Impacts of Tevatron Extension Pier Oddone P5 Meeting, October 15 th, 2010 1 P. Oddone, P5 Meeting, October 15, 2010

Impacts of Tevatron Extension

Pier OddoneP5 Meeting, October 15th, 2010

1 P. Oddone, P5 Meeting, October 15, 2010

Outline

• The present plan: implementation status

• Ramp-up of new projects and Tevatron transition

• At what level of new resources does the Tevatron extension make sense?

• With new resources, what are the remaining impacts, real and potential?

• Conclusions

P. Oddone, P5 Meeting, October 15, 20102

Present plan: energy frontier


TevatronLHC

LHC LHCILC, CLIC orMuon Collider

Now 2016

LHC UpgradesILC??

2013 2019

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Green curve: same rates as 09

2022

Present plan: intensity frontier


MINOSMiniBooNEMINERvASeaQuest

NOvAMicroBooNEg-2?SeaQuest

Now 2016

LBNEMu2e

Project X+LBNE, K, nuclear, … Factory ??

2013 2019 2022

Present plan: cosmic frontier


Now 20162013 2019

DM: ~10 kgDE: SDSSP. Auger

DM: ~100 kgDE: DESP. AugerHolometer?

DM: ~1 tonDE: LSST WFIRST??BigBOSS??

DE: LSSTWFIRST??

2022

The connections of energy and intensity frontiers at Fermilab

• The following slide contains an animation of a possible evolution of the Fermilab complex

ILC R&D and Project X are aligned position to do both; SCRF could also be used in neutrino factory and/or muon collider; high field magnets needed for both LHC and muon colliders

Project X design criteria contains requirement to be useful as a front end for neutrino factory and/or muon collider (with upgrades)


To advance animation in slide show mode, click on forward arrow on right lower corner; can also click on muon, kaon, or nuclear “boxes” to see possible experiments. To end animation click outside the slide


Present US plan: characteristics

• Importance of LHC support for research and upgrades; R&D on future energy frontier colliders: ILC and muon collider

• Transition to intensity frontier facilities. DOE-NSF and international partnerships; ultimately Project X

• Dark matter and dark energy next generation experiments

• A great short term opportunity for the Tevatron to get clearly into symmetry breaking territory. However, we should not endanger the future. What do we need in order to mitigate the impacts?


Ramp-up of new programs at Fermilab

• On present plan, major projects at the intensity frontier dominate the funding needs: LBNE and Mu2e; additional modest requirements for MicroBooNE and g-2; Project X continues R&D at relatively slow, steady pace

• Present plans for ramp-up of new intensity frontier projects count on the ramp-down of NOvA construction and cessation of Tevatron operations in early years (FY12-FY14)

• Scale-up for LHC upgrades, DM and DE experiments

have profiles in DOE plans. Fermilab roles will depend on further national decisions.


Managing the Tevatron transition


Operational funding for the Tevatron includes recycler and core cryogenics operations. These core services change sponsor but need to be maintained at the laboratory (cannot be moved to projects). This amounts to about $8M/year, included in the graph for FY11 but not beyond.

Managing the Tevatron transition


Scientific staff is accounted for in “Proton Research B&R”, not in Tevatron operations. Above is planned transition of permanent scientific staff at Fermilab (40 FTEs) . Move of staff from Tevatron LHC replaces move from LHC to intensity frontier. Overall LHC and cosmic frontier staff remain constant.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

Tevatron

Moving to Int. Frontier

Moving to LHC

Moving to Cos. Frontier

FTE scientists

Ramp-up of new programs at Fermilab


Overall picture of transition


In the early years (FY 12-14), the ramp up of new projects is funded from the ramp-down of Tevatron and NOvA. The overalll funding grows more or less like inflation through 2014 and exceeds inflation with LBNE and Project X growth only in FY15 and FY16.

Tevatron extension: no new resources

• Without additional resources there is major impact in the ramp-up of new projects: only half the rate

• Major impact on partnering agencies that would question the reliability of US plans

• Could easily lose support for the new projects: we have the support of the agencies now – no guarantees in the future if we do not establish them solidly

we should not extend the run unless we can assure ourselves that new programs can be kept very close to their present schedule and budget profiles


What level of resources needed?

