\subsubsection{Methodology}

In this report we have described the components of a Neutrino Factory sited
at BNL. The facility includes the following systems:

\begin{itemize}
\item  Proton Driver (providing 1 MW of protons on target from an upgraded
AGS)

\item  Target and Capture (a mercury-jet target in a 20-T superconducting
solenoidal field to capture pions from the target)

\item  Decay and Phase Rotation (three induction linacs, with internal
superconducting solenoidal focusing, to contain the muons from pion decays
and provide nearly non-distorting phase rotation; a mini-cooling absorber
section is included after the first induction linac)

\item  Bunching and Cooling (a solenoidal focusing channel with
high-gradient rf cavities and liquid-hydrogen absorbers that bunches the 200
MeV/$c$ muons into 201.25-MHz rf buckets and cools their transverse
emittance from 12 mm-rad to 2 mm-rad)

\item  Acceleration (a superconducting linac with solenoidal focusing to
raise the muon beam energy to 2.48 GeV, followed by a four-pass
superconducting recirculating linear accelerator to provide a 20 GeV muon
beam)

\item  Storage Ring (a compact racetrack-shaped superconducting storage ring
in which 35\% of the stored 20 GeV muons decay toward a detector located
2900 km from the ring)
\end{itemize}

As part of the Study, we have specified each system in sufficient detail to
obtain a ``top-down'' cost estimate for it. Clearly this estimate is not the
complete and detailed cost estimate that would come from preparing a full
Conceptual Design Report (CDR). Neither the definition of the various
systems, nor the engineering effort available for this Study would permit
this. On the other hand, there is considerable experience in designing and
building accelerators with similar components, so we have a substantial
knowledge base from which costs can be derived. The costs obtained for this
Study were obtained mainly in that way.

Where available, we have used costs from existing components---scaled as
needed to reflect essential changes in the key variables---to represent the
expected costs to fabricate what we need. This applies to the Proton Driver,
the superconducting and normal conducting magnets and their power supplies,
the rf cavities, and conventional facilities and utilities. In some cases, we
were able to take advantage of the experience with designing similar
components in a different context. For example, the target facility we
require is closely similar to that needed for the Spallation Neutron Source
(SNS) project at ORNL, for which detailed CDR-level designs already exist
and construction is under way. We made use of the expertise developed at SNS
to estimate the facility costs for the Neutrino Factory target area. The
superconducting target solenoid is not a standard device, yet even here
there is a magnet of similar size and field strength, designed for the ITER
project, that serves as a convenient scaling model. Given the limited time
to arrive at cost estimates, we leaned heavily on experts in the various
areas who could identify the key design parameters that influence costs and
then scale accordingly from known costs. In the case of rf power sources, we
made use of the multi-beam klystron (MBK) example developed at DESY for
TESLA, along with expertise in developing other high-power tubes at U.S.
Laboratories. As was done in Study-I, for devices such as the MBK, which are a
significant extrapolation from existing hardware, allowance was made for a
substantial development program, whose cost was amortized over the initial
complement of devices needed for the Neutrino Factory.

\subsubsection{Facility Costs}

It should be noted that the design we have described in this report has
erred on the side of feasibility rather than costs. Thus, we do not claim to
present a fully cost-optimized design, nor one that has been reviewed from
the standpoint of ``value engineering.'' In that sense, there is hope that
a detailed design study will {\it reduce} the costs compared with what we
estimate here.  Only direct costs are included here, that is, the estimates
do not contain allowances for EDIA, laboratory overhead burdens, or
contingency. The breakdown by system is summarized in Table~\ref{costs-summary}; costs
reported there are given in FY01 dollars. To facilitate comparison with the
Feasibility Study-I estimate, we have converted the costs to FY00 dollars, shown in Table~\ref{costtotal}, 
using the DOE-approved inflation factor of 2.5\%. Following Study-I, we have put in Table~\ref{costtotal} an allowance of 10\% for
each of the systems to account for things we have not considered in detail
at this stage.

It is interesting to compare our estimate with that of Study-I; in this study,
we have \textbf{improved the performance by a factor of six} over that reached in
Study-I, at a total cost (estimated in the same way for both designs) of
about \textbf{3/4 of that in the original study}.  This is an encouraging trend and,
as noted, we have some hope that it will continue.

