P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 1 P5 ILC Review - Americas Region Report ART ProgramART Program –FY08 status –FY09 proposal ILC Construction Project.

Slide 1P5 ReviewFermilab Feb 1

Americas

P5 ILC Review - Americas Region ReportP5 ILC Review - Americas Region Report

• ART ProgramART Program– FY08 statusFY08 status– FY09 proposalFY09 proposal

• ILC Construction Project ScenariosILC Construction Project Scenarios– Total Cost in a US Metric Total Cost in a US Metric – Timelines & Critical DecisionsTimelines & Critical Decisions– US Host, non-host scenariosUS Host, non-host scenarios– Funding profilesFunding profiles


Americas

Americas Region FY08 statusAmericas Region FY08 status

Recent omnibus spending bill capped US FY08 ILC funding at Recent omnibus spending bill capped US FY08 ILC funding at $15M. Since we were 3 months into the fiscal year with a $15M. Since we were 3 months into the fiscal year with a $60M guidance this was tantamount to a ‘cease work’ for the $60M guidance this was tantamount to a ‘cease work’ for the balance of FY08.balance of FY08.

All spending was halted ~ 1 Jan and a count of funds remaining All spending was halted ~ 1 Jan and a count of funds remaining at the labs indicated an unobligated balance of ~ $2.5M under at the labs indicated an unobligated balance of ~ $2.5M under the cap.the cap.

FY08 priorities then became:FY08 priorities then became:– GDE common fund ($400K)GDE common fund ($400K)– GDE core support (Barish, Harrison, Ross, Carwardine)GDE core support (Barish, Harrison, Ross, Carwardine)– CESR TA (electron cloud R&D)CESR TA (electron cloud R&D)– + MDI (?)+ MDI (?)– + ……..+ ……..


Americas

Americas Region - HistoryAmericas Region - History

The chart shows the time evolution of ART funding - actuals + The chart shows the time evolution of ART funding - actuals + projected. Since Aug of last year the projected FY09 funding projected. Since Aug of last year the projected FY09 funding has fallen from $95M -> $60M -> ~$30M. This tends to make has fallen from $95M -> $60M -> ~$30M. This tends to make detailed planning difficult.detailed planning difficult.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

1-Oct-06

1-Mar-07

1-Aug-07

1-Oct-07

1-Jan-08


Americas

Americas Region FY09 planningAmericas Region FY09 planning

• After discussions with OHEP it was decided to present an After discussions with OHEP it was decided to present an FY09 budget at roughly 50% of the former one.FY09 budget at roughly 50% of the former one.

• Should be ‘robust’ and thus easily defensible.Should be ‘robust’ and thus easily defensible.• Given the FY08 situation then only top down planning Given the FY08 situation then only top down planning

possible for the near term.possible for the near term.• No detailed ART multi-year program yet but it is conceptually No detailed ART multi-year program yet but it is conceptually

compatible with the new GDE plan.compatible with the new GDE plan.

Strategic goals:Strategic goals:Preserve collaborative commitment to the GDEPreserve collaborative commitment to the GDE

Provide contributions to the ILC R&D program which are unique to the USProvide contributions to the ILC R&D program which are unique to the USSupport the value engineering effort in the medium termSupport the value engineering effort in the medium termMaintain US presence in ILC SRF R&DMaintain US presence in ILC SRF R&D


Americas

ART/GDE Collaboration - Management & ART/GDE Collaboration - Management & Conceptual EngineeringConceptual Engineering

• FY09 reduction of effort ~50% i.e. scaling with program size FY09 reduction of effort ~50% i.e. scaling with program size though not linearly. Mid level management pushed back into though not linearly. Mid level management pushed back into the technical programs.the technical programs.– Preserves international and national management & engineering Preserves international and national management & engineering

roles, travel, contingency, etc..roles, travel, contingency, etc..– Management/Engineering (GDE) Barish, Harrison, Ross, Carwardine Management/Engineering (GDE) Barish, Harrison, Ross, Carwardine

