U.S. ATLAS HL-LHC Upgrade Level 2 and Deputies-NSF only Management Mailing List

[Elliot Lipeles <lipeles AT hep.upenn.edu>]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 3:41 AM Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu> wrote:

Hi,

The possibility of such an alternative approach is why we put in the
"architecture change" risk.  The example reasons we give are different,
but that doesn't matter.  Basically we expect to make similar labor and
material investment.  I adjusted the current sentence to

"ATLAS continues to investigate commodity hardware and hybrid options,
but HTT is the baseline plan.  If at some point a hybrid or
commodity-based solution were to become clearly preferred, then we would
contribute to that at a level similar to our current plan, both in terms
of labor and materials.  (See also risk RN-06-08-02-019.)"

I believe that statement to be true.

I'm fine with that as well.

 

Best,

Gustaaf


On 8/27/19 9:17 PM, Zhang, Jinlong wrote:
> Hi Elliot,
>
>>
>> On the alternatives, there has been a lot of progress on the CPU-base tracking which makes it at least plausible now, but I think there are still space and power challenges there. This requires abandoning the evolution option. They would need to come up with a lot of money (similar to HTT) for hardware.
>>
> According the study, space and power is not a problem, money wise is not even close to HTT. The working group document is in progress. So maybe safer not to make statements on these, but just say technology wise this is plausible.
>