# Presentation: 544932

##  Status of Fermilab

** ****DOE Program Review  5/17/06**
**Pier Oddone**

## Outline

- Great Crop of Results from the Tevatron and neutrino programs
- Moving forcefully on ILC R&D
- Planning of future neutrino program
- Smaller projects strategy
- Fermilab, EPP2010 and P5

## Tevatron Performance

## Mtop = 2.3 GeV
x2 better than the Run I result
much better than expected - new ideas!
Another x2 improvement by the end of Run II

- Mtop = 2.3 GeV
- x2 better than the Run I result
- much better than expected - new ideas!
- Another x2 improvement by the end of Run II

- Top Quark Mass Measurements

**Notes:**
* Current world average = 2.3 GeV (CDF 0.7 fb-1)
* Run II Projections made in 1994 -- ~3 GeV with 2 fb-1
* Better than the projections due to new ideas implemented in the analysis

## Sensitivity to low mass Higgs, or
Severely constrain mass

- Severely constrain mass

- Closing in on the the SM Higgs

## Bs Flavor Oscillation

- World average ms < 14.4 ps-1 (Summer 2005)

## Windows to New Physics?!

| Channel | CDF
(0.8 fb-1) | DØ
(0.3 fb-1) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Bd   | 3.0 x 10-8 |  |
| Bs   | 1.0 x 10-7 | 3.7 x 10-7 |
| Bs   |  | 4.1 x 10-6 |

- Hep-ph/0604121

- 95% CL Branching Ratio Limits

- Many SUSY models predict
- significant flavor-changing effects
- in rare decays of Bs mesons
- and
- in oscillation of Bs mesons

## Other Results since September 2005

- DØ Preliminary: 1 fb-1

**Many of these are world’s best or first measurements!**

## Present Neutrino Program: MINOS

- Minos Far detector: 5.4 kton

- Minos near detector: 1 kton

## Producing the neutrino beam

- Moveable target relative to horn 1 – continuously variable neutrino spectrum

## Best-fit spectrum

- Measurement errors are 1 sigma, 1 d.o.f.

## The results of the four different extrapolation methods are in excellent agreement with each other.

- Allowed regions

## Projected sensitivity of MINOS

********** ****disappearance****                               ****************e**

- With increased statistics, we should be able to make a very precise measurement of m223 and also search for sub-dominant e oscillations well-below the current exclusion limit
- In addition, by making a precise measurement of the CC spectrum, we should be able to test/rule out alternate models such as neutrino decay.

## Present Neutrino Program

- MiniBooNE
- 	- 1 GeV neutrinos
- 	   (Booster)
- 	- 800 ton oil cerenkov
- 	- Operating since 2003
- 	- e appearance
- 	- Much progress in
-              understanding
-              experimental issues

## Making LHC successful

**Notes:**

Designed to discover the Higgs Boson, 
      and to look for Dark Matter Particles

Diameter is 4 miles

## LHC: delivering on the promise

- Huge increase in physics reach: 7 times the energy, 100 times the luminosity of the Tevatron
- With increase in energy and luminosity come special challenges (e.g., 300 Megajoules of stored energy in the beam!)
- Fermilab: principal US support for the commissioning

## CMS: Compact Muon Detector

- Coming together: aimed at completion by end of 2007

- Muon detectors

- Magnet cold mass

## CMS: Compact Muon Detector

- US collaboration doubled in the last three years

**>400 **
**Collaborators**

**44 **
**Institutions**

## US CMS: and Fermilab’s role

- Only major US lab associated with CMS: a central support role for the US community in construction, commissioning and physics
- Attention now to huge data and physics discovery challenge: the LHC Physics Center (LPC)

## Remote operation center

- In support of accelerator operations and CMS operations, we are creating remote operation center.  Shared for CMS and accelerator
- Aim: as good as being there for US institutions!

## ILC Strategy

- Deliver on the present program: more than
-     $3B in the next four years (a must).
- Make the LHC a success (a must).
- Make early decision with the agency that ILC path will be supported (RDR).
- Be ready by the end of the decade with site specific design/cost/international arrangements, completed component R&D, industrialization plans.

