Hello Marcel,

The only two scenarios that make sense to me are b and d, in that order if necessary.

Norman
________________________________________
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Strube, Jan F <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 2:29 PM
To: Marcel Stanitzki; sid-all
Subject: Re: [SID-ALL] SiD Input for Staged Scenario discussion

Hi Marcel,

These are interesting options.

My personal uneducated opinion is to go for the 500 GeV tunnel right away.
As you point out, additional installations can happen adiabatically, while digging more tunnel will require a large lump sum of money, which may be harder to get.

It seems that the scenario with a 350 GeV tunnel will be the most difficult to argue for a tunnel extension, so my concern would be that this is all the tunnel we'd ever get.

So in order of decreasing preference, I'd rank the scenarios
b) a) c) d)

Cheers,
    Jan

--
Technical Team Lead
Fundamental Particle Physics at Accelerators

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
902 Battelle Boulevard
P.O. Box 999, MSIN J4-50
Richland, WA 99352
+1 509 375 2217


-----Original Message-----
From: <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Marcel Stanitzki <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, June 16, 2017 at 14:07
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [SID-ALL] SiD Input for Staged Scenario discussion

    Dear all

    As you may have heard, there are many discussions now ongoing on to
    start with
    an ILC at 250 GeV to lower the initial cost of the project.
    There seems to be quite some support for this scenario from Japanese
    Government circles.

    There are four distinct scenarios one could think about which involve
    both machine and tunnel options

    a) 250 GeV machine in a 250 GeV tunnel
        Only build a tunnel suitable for 250 GeV machine, later updates will
    require major construction work

    b) 250 GeV machine in a 500 GeV tunnel
        Only build a  250 GeV machine but drill the complete 31 km tunnel
    for 500 GeV, later updates will only require installation of
        Cryomodules, RF, etc. and can be adiabatic


    c) 250 GeV machine in a 350 GeV tunnel
        Only build a  250 GeV machine but drill a tunnel suitable for 350
    GeV machine
        With a 10% increase in cavity gradient, this can later be still
    enough to get to 500 GeV. The cost increase for the 350 GeV tunnel will
    be a few %

    d) 500 GeV or bust
        We need to start at 500 GeV, so go for the complete project as
    spec'ed in the TDR

    One should also point out, that the 250 GeV machine is not half-price,
    it is very roughly more like two-thirds of the 500 GeV machine, but
    detailed costing studies will be presented at the SLAC workshop
    Since this is really affecting the physics program and the associated
    timescales, we'd like to hear your input.

    Which option would you prefer, keeping the signals from Japan in mind ?

    Best wishes

    Andy & Marcel

    --
    Marcel Stanitzki
    DESY/ATLAS

    Notkestraße 85,       22607 Hamburg
    Geb.    : 1c/O1.338
    Tel.    : +49 40 8998 4930
    Cell    : +49 40 8998 9 4930

    ########################################################################
    Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

    To unsubscribe from the SID-ALL list, click the following link:
    https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SID-ALL&A=1



########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the SID-ALL list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SID-ALL&A=1

########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the SID-ALL list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=SID-ALL&A=1