%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%    INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING                                   %
%                                                                      %
%   `Preparing an article for publication in an Institute of Physics   %
%    Publishing journal using LaTeX'                                   %
%                                                                      %
%    LaTeX source code `ioplau2e.tex' used to generate `author         %
%    guidelines', the documentation explaining and demonstrating use   %
%    of the Institute of Physics Publishing LaTeX preprint files       %
%    `iopart.cls, iopart12.clo and iopart10.clo'.                      %
%                                                                      %
%    `ioplau2e.tex' itself uses LaTeX with `iopart.cls'                %
%                                                                      %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
% First we have a character check
%
% ! exclamation mark    " double quote  
% # hash                ` opening quote (grave)
% & ampersand           ' closing quote (acute)
% $ dollar              % percent       
% ( open parenthesis    ) close paren.  
% - hyphen              = equals sign
% | vertical bar        ~ tilde         
% @ at sign             _ underscore
% { open curly brace    } close curly   
% [ open square         ] close square bracket
% + plus sign           ; semi-colon    
% * asterisk            : colon
% < open angle bracket  > close angle   
% , comma               . full stop
% ? question mark       / forward slash 
% \ backslash           ^ circumflex
%
% ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
% abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 
% 1234567890
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
\documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
\input{epsf}
% Uncomment next line if AMS fonts required
%\usepackage{iopams}  
\begin{document}
% Journal identifier can be put here if required, e.g.
%\jl{14}

\title{Closing Remarks at 4th NuFact '02 Workshop, London, England, July 6,
2002}

\author{Andrew M. Sessler}

\address{Center for Beam Physics, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley,
California   94720}


\begin{abstract}
A brief survey is given of actual R\&D activities around the world. Following that, various conceptual
developments significant to factories are reviewed. Then we turn to the costs of a factory. We discuss the
present budgetary woes throughout the world and end with some closing remarks.

\end{abstract}

%\pacs{xxx, xxx}

% Uncomment for Submitted to journal title message
%\submitted

%Comment out if separate title page not required
%\maketitle

\section{Introduction}

In this paper we review, very briefly, the actual Neutrino Factory R\&D activities going on about the world. We
don't do this  in detail, but to ``trigger memory" while giving emphasis to what I consider the most important
activities. Subsequently, we cover some of the new ideas, then the costs of a neutrino factory, followed by
budgetary woes and, finally, some closing, closing remarks.

Much R \& D activity is going on and, surprisingly, this despite decreased funding and severe restrictions
on the extent of activity. The R \& D activity can, conveniently, be broken down by that in the US, that in
Europe, that in Japan, and that done on an explicitly International Basis. Of course the picture is slightly
blurred, as there is good cooperation between all the regions, but the various activities are directed towards
possible projects in these three regions and that provides a convenient basis of separation.

\section{R \& D Activities in the United States}

Much was accomplished in the past few years:

\begin{itemize}
\item   first round of target tests  completed (C rod, Hg jet)
\item   first rf cavity tested (reached 24 MV/m)
\item   completed Study-II (6x performance increase, 25\% cost reduction)
\item		 began pressure tests on absorber windows
\item    began 201 MHz SCRF cavity design
\end{itemize}

The cooling channel design of Study II is shown in Fig.~1. One can see the detail of engineering design
all of which was necessary so as to make reasonably accurate cost estimates. The target work validated the use
of carbon with a 1 MW driver and the results on a mercury jet were encouraging, but require very much more work
(at higher beam intensity and with a magnetic field also present). The rf cavity work is important to the study
of dark currents, while the design of room temperature 200 MHz is underway and the fabrication of super
conducting 200 MHz (associated cryogenic and bake-out facilities) has been accomplished. Much work is also being
done on absorbers.

In addition there has been lots of detailed work, at Fermilab, on possible proton drivers.

\begin{figure}[h!]                    
\epsfysize=3.50in
\hspace{0.05in}
\epsffile{cooling_channel.eps}
\caption{Two sections of the cooling channel of Study II}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{R \& D Activities in Europe}

There has been considerable simulation and theoretical activity. One most interesting development
is the possible use of Beta Beams as a source of neutrinos. There also has been considerable effort on mercury
jets as targets (with close cooperation with the US) and very interesting work employing high magnetic fields at
Grenoble. There has also been activity on an 88 MHz cavity.

In addition, the Europeans have a very active collaboration with the US on rf cavity design (they, in fact,
 built the first sc 200 MHz cavity) and are very involved in the muon scattering experiment, MuScat, see Fig.~2,
occurring at TRIUMF. 

