Recommend the scope of activities and desirable level of Fermilab resource allocation in both scenarios.
Organization, Outreach, and Governance
Define the essential elements of the Fermilab component of a U.S. “bid to host”.
Comment and/or make recommendations on how Fermilab’s internal organization might be restructured to optimize the prospects for landing a linear collider and/or for playing a leading role in its construction elsewhere.
Discuss approaches for stronger coupling of the Fermilab scientific staff to the linear collider effort.
Discuss an approach for external outreach associated with establishing a linear collider in Northern Illinois. Identify relevant constituencies and recommend an approach to each.
Understand the implications of Fermilab existing as an international laboratory.
Provide a model for the level of Fermilab effort will be required to support a bid to host and subsequent construction of a linear collider in northern Illinois.
Provide a model for the level of Fermilab effort will be required to support construction of a linear collider elsewhere.
Detector
Define Fermilab interests in participation in detector R&D, construction, and operations, based on particular areas of interest in the physics program and/or areas of expertise. Make recommendations on the level of effort devoted to this task as a function of time, including after the scenario 1 vs. 2 (here vs. there) branch point and establishing appropriate balance with the accelerator R&D effort.
Work Process/Plan
I envision a series of discussions/semi-public meetings to gather/disseminate information and have initial discussion on issues. The structure is aimed at allowing us to get at the scope of work defined above. I would imagine that each discussion is assigned to a specific committee member for coordination and that this committee member will hold responsibility for providing verbiage in this area for our report. These discussions will, of necessity, be augmented by persons not on the committee. I would like also to have some opportunity for broader (Fermilab and user) community input, perhaps via one or two mid-course public presentations.
The current discussion list, with lead persons, is as follows:
Discussion
|
Scope
|
Leader(s)
|
Invites
|
|
Background |
Review
of activities under auspices of USLCSG, ILCSC, etc. |
Holmes |
J.
Dorfan, M. Tigner |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accelerator R&D and Siting Studies |
Review of current R&D efforts and discussion of where this needs to go. Discussion of Fermilab role in the construction and operations phases. |
Nagaitsev, Kephart |
D. Finley, V. Kuchler |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outreach
and Local Alliances |
Discussion
of both community and governmental outreach activities and strategies.
Alliances with NICADD, ICAR, ANL, other MWUs in R&D and bid preparation |
Holmes,
Carena |
J.
Jackson: J. Blazey, C. White, K. Kim, A. Kronfeld, S. Tkaczyk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Physics |
Discussion
of physics strategies and opportunities beyond “LHC Complementarity” |
Carena |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Detector |
Review
of current R&D efforts and discussion of where this needs to go.
Discussion of Fermilab role in contruction/operations phases. |
Butler,
Paterson |
M.
Oreglia, J. Brau |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bid
to Host |
Discussion
of essential elements and timeline
for preparation. |
TBD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Organization
& Resources |
Discussion
of Fermilab internal organization and
resource estimates for above activities as well as for the construction and
operations phases. |
TBD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
International
Lab |
Discussion
of how Fermilab would exist as host to an international project/facility |
Kim,
Butler |
M.
Tigner |
Following this series of discussions I imagine a series of more focused discussions within the subcommittee to come to closure on our report and any associated recommendations we would suggest to the full committee.
Report
Haven’t figured out what this should look like yet.
Schedule
Date
|
Discussion
|
Leader(s)
|
|
5/22 |
Background |
Holmes |
|
|
|
|
|
wo/ 5/27 |
Accelerator R&D and Siting Studies |
Nagaitsev, Kephart |
|
|
|
|
|
wo/
6/23 |
Outreach
and Local Alliances |
Holmes,
Carena |
|
|
|
|
|
wo/
6/2 |
Physics |
Carena |
|
|
|
|
|
wo/
7/7 |
Detector |
Butler,
Paterson |
|
|
|
|
|
wo/
7/14 |
Bid
to Host |
TBD |
|
|
|
|
|
wo/
7/28 |
Organization
& Resources |
TBD |
|
|
|
|
|
wo/
8/4 |
International
Lab |
Kim,
Butler |
|
|
|
|
|
wo/
8/25 |
Discussion
of Report content and recommendations |
|
|
wo/
9/2 |
First
Draft of Report content and recommendations |
|
|
wo/
9/9 |
Finalize
Report content and recommendations |
|