+ travel etc.+ travel etc.– GDE common fund - $400KGDE common fund - $400K– Management ART/GDE (Garbincius, Kerby) + travel etc.Management ART/GDE (Garbincius, Kerby) + travel etc.– System integration - (Paterson)System integration - (Paterson)– Communications - (~ 50% of an FTE)Communications - (~ 50% of an FTE)– Contingency ~ $2MContingency ~ $2M


Americas

ART ILC Systems - FY09 ImpactART ILC Systems - FY09 Impact

• ElectronsElectrons– 20% reduction20% reduction

• PositronsPositrons– US efforts eliminatedUS efforts eliminated

• Damping RingsDamping Rings– All effort eliminated except e-cloud R&D at CESR-TA (with NSF)All effort eliminated except e-cloud R&D at CESR-TA (with NSF)

• RF systemsRF systems– All hardware deliverables eliminated (40% reduction) - preserve All hardware deliverables eliminated (40% reduction) - preserve

R&D at SLAC in HLRFR&D at SLAC in HLRF

• Beam Delivery SystemBeam Delivery System– 10% reduction10% reduction

• Accelerator physics/Global systemsAccelerator physics/Global systems– 50% reduction50% reduction

• Conventional FacilitiesConventional Facilities– No bid to host or site categorisationNo bid to host or site categorisation– Maintain value engineeringMaintain value engineering


Americas

ART ILC Systems - Cavities & CryomodulesART ILC Systems - Cavities & Cryomodules

• Reduction of ~50%Reduction of ~50%

– Maintain US presence in the GDE SRF program but no lead role. No Maintain US presence in the GDE SRF program but no lead role. No industrialization. No systems tests. The effective reduction is industrialization. No systems tests. The effective reduction is much larger due to the loss of the so-called generic infrastructure much larger due to the loss of the so-called generic infrastructure support. Here we ‘play the global’ card relying on work in Asia and support. Here we ‘play the global’ card relying on work in Asia and the EU to provide the majority of the ILC SRF technology the EU to provide the majority of the ILC SRF technology development. String test in KEK 2011 at the same time the XFEL is development. String test in KEK 2011 at the same time the XFEL is producing 1 cryomodule per week.producing 1 cryomodule per week.

– Minimal gradient program at JLAB & Cornell Minimal gradient program at JLAB & Cornell – Cryomodule prototyping at Fermilab (cryomodule engineering, Cryomodule prototyping at Fermilab (cryomodule engineering,

cryomodule parts, testing etc….. $20M over 4 yrs)cryomodule parts, testing etc….. $20M over 4 yrs)– Note: cryomodule development assumes some Fermilab Note: cryomodule development assumes some Fermilab

infrastructure (horizontal test stand, cryomodule assembly infrastructure (horizontal test stand, cryomodule assembly facilities, cryomodule test stand)facilities, cryomodule test stand)


Americas

ART Program SummaryART Program Summary

• Stop work for the balance of FY08Stop work for the balance of FY08• Reduction of ~ 50% in FY09 (with the tacit assumption of Reduction of ~ 50% in FY09 (with the tacit assumption of

constant effort for the out years)constant effort for the out years)

• Effort more focusedEffort more focused– GDE collaboration/managementGDE collaboration/management– CESR TACESR TA– Beam Delivery & MDIBeam Delivery & MDI– HLRF R&DHLRF R&D– Cryomodule developmentCryomodule development– Value engineeringValue engineering

• Pull back on SRF technology - gradient & full system string Pull back on SRF technology - gradient & full system string teststests


Americas

ILC Construction Project Scenarios - ILC Construction Project Scenarios - conversion to a US metricconversion to a US metric

Start with the Start with the RDR “Value” CostsRDR “Value” Costs

Total Value Cost (FY07)Total Value Cost (FY07)$4.80 B $FY07 Shared$4.80 B $FY07 Shared