Also, the British group has been active in the design of a proton driver for a neutrino factory. A possible
scheme is shown in Fig.~3


\begin{figure}[h!]                    
\epsfysize=2.35in
\hspace{0.00in}
\epsffile{muscat.eps}
\caption{The MuScat Experiment}
\end{figure}


\bigskip

\begin{figure}[h!]                  
\epsfysize=3.75in
\hspace{1.50in}
\epsffile{ral.eps}
\caption{RAL accelerator studies of a 5 GeV, 50 Hz, proton driver for a neutrino factory}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\bigskip
\section{R \& D Activities in Japan}

The neutrino factory scenario of the Japanese involves the use of FFAG accelerators and no cooling.
The scenario is shown in Fig 4. The FFAGs have a large momentum acceptance and a large transverse aperture and
thus allow a neutrino factory without the longitudinal phase space manipulation and the transverse cooling of
other designs. Studies have included:

\begin{enumerate}
\item   Determination of the optimum initial beam energy
\item   Study of the target and beam channel
\item   Study of injection and extraction
\item   Study of the dynamic aperture in both scaling and non-scaling FFAGs
\item   Study of possible cooling in an FFAG
\end{enumerate}

In addition the Japanese have a very active collaboration with the US on absorber design and construction.

\begin{figure}[h!]                    
\epsfysize=2.50in
\hspace{0.75in}
\epsffile{ffag.eps}
\caption{The Japanese FFAG option for a neutrino factory}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{International R \& D Activities}

The international effort is devoted to demonstrating cooling. Such an experiment would be too costly
for any one region and, furthermore, it is not felt that the world needs more than one demonstration of cooling.
The presently proposed experiment, most likely to take place at RAL in England is shown in Fig.~5. The progress,
technical, administrative, and political, in only a year is most impressive indeed; it has required considerable
effort especially in Europe and the US.

\begin{figure}[h!]                    
\epsfysize=3.25in
\hspace{0.25in}
\epsffile{mice.eps}
\caption{The International Cooling Experiment(MICE) as presently envisioned}
\end{figure}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\section{Conceptual Developments}

There is very active work, throughout the world,  under the general category of 	``conceptual developments". This
work is motivated by the urge to develop a scenario for a muon collider (such a scenario having actual
parameters for each component and simulation to show that it achieves the desired performance does not presently
exist), develop better ways to build a neutrino factory (less cumbersome, engineeringly simpler, more reliable,
less costly).

Possible options for a neutrino factory, beyond Study II, might be:


\begin{enumerate}
\item Achieve what we have assumed (high rf gradients, thin foils, target, etc.)
\item  Increased driver power (In Study II 1 MW to [say] 4 MW)
\item RF phase rotation (rather than induction units)
\item   Eliminate cooling
\item Spiral emittance exchange
\item   Use of FFAG for initial capture
\item  Use of FFAG for acceleration
\item Lower acceptance RLA (consequence of improved cooling)
\item Lower acceptance fast cycling synchrotron (possible with improved cooling)
\item Cooling Rings
\end{enumerate}

There has been, and continues to be, a great deal of work done on all of these ten topics.
Details are presented in the many papers in these Proceedings. We can expect much more work
in the years ahead with, presumably elimination of some ideas but considerable advance in others
and, eventually, their incorporation into a base design ("Study III") which, hopefully, will be less expensive
than the factory of Study II.

\section{Neutrino Factory Costs} 

It is a delicate subject ``costs" especially as it involves many "touchy" subjects such as the reaction
of the community and the reaction of the funding agencies. Let me be bold, however, and present some of my
thoughts. (Allowed in a "Closing Remark" paper.)

The best cost estimate we have is that from Study II: 1.7 B\$, but it is really 1.9 B\$ (from the added 10\% for
items not included). This is an unloaded number. When loaded (escalation, EDIA, contingency, overhead) it becomes
slightly more than twice that or 4.0 B\$.

How can we cut the cost? Of course we can improve the design and, surely, our present R\&D is aimed in just that
direction -- but, on top of that, the simplest way is to stage as we have described, first at NuFact 01 and then
in considerable detail at Snowmass 01. With staging each step is ``modest":

\begin{enumerate}
\item  Proton Driver and Target Facility (Super beams) 250-\$330 M\$ (1 MW) or 330-410 M\$ (4 MW)
\item  Phase Space Manipulation (Muon physics) 660 - 840 M\$
\item  Linac (Low-energy neutrino work) 220-250 M\$
\item   Recirculator and Storage Ring (Full factory) 550 M\$ (20 GeV) or 1250-1350 M\$ (50 GeV)
\item  Muon Collider (No cost estimate exists)
\end{enumerate}

These costs, for various stages, are un-loaded costs; real costs are twice as much
(And, of course, staging is more expensive than simply "going ahead full steam".)