**Covered**
**Above**

## Third element: Support for RDR

- Secretary Bodman: How much .......?
- The RDR is now key element: it determines whether DOE leadership states intent to bid-to-host and makes necessary investment.

##  Fermilab’s Role in the RDR 

- GDE goal = complete the Reference Design Report (RDR) and a cost estimate by the end 2006  established RDR organization
- Design & Cost Board (coordinates machine design)
- Responsible for producing the RDR and the cost estimate
- 9 members ( 3/region) + Chairman
- P Garbincius ( FNAL) = chair, R. Kephart (FNAL) member
- Change Control Board (ILC baseline configuration control)
- 9 member board (3/region), N Toge = Chairman
- S. Mishra (FNAL) is one of 3 U.S. Members

## Fermilab’s Role in the RDR

- ILC Machine “Area” Leaders (typically 3 Ldrs  1/region)
- Civil and Site:                  Vic Kuchler (FNAL)  = Americas Ldr
- Main Linac Design:         N. Solyak (FNAL)      = 1 of 2 Americas Ldrs
- Cryomodule:                    H. Carter (FNAL)       = Americas Ldr
- Cryogenics system:        T. Peterson (FNAL)   = Americas Ldr
- Magnet systems:             J. Tompkins (FNAL)  = Americas Ldr
- Communications:            E. Clements (FNAL)  = Americas Ldr
- FNAL is playing a major role in the GDE & ILC machine design

## What do we want with the RDR?

- Cost will not be precise: no known time scale, no real engineering design, no detailed site design; R&D not finished; no industrialization; done outside DOE costing rules ......
- So what good is it?
- Hopefully it allows the DOE to decide we really want to do this and to make the large investment necessary in the next few years to do real design and industrialization.
- We hope it will allow DOE to initiate international discussions on process for a bid-to-host

## Fourth element: ready for decision by the end of the decade

- After the RDR, will need site specific designs
- How many? 0,1,2,3....  All regions will contribute to generic elements of the design but individual regions to their site-specific designs
- Decision at the end of the decade will be based on success of R&D, full site specific design, credible cost estimate.
- No engineering test facility (2-3% of ILC) will be possible outside the project – if we want an early start of the ILC

## Getting ready for decision

- Fermilab ILC R&D activities:
- ILC Machine Design
- Development of SCRF technology & infrastructure
- Conventional Facility & Site Studies for a US ILC site
- Industrialization & Cost Reduction
- ILC Physics, Detector Design, and Detector R&D
- Support activities of and build partnerships with laboratories and universities
- Support GDE and transition to follow-on organization

## ILC Machine Design 

- Fermilab has focused its R&D efforts on the ILC Main Linacs. Broad collaboration.
- Main Linac activities:
- Accelerator physics design
- Demonstrate feasibility of all Main Linac technical components
- Engineering design of ML technical systems
- Estimates of the ML cost & methods for cost reduction
- U.S. Industrialization of high volume ML components

## ILC 1.3 GHz Cavities @ FNAL

- Industrial fabrication of cavities, some in U.S. Industry
- Two Single/large Crystal cavities under development with TJNL
- BCP and vertical testing at Cornell (25 MV/m)
- EP and vertical testing at TJNL. ( 35 MV/m)
- Joint BCP/EP facility being developed ANL  (2007)
- High Power Horizontal test facilities @ FNAL (2006)
- Vertical test facility @ FNAL (2007)

**4 cavities received from ACCEL**
**4 cavities on order at AES**
**2 cavities on order at TJNL**
**4 cavities expected from KEK**

**Bead pull RF **
**Testing @ FNAL**

## Civil and Site Development

- "The U.S. Department of Energy has expressed its interest in the possibility of hosting a linear collider, at Fermilab, subject to the machine being affordable and scientifically validated by physics discoveries at the LHC.“

- Our goal is to determine the best possible host site for a prospective ILC bid in northern Illinois
- With the GDE we are developing the ILC Civil Design
- Tunnel Design
- Geological and environmental studies

## Neutrino Strategy

- Understanding the Neutrino matrix:
- What is *sin**2**2*****
- What is the Mass Hierarchy
- What is the CP violation parameter 
- Fermilab is in the best position to make vital contributions to answer these questions with complementary program to T2K facility in Japan

## Neutrino Strategy

- Address Tritium issues
- Upgrade existing complex to reach 1 MW beam power (2010 shutdown)
- Build NOvA to
- Have strongest reach into sin2213
- Sensitivity to the Mass Hierarchy (not possible in T2K)
- Some sensitivity to CP
- Together with other regions, plan roadmap for long term future of neutrino program if further reach is needed beyond NOvA +T2K
- For the long term, carry out R&D on future high intensity proton sources.