\begin{sidewaystable}
\begin{center}
\caption[Construction Cost Rollup for Study-II]{\textbf{Construction Cost Rollup per Components for Study-II Neutrino Factory.} All costs are in FY01 dollars.}
\label{costs-summary}
\begin{tabular}{|lcccccccccc|}
\hline
{\small System} & {\small Magnets} & {\small RF power} & {\small RF cav.} & 
{\small Vac.} & {\small PS} & {\small Diagn.} & {\small Cryo} & {\small Util.%
} & {\small Conv. Facil.}& {\small Sum} \\
& {\small (\$M)} & {\small (\$M)} & {\small (\$M)} & {\small (\$M)} & 
{\small (\$M)} & {\small (\$M)} & {\small (\$M)} & {\small (\$M)} & {\small %
(\$M)}& {\small (\$M)} \\
\hline 
{\small Proton Driver} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 5.5} & \multicolumn{1}{r}%
{\small 7.0} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 66.1} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small %
9.8} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 26.6} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 2.2} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 28.5} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}%
{\small 21.9}& \multicolumn{1}{r|}{167.6} \\ 
\hline
{\small Target Systems} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 30.3} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 0.8}
& \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 3.5} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 8.0} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 18.8} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}%
{\small 30.2}& \multicolumn{1}{r|}{91.6} \\
\hline 
{\small Decay Channel} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 3.1} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 0.2}
& \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 0.1} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 1.0} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 0.2} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r|}{4.6}\\
\hline 
{\small Induction Linacs} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 35.0} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{{\small 90.3}} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 4.4} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 163.3} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 3.0} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 3.6} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 19.5}& \multicolumn{1}{r|}{319.1}\\
\hline 
{\small Bunching} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 48.8} & \multicolumn{1}{r}%
{\small 6.5} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 3.2} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small %
2.7} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 2.1} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 5.0} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 0.3} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{}& \multicolumn{1}{r|}{68.6}\\
\hline 
{\small Cooling Channel} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 127.6} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 105.6} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 17.7} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 4.3} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 4.8} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 28.0} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 9.5} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 19.5}& \multicolumn{1}{r|}{317.0}\\
\hline 
{\small Pre-accel. linac} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 46.3} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 68.4} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 44.1} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 7.5} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 3.0} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 6.0} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 13.6} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{}& \multicolumn{1}{r|}{188.9}\\
\hline 
{\small RLA} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 129.0} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small %
89.2} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 63.4} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 16.4}
& \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 5.6} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 4.0} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 28.9} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}%
{\small 19.0}& \multicolumn{1}{r|}{355.5}\\
\hline 
{\small Storage Ring} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 38.5} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 4.8}
& \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 2.2} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 29.0} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{\small 4.8} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}%
{\small 28.1}& \multicolumn{1}{r|}{107.4}\\
\hline 
{\small Site Utilities} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & 
\multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\small %
126.9} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{}& \multicolumn{1}{r|}{126.9} \\
\hline\hline 
\color{blue}{\small \textbf{Totals}} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\color{blue}\small \textbf{464.1}} & \multicolumn{1}{r}%
{\color{blue}\small \textbf{276.7}} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\color{blue}\small \textbf{284.8}} & \multicolumn{1}{r}%
{\color{blue}\small \textbf{50.9}} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\color{blue}\small \textbf{211.2}} & \multicolumn{1}{r}%
{\color{blue}\small \textbf{86.2}} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\color{blue}\small \textbf{108.2}} & \multicolumn{1}{r}%
{\color{blue}\small \textbf{126.9}} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\color{blue}\small \textbf{138.2}}& \multicolumn{1}{r|}{\color{blue}\small\textbf{1,747.2}}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{sidewaystable}
\clearpage

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption[Construction Cost Totals for Study-II] {Summary of Construction Cost Totals for Study-II Neutrino Factory. All costs are in FY01 dollars unless otherwise noted. $^{a}$\textsl{Others} is \%10 of each system to account for missing items, as was used in Study-I; $^{b}$\textsl{Reconciliation} represents the Study-II costs given in FY00 dollars to permit direct comparison with Study-I costs. The inflation factor used is (1/1.025), per DOE official rates.}
\label{costtotal}
\begin{tabular}{|lcccc|}
\hline
{\small \textbf{System}} &{\small \textbf{Sum}}& {\small \textbf{Others$^a$}}& {\small \textbf{Total}} & {\small \textbf{Reconciliation$^b$}} \\
&{\small (\$M)} & {\small (\$M)} & {\small (\$M)} & {\small (FY00 \$M)} \\
\hline
{\small Proton Driver} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{167.6}& \multicolumn{1}{r}{16.8}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{184.4}&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{179.9}\\
{\small Target Systems} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{91.6}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{9.2}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{100.8}&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{98.3}\\
{\small Decay Channel} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{4.6}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{0.5}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{5.1}&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{5.0}\\
{\small Induction Linacs} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{319.1}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{31.9}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{351.0}&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{342.4}\\
{\small Bunching} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{68.6}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{6.9}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{75.5}&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{73.6}\\
{\small Cooling Channel} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{317.0}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{31.7}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{348.7}&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{340.2}\\
{\small Pre-accel. linac} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{188.9}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{18.9}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{207.8}&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{202.7}\\
{\small RLA} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{355.5}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{35.5}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{391.0}&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{381.5}\\
{\small Storage Ring} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{107.4}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{10.7}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{118.1}&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{115.2}\\
{\small Site Utilities} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{126.9}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{12.7}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{139.6}&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{136.2}\\
\hline\hline
\color{blue}{\small \textbf{Totals}} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{\color{blue}\textbf{1,747.2}}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{\color{blue}\textbf{174.8}}&\multicolumn{1}{r}{\color{blue}\textbf{1,922.0}}&\multicolumn{1}{r|}{\color{blue}\textbf{1,875.0}}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