\medskip

What are the prospects for cost reductions whether or not one stages? 


\begin{enumerate}
\item  rf bunching: might save 100 to 200 M\$
\item  initially one could have no transverse cooling (either reduce performance or increase the driver power and
come out about the same): might save 200 M\$
\item  FFAG or fast cycling boosters for acceleration: might save 100 M\$
\item  Cooling rings: might save 100 M\$
\end{enumerate}


Put this all together (and it isn't obvious that one can) and one would save 600 M\$. The total cost of a
neutrino factory wold be 1.3 B\$ which, when loaded, becomes 2.6 B\$. We can see that, as presently envisioned, a
neutrino factory is \underline{not} in the 1 B\$ class; most likely the cost is more than 3 B\$.

\section{Budgetary Woes}

There are very strict restrictions on neutrino activities at CERN as (an understandable)
consequence of bringing the LHC on line despite severe budgetary problems. Similarly there is minimal activity
in Japan as a consequence of focusing upon the Joint Project. And, in the United States, we have experienced a
sharp decline in support of muon activities.

Let me be more explicit about the US problems (if for no better reason than
I have experienced them directly (and painfully)). During the last few years we have experienced a significant
decrease as is shown in the Table.

\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{DOE Funding for Muons (FY03 is based on DOE guidance)}
\medskip
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
 Year &    DOE- base &      DOE - MC &        Total  \\
       &        (\$M) &      (\$M) &       (\$M) \\
\hline
FY99 &           2.8  &      2.2  &       5.0 \\   
FY00 &           3.3  &      4.7  &       8.0 \\   
FY01 &           3.0  &      3.2  &       6.2 \\   
FY02 &           3.0  &      2.8  &       5.8 \\   
FY03 &           2.1 &        1.4 &        3.5 \\   

\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\noindent   Looking to next fiscal year FY03(starting on Oct 1, 2002), we hoped to:


\begin{itemize}
\item   begin target-solenoid fabrication
\item   continue beam tests at AGS
\item   continue $Be$ window development and launch grid development
\item   continue dark current studies
\item   begin fabrication of high-power 201-MhZ NCRF cavity and test solenoid
\item   begin $LH_2$ absorber tests (requires completing MTA)
\item   develop formal proposal for MICE (international effort)
\item   study alternative design approaches (e.g., Japanese FFAG scheme)
\end{itemize}

The proposed FY03 budget will \underline{not} allow most of this to proceed, to say nothing of
eliminating AGS HEP operation.

\section{Closing, Closing Remarks}

Perhaps, in closing, it is natural to think: What did I learn at this conference?  What is new in the
field? Let me suggest, in my closing, how those questions might be answered:

\begin{enumerate}

\item The particle physics motivation is very strong and, in fact, getting stronger with each passing day.
\item There is need for super beams, but they can not do everything; we need a factory also.
\item Much progress is being made on hardware.
\item  The international cooling experiment, MICE, has greatly advanced and it is only its first year.
\item  There has been good progress on proton drivers (necessary for both super beams and factories).
\item  Significant new ideas and/or progress:

\begin{enumerate}
\item   Cooling rings [They work !]
\item    RF bunching [May eliminate the need for induction accelerator]
\item   FFAG (non-scaling and non-linear) [May be good for capture and/or acceleration]
\item   Fast-cycling synchrotron [May simplify acceleration]
\item   Beta-beams [May have a useful role]
\end{enumerate}

\item  These new ideas suggest the possibility of cost reduction of a neutrino factory and, even, the possibility
of achieving a muon collider.

\end{enumerate}


We are experiencing serious budget problems in the USA, severe constraints at CERN, and unrelenting pressures
on the manpower (to do necessary things for the Joint Project) in Japan.
But the particle physics motivations are overwhelming and the possibility of experimental realization
(both the detector and the factory itself) is, at this point substantive. Furthermore, we are a dedicated group.
We shall not ``go away" for we feel, strongly, that we are doing the right thing in developing this science. 

Finally then: Simply keep at it. We are doing great things, making fine progress. Sooner or later -- and let’s
hope it is ``sooner" rather than ``later" -- the HEP Community will come around.

Our many thanks go to the organizers of NuFact 02. And I hope to see you next year at NuFACT 03 in the USA, at
Columbia University, June 5-11, 2003.

\end{document}