## Tritium

- Detectable (>1 pCi/ml) levels of tritium observed last November in the Indian Creek discharge
- Measured 3.3 pCi/ml (site boundary)
- DOE regulatory limit for surface water is 2000 pCi/ml
- (20 pCi/ml for drinking water)
- Currently:
- Indian Creek below detectable
- Onsite surface waters at 2-3 pCi/ml
- Updated Indian Creek levels publicly available at
- www.fnal.gov/pub/about/community/chart.html

## Tritium

- Primary source is NuMI
- Currently (during beam operations) pumping roughly 175 gpm @ 13 pCi/ml
- Note: The pumping of HTO to the surface is per design to protect the aquifer
- Levels exceed expectations, but well below regulatory limits
- Modeling prediction is ~0.8 pCi/ml due to activation in the rock surrounding the enclosure
- How is it being produced?
- Primary mechanism appears to be formation of HTO in the target chase atmosphere, followed by condensation and/or absorption into enclosure walls.
- Measured concentration in target chase humidity is 70,000 pCi/ml

## Tritium

- Remediations
- Repair of pipe connecting Ponds C-D (immediate source of November discharge)
- Collecting condensate from target chase chiller (2 gph @ 70,000 pCi/ml)
- Re-routing of Booster sump discharges
- Installing target hall dehumidification
- Modeling
- An extensive set of measurements of concentrations, flows, and neutron fluxes has been, and to continue to be, made.
- Comparison with models is still not finished, but indicates direct activation in the rock is _not_ the favored explanation
- Have engaged help from the LBL Earth Sciences Department
- Model of water movement on Fermilab site under development

## Tritium

- Plan under development by the Water Quality Task Force Strategy:
- Reduce source term as much as possible
- Utilize evaporation to the atmosphere (CUB) to the extent possible
- Manage water on the site to maximize dilution and minimize off-site creek discharges
- Prospects
- We have been extremely careful not to promise either the public or the regulatory agencies that there will never be measurable tritium in the creek discharges. We have said we will always be below regulatory limits.
- Reasonable goals as we understand now would be:
- Creek discharges (on average): pCi/ml < 2.5 x P (MW)
- Ground water: < 1 pCi/ml for all power levels away from tunnel

## Construction of NOA 

- Construction of NOA

**“****Totally Active”**
**30 kT: **
**   ****24 kT liquid scintillator **
**   ****6 kT PVC**
**32 cells/extrusion**
**12 extrusions/plane**
**1984 planes **
**Cell dimensions:**
**   ****3.9 cm x 6 cm x 15.7m**
**   ****(0.15 X****0**** thickness)**
**Extrusion walls:**
**   ****3 mm outer**
**   ****2 mm inner**
**U-shaped 0.8 mm WLS **
**fiber into APD**

**132 m**

**15.7m**

**15.7m**

**32-plane**
**block**

**Admirer**

## The NOvA Program

- Furthest reach into sin2213 (important if parameter turns out to be very small)
- Only experiment with any reach into the mass hierarchy if the angle is not small
- Some limited reach into CP violation
- Complementary to T2K – much longer base line (matter effects), different technology, easily extendable because it is close to the surface
- Nothing better until 2020!