++$1.82 B $FY07 Site Specific$1.82 B $FY07 Site Specific

++14.1 K person-years14.1 K person-years

(“explicit” labor = 24.0 M person-hrs @ (“explicit” labor = 24.0 M person-hrs @ 1,700 hrs/yr) 1,700 hrs/yr)

(Assume $100K/yr = $1.4 B)(Assume $100K/yr = $1.4 B)

CFS is ~ $2.4BCFS is ~ $2.4BDirect Labour ~ $1.4BDirect Labour ~ $1.4B

Balance ($4.22B) is what we call Balance ($4.22B) is what we call materials & services (M&S)materials & services (M&S)

US style estimates include R&D, US style estimates include R&D, contingency, escalation, design, and contingency, escalation, design, and

base salaries (SWF).base salaries (SWF).

Note ILC CFS costs were estimated in Note ILC CFS costs were estimated in the same way as we would in the US the same way as we would in the US but only for what we would term the but only for what we would term the

‘construction phase’.‘construction phase’.

Correct translation to US metric Correct translation to US metric requires a bottoms-up. In lieu of requires a bottoms-up. In lieu of

that look at ITER & RHICthat look at ITER & RHIC

Caveat - what follows is obviously not an official GDE based (or Caveat - what follows is obviously not an official GDE based (or DOE for that matters) costing or scheduling exercise. It should DOE for that matters) costing or scheduling exercise. It should be taken by P5 in the spirit in which it is offeredbe taken by P5 in the spirit in which it is offered


Americas

ILC Construction costs - Value estimate to ILC Construction costs - Value estimate to US style, example of ITERUS style, example of ITER


Americas



Americas


Total - escalation = $925M / Value $503M = Multiplier of 1.84 for value -> USTotal - escalation = $925M / Value $503M = Multiplier of 1.84 for value -> US

Note no conventional facilities & contingency only 15%. We assume 30% thus multiplier is Note no conventional facilities & contingency only 15%. We assume 30% thus multiplier is 2.122.12


Americas

ILC Construction costs - Value estimate to US ILC Construction costs - Value estimate to US style, example of RHICstyle, example of RHIC

The total RHIC machine costs were $371M in $AY -> (~ $750M in FY07 ). Note no The total RHIC machine costs were $371M in $AY -> (~ $750M in FY07 ). Note no CFS, thanks to Isabelle.CFS, thanks to Isabelle.

Break down Break down M&S 59%M&S 59%

SWF 32%SWF 32%

Direct Labour 5%Direct Labour 5%

Indirects 4%Indirects 4%

Thus a value estimate would have included 64% of the RHIC costs. Thus a value estimate would have included 64% of the RHIC costs. Hence a Hence a multiplier based on RHIC would suggest 1.56 + 30% contingency => multiplier based on RHIC would suggest 1.56 + 30% contingency => 2.032.03


Americas

ILC Construction costs - Conventional ILC Construction costs - Conventional FacilitiesFacilities

US style estimate but only for the construction costs thus we need to add US style estimate but only for the construction costs thus we need to add in the PED phase scope (Title I & II) - A/E of 10%in the PED phase scope (Title I & II) - A/E of 10%

While the estimate includes the standard construction contingency like While the estimate includes the standard construction contingency like items such as errors & omissions it is a so-called 50% estimate. DOE items such as errors & omissions it is a so-called 50% estimate. DOE

likes a 90% estimate. This adds an additional 20%likes a 90% estimate. This adds an additional 20%


Americas

ILC Construction costs - US EstimateILC Construction costs - US Estimate

So the ILC costs in a US metric (constant dollars) is given by:So the ILC costs in a US metric (constant dollars) is given by:

