%\section*{Introduction and Overview}

\section{Context of the Present Study}

Feasibility Study-II, described here, is a follow-on to Feasibility Study-I~\cite{INTRO:ref1}.
To put our work in context, it is important here to view the effort in a
historical perspective, and to give proper credit to our predecessors.

The concept of a Muon Collider was first proposed by Budker~\cite{PREFACE:budker}, and by Skrinsky~\cite{PREFACE:skrinsky} in the 60s and early
70s. However, there was little substance to the concept until the idea of
ionization cooling was developed by Skrinsky and Parkhomchuk~\cite{INTRO:ref3}. The
ionization cooling approach was expanded by Neuffer~\cite{INTRO:ref4} and then by Palmer~\cite{PREFACE:palmer}, whose work led to the formation of the Neutrino Factory and Muon
Collider Collaboration (MC)~\cite{INTRO:ref2} in 1995. A good summary of the Muon Collider
concept can be found in the Status Report of 1999~\cite{INTRO:ref5}; an earlier document~\cite{INTRO:ref6}, prepared for Snowmass-1996, is also useful reading.

The concept of a Neutrino Factory based on a muon storage ring was suggested
by Koshkarev~\cite{INTRO:ref7}, but there was likewise little to the concept until it was
combined with the advanced thinking precipitated by the effort toward a Muon
Collider. This gap was finally bridged by Geer in 1998~\cite{INTRO:ref8}.

As a result of this work, the MC realized that a Neutrino Factory could be
an important first step toward a Muon Collider. Furthermore, the physics
that could be addressed by a Neutrino Factory was interesting in its own
right. With this in mind, the MC has recently shifted its primary emphasis
toward the issues of relevance to a Neutrino Factory. MUCOOL Notes prepared
by the MC are available on the web~\cite{INTRO:ref11}; these can be used to learn about the
technical issues involved. Complementing the Feasibility Studies, the MC
carries on an experimental and theoretical R\&D program, including work on
targetry, cooling, rf hardware (both normal conducting and superconducting),
high-field solenoids, LH$_{2}$ absorber design, theory, simulations,
parameter studies, and emittance exchange~\cite{INTRO:ref12}. There is also considerable
international activity on Neutrino Factories, with international conferences
held at Lyon in 1999, Monterey in 2000, Tsukuba in 2001, and another planned
for London in 2002~\cite{INTRO:ref13}, ~\cite{INTRO:ref14}.

In the fall of 1999, Fermilab---with significant contributions from the
MC---undertook a Feasibility Study (``Study-I'') of an entry-level Neutrino
Factory~\cite{INTRO:ref1}. Simultaneously, Fermilab launched a study of the physics that
might be addressed by such a facility~\cite{INTRO:ref9}. More recently, Fermilab initiated
a study to compare the physics reach of a Neutrino Factory with that of
conventional neutrino beams~\cite{INTRO:ref10}; this activity is still in progress. The
approach is to examine the physics that can be addressed with a conventional
beam, but using an intense proton driver of the type envisioned for the
Neutrino Factory, with that physics addressable {\it only} with a Neutrino
Factory. Suffice it to say, there are good physics opportunities in both
categories.

It is with this background that the BNL Director, John Marburger, decided in
June 2000 to have a follow-on Study on a high-performance Neutrino Factory
sited at BNL. Study-II was to be completed by April 2001. Clearly, an
important goal of Study-II was to evaluate whether BNL was a suitable site
for a Neutrino Factory. Based on the work contained in this report, that
question can now be answered affirmatively.

%\end{document}