• Make up the funding drop in the Tevatron planned for FY12: $35M. This allows the Tevatron to continue operating

• Provide an additional $10M for 50 new positions (nationally) at the intensity frontier to compensate for lack of migration from the Tevatron (or backfill Tevatron if there is some migration)

• Reduce the total amount required by:

NOvA delay (move $10M from FY12 to FY15) Reduce Mu2e profile by $10M in FY13 and $5M in FY14



• Then, relative to the present plans, the incremental need in the next three years:


FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Total needs

+$45M +$45M +$40M

NOvA -$10M $+10M

Mu2e $-10M -$5M $+15M

Net $35M $35M $35M $+25M





Even with additional resources…

• There are several impacts that are not mitigated

• NOvA: Would run for 3 years at 400 kW instead of 700 kW. The

shutdown to achieve 700 kW would occur in FY2015, when the detector is complete, instead of FY2012 when a small fraction of detector is complete

Delay in reaching full equivalent sensitivity is 2 years. After early running, in 2015, would have only half the integrated protons on target

NOvA is on budget and on schedule


NOvA Status


October 5

Near detector

Far detector hall

Even with additional resources….


NOvA impact. Most critical in years 2015-2017. Shown are cumulative product of Far Detector mass times pot as a function of time. The proposed NOνA run is for 560 kT-1020 pot, shown by the dashed horizontal line. No RR assumes continued running at 400 kW



The ratio of the product of cumulative detector mass times pot for the impacted scenario divided by the baseline scenario as a function of calendar year. The largest impact occurs in 2015 - 2017.


• Mu2e: would continue as previously planned through

FY2012; in FY13 would see its profile reduced by $10M, leaving $50M. In FY14 it would have a profile lower by $5M. The $15M “borrowed” in FY13 and FY14 would be made up in FY15

The net effect of these cuts is to slow down the completion of the detector by about 6 months



• Retention of operations personnel at the Tevatron creates shortage of trained personnel

Engineers, technicians, operators are covered by the operations budget for accelerators. In the present plan, there would be a reduction in personnel

With the Tevatron extension, would need to add personnel to projects where staff had been expected to move from the Tevatron. This is an issue of acquiring competent staff, not a budgetary issue because projects have the funding for the staff they need.



• Retention of physicists at the Tevatron slows migration to the intensity frontier

Research physicists are accounted for in the “Proton Research” B&R category, separate from Tevatron operations. There was to be a strong migration from Tevatron to the Intensity Frontier within this category

To attenuate this problem, $10 M of the additional

fund would create some 50 new positions at the intensity frontier (and replacements for the Tevatron if folks move to intensity frontier)


What other risks

• Risk that along the various gates we must pass through: OHEP, OSC, OMB, OSTP and Congress, the extension of the Tevatron is supported politically and paid for at the expense of the new programs at Fermilab and elsewhere

• We can measure this effect in relation to the present plans, but not in relation to real life when these plans change. For example:

Congress cuts $20M out of the program – it comes out of the non-Tevatron part

Would we have this cut if we had closed the Tevatron down the year before? This is impossible to determine. Standard answer: you would have been cut anyway.


What other risks

• The only way to mitigate this risk is to be perfectly clear to everyone (OHEP,OSC,OMB,OSTP and Congress): we do not want the extension of the Tevatron run at the cost of further damage to the overall HEP program beyond that which I have described

• The reason for not taking extension out of the hide of the HEP program is that the program has been weaken during the last decade when we have not built the facilities to keep us at the forefront in some domain of particle physics. This has changed now with the P5 plan. We must maintain the momentum.


Conclusions

• We have a great physics opportunity: we can reach the sensitivity to make critical contributions to electroweak symmetry breaking – one for the history books. The gain is from additional statistics and the continued strength of the collaboration needed to make improvements.

All indirect measurements point to a light Higgs. The light Higgs couples mostly to b-bbar and the rate is robust in all models that are not highly contrived. If the Higgs is light we must measure the rate to b-bbar.

For the Higgs to b-bbar the Tevatron is competitive at least through 2014 and in general will have higher signal to background than LHC


Conclusions

• There is an impact on NOvA that cannot be mitigated with funding. It is most severe in the time frame of 2015-2017 when the experiment would have about half the accumulated luminosity than presently planned

• A level of $35M/year additional resources into HEP in the next three years would allow us to mitigate all other impacts on new programs sufficiently to make the Tevatron extension a clear choice

• On balance, weighing the pros and cons, we should try to extend the Tevatron run and get solidly into electroweak symmetry braking territory


Documents

Impacts of Tevatron Extension Pier Oddone P5 Meeting, October 15 th, 2010 1 P. Oddone, P5 Meeting, October 15, 2010