CFS -> 1.1 * 1.2 * ValueCFS -> 1.1 * 1.2 * Value

Accelerator Systems -> 2.07 * ValueAccelerator Systems -> 2.07 * Value

Hence total is $2.4B * 1.1 * 1.2 + $5.62B * 2.07 = Hence total is $2.4B * 1.1 * 1.2 + $5.62B * 2.07 = $14.9B$14.9B (TEC, $FY07) (TEC, $FY07)


Americas

ILC Construction costs - Strawman Project ILC Construction costs - Strawman Project timelinetimeline

The US system (413.3A) requires critical decisions:The US system (413.3A) requires critical decisions:

CD0 - Mission need - a.k.a. LHC physics results ~ 2011CD0 - Mission need - a.k.a. LHC physics results ~ 2011

CD1 - Cost Range - a.k.a. Site selection (Host or not) ~ 2013CD1 - Cost Range - a.k.a. Site selection (Host or not) ~ 2013

CD2 - Performance baseline - a.k.a. International scope agreement ~ CD2 - Performance baseline - a.k.a. International scope agreement ~ 20142014

CD3 - Construction Start - ~ 2016CD3 - Construction Start - ~ 2016

CD4 - Start of Operations - ~2023CD4 - Start of Operations - ~2023

Again the caveat that this does not represent any official GDE planning Again the caveat that this does not represent any official GDE planning scenarioscenario


Americas

ILC Construction Funding Profile - RDR ILC Construction Funding Profile - RDR 20072007

Value costs onlyValue costs only POSSIBLE SEVEN YEAR CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND COST PROFILE

SYSTEM/YEAR ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT % of TOTAL

CF&S 11 11 9 4 1 1 0 37% of total

CRYOMODULES 1 3 4 5 5 3 2 23% of total

RF SYSTEMS 0 1 3 4 2 1 11% of total

CRYO SYSTEMS 1 2 2 2 1 0 8% of total

MAGNETS & PS's 1.5 2 2 2 0.5 8% of total

CONTROLS 1 1 1 1 4% of total

INSTALLATION 1 1.5 1.5 1 5% of total

VACUUM 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2% of total

INSTRUMENTATION 0.25 0.5 0.25 1% of total

DUMPS 0.3 0.4 0.3 1% of total

OVERALL COMMISSIONING OPS FUNDING OPS Funding OPS Funding FULL OPS FUNDING

Total 12 15 17.5 18.5 17.55 12.9 6.55 100

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

% of Total Cost perYear


Americas

ILC Project - US Role & R&D phaseILC Project - US Role & R&D phase

The concept of the requirements for an ILC host has been relatively stable for the The concept of the requirements for an ILC host has been relatively stable for the past few years. The host would be expected to provide ~50% of the total cost. past few years. The host would be expected to provide ~50% of the total cost. This is made up of the site specific costs together with contributions summing to This is made up of the site specific costs together with contributions summing to 33% of the remaining value costs. The host would also be expected to donate 33% of the remaining value costs. The host would also be expected to donate any land needed by the Project. In order to construct and operate the machine any land needed by the Project. In order to construct and operate the machine successfully the host would need to have wide ranging involvement in all the successfully the host would need to have wide ranging involvement in all the various technical elements of the program; with the SRF systems prominent.various technical elements of the program; with the SRF systems prominent.

As a Non-Host then depending on the number of collaborating countries the As a Non-Host then depending on the number of collaborating countries the contribution would probably lie in the range of 10-25%. Technical involvement contribution would probably lie in the range of 10-25%. Technical involvement does not need to be across the board and targeting specific sub-systems for does not need to be across the board and targeting specific sub-systems for contributions will be necessary.contributions will be necessary.

A program at the anticipated level of FY09 lacks the resources to provide a broad-A program at the anticipated level of FY09 lacks the resources to provide a broad-based R&D program consistent with a host scenario.based R&D program consistent with a host scenario.