## Proton Development Plan

- Run II era (“Proton Plan”; in process)
- 5.4x1013 ppp @ 120 GeV @ 2.2 sec
**1.0x10****13**** to antiproton target; 4.4x10****13**** to NuMI target (380 kW)**
- Post Run II: Utilization of the Recycler for proton accumulation
- 5.4x1013 ppp @ 120 GeV @ 1.5 sec
**No antiproton target;  5.4x10****13**** to NuMI target (700 kW);**
- Post Run II: Utilization of the Accumulator for momentum stacking
- 7.2x1013 ppp @ 120 GeV @ 1.3 sec
**7.2x10****14**** to NuMI target (1000 kW)**

**Goal: 1 MW beam power onto the neutrino production target, utilizing accelerator assets available after Run II.**

## R&D on neutrino source

- R&D on SCRF Proton Source: 2MW any energy
- R&D helps develop base of SC RF technology
- Extremely flexible operations = much simplified complex
- Accelerator energy is 2% of ILC
- Allows evolution of the program under various scenarios: neutrinos, cool muon based facilities

## Accelerator  Programs 

*2005*

*2010*

*2015*

**detectors**

**accelerators**

*Minos run*

*MiniBoone run*

*NOvA R&D and Construction*

*NOvA run*

*Detector  construction             *

*International Planning for Long Term Neutrino Program*

*Proton plan first stage*
*0.2 MW moving to 0.4 MW*

*Proton plan 2**nd** stage*
*(If no proton driver)*

*1 MW at 120 GeV*
*Depending  on investment*

**ILC RDR**

- ILC RDR

-      ILC TDR

- Decision

-             Construction

- Test Facility/injector

## Accelerator  Programs 

*2005*

*2010*

*2015*

**detectors**

**accelerators**

*Minos run*

*MiniBoone run*

*NOvA R&D and Construction*

*NOvA run*

*NOvA II run*

*NOvA II R&D and construction*

*Proton plan first stage*
*0.2 MW moving to 0.4 MW*

*Proton plan 2**nd** stage*

*2 MW at 30-120 GeV*
*Depending  on investment*

**ILC RDR**

- ILC RDR

-      $$ too large

- Test Facility

- /Proton Source?

- Construction

- Decision

## Smaller Projects Strategy

- Keep vitality of the field and yield physics in the medium term
- Fermilab is currently supporting:
- Pierre Auger
- Sloan Digital Sky Survey
- Dark Energy Survey (P5 will hear directly)
- CDMS (P5 will hear directly)
- Minerva
- Generally these projects compete nationally for construction/operation dollars

## Interlinked Roadmap

- The immediate major decisions are: NOvA, and level of support of ILC R&D.
- Options get looked a year down the line after ILC RDR
- LHC input will determine branch points at the end of the decade
- Smaller projects provide near-term physics

## Fermilab and EPP2010

- Very important report: very supportive of the field, the ILC and central role for Fermilab (with or without accelerators!!)
- Priorities:
- LHC
- ILC
- Particle Astrophysics
- Neutrino program in international context
- Quark flavour physics
- The main problem for us is in connection with the neutrino program

## Neutrinos and EPP2010

- Carry out a “phased neutrino program....internationally”
- Nothing to negotiate now other than giving up on the domestic program...... for what?
- Decision largely up to the US since the Japanese will not consider coming here to do the neutrino program in the initial phases
- The elephant in the room is the ILC – EPP2010’s clear hope is that we can help the Japanese in exchange for their help on the ILC.  This is a fine approach, but the timing is not right.
- We believe NOvA is an important part of the internationally phased approach.  Maga-detectors realistically not until 2020.

## P5 and neutrinos

- P5 has two scenarios:
- 1) out year scenarios given by DOE to Congress:  FY07=+7%;  FY08=+1.5%;  FY09=+3.0% and 10% increases per year for the next administration
- 2) 7% increases per year (approximately 3.5% real growth)
- In the first scenario: no room to do anything except continue ILC R&D unless we shut down facilities almost immediately
- The second scenario is very tight but allows for initiatives to get started and supported to conclusion when we shut down facilities after FY08 and FY09

## Strategic context: U.S. contribution

**2005**

**2015**

**2010**

**= secondary**

**= leading**

**Neutrino**
**Frontier**

**Flavor**
**frontier**

**Energy**
**Frontier**

**Domestic accelerator program with new and redirected investment**

**X**

- First Priority

## Summary of Main Issues

- Transition Tevatron  LHC program: how to complete the Tevatron program successfully
- Neutrino program: solve tritium issue, cost of NOvA and how (and if) it fits in the US roadmap
- ILC: need to ramp up the effort – not possible with present out-year budget plans  (HEP not part of ACI as defined by OSTP) until closure of facilities