In defining the R&D phase I have assumed that it will cover the programmatic In defining the R&D phase I have assumed that it will cover the programmatic funding phase i.e. up to and including FY12. I assume that it starts at ~$30M in funding phase i.e. up to and including FY12. I assume that it starts at ~$30M in FY09 and ends up in FY12 at a level needed to avoid funding discontinuities FY09 and ends up in FY12 at a level needed to avoid funding discontinuities defined as a year on year increase of > factor of 2. This is evidently a highly top defined as a year on year increase of > factor of 2. This is evidently a highly top down approach.down approach.


Americas

ILC Construction costs (TEC)ILC Construction costs (TEC)

Year Funding Type CD's Funding $FY07 Funding at year Inflator Host non-Host50% 20%

FY11 Program CD0 150 172 1.148 86 34FY12 Program 250 297 1.188 148 59FY13 PED CD1 420 516 1.229 258 103FY14 PED CD2 795 1011 1.272 506 202FY15 PED 1074 1414 1.317 707 283FY16 Project CD3 1492 2033 1.363 1017 407FY17 Project 1900 2680 1.411 1340 536FY18 Project 2174 3174 1.460 1587 635FY19 Project 2300 3475 1.511 1738 695FY20 Project 2200 3441 1.564 1720 688FY21 Project 1700 2752 1.619 1376 550FY22 Project 845 1416 1.675 708 283FY23 Ops 0 1.734 0 0

Totals ($M) 14900 21913 10957 4383

Inflation 3.5%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Profile $AY

With the long lever arm we are sensitive to With the long lever arm we are sensitive to assumptions on inflation. A change of 0.5% assumptions on inflation. A change of 0.5%

= $1.2B AY= $1.2B AY

Totals do not include programmatic fundingTotals do not include programmatic funding


Americas

Near-term ART R&D ProgramNear-term ART R&D Program

Assume FY09 $30MAssume FY09 $30M

– Host scenario would suggest FY11 $86M, FY12 $148M hence FY10 Host scenario would suggest FY11 $86M, FY12 $148M hence FY10 ~$60M thus we need starting in FY08 ~$60M thus we need starting in FY08 15->30->60->86->14815->30->60->86->148. .

– Total R&D costs $339M out of ~$10B; low compared to the typical Total R&D costs $339M out of ~$10B; low compared to the typical 6-8%.6-8%.

– Non Host scenario would suggest FY11 $34M, FY12 $59 hence Non Host scenario would suggest FY11 $34M, FY12 $59 hence FY10 $32M thus we need FY10 $32M thus we need 15->30->32->34->5915->30->32->34->59. .

– Total R&D $160M out of $4B would indicate that we are still low Total R&D $160M out of $4B would indicate that we are still low compared to a 20% non-host contribution but O.K. for 10-15% one.compared to a 20% non-host contribution but O.K. for 10-15% one.


Americas

ILC Construction Project - ConclusionsILC Construction Project - Conclusions

Conclusions:Conclusions:

– on any relevant time scale we can’t get from ‘here to there’ with a on any relevant time scale we can’t get from ‘here to there’ with a $30M-ish program if ‘there’ for the US is hosting an ILC in the $30M-ish program if ‘there’ for the US is hosting an ILC in the foreseeable future.foreseeable future.

– we are (just) consistent with a non-host role (15±5%) at this we are (just) consistent with a non-host role (15±5%) at this funding level for the next couple of years. The elements of the funding level for the next couple of years. The elements of the ART program may not be the correct ones since a non-host role ART program may not be the correct ones since a non-host role will have specific technical contributions.will have specific technical contributions.

– A little stability in the funding (actuals & projected) would help to A little stability in the funding (actuals & projected) would help to get the most from the available resources.get the most from the available resources.

P5 Review Fermilab Feb 1 Americas Slide 1 P5 ILC Review - Americas Region Report ART ProgramART Program –FY08 status –FY09 proposal ILC Construction Project.

Documents

p5 review fermilab

value engineering slide

ilc srf rd slide

ilc rd program

americas region fy09

cryomodule test stand

gde srf program

balance of fy08 reduction