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

[Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>]

Probably homework assignments are obvious…enjoy

 

 

From: Tony Beasley <tbeasley AT nrao.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 5:26 PM
To: Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net>; Mark Coles (mcoles AT nsf.gov) <mcoles AT nsf.gov>
Subject: Homework - Day 1

 

 

Dear Mike,

 

Please find some questions from the Panel to be addressed at 8:30am tomorrow. Expect a short paragraph, verbal description or diagram in most cases.

 

thanks… Tony

 

 

 

 

1. Descope/upscope items - please provide both preferred/scheduled and need-by dates...

 

2. Please provide a schedule of expiration of descope options throughout project. please focus on dates...

 

3. Provide top 5 risks in rank order (worst->least) for each major subsystem. The risk register is dense .. would like to see the major concerns.

 

4. Hank Evans: please provide a rank-ordered list of remaining work packages (in the pre-MREFC project) - what are you most concerned about? Please mention your “plan B's”.

 

5. Please provide the total project BOE distribution - pie chart format.

 

6. Columbia mgt decision to implement 30 subawards generates a cost impact ~$186k ...   was this to support EV reporting?   What did the project gain from this change?

 

7. What risks are being carried forward by the project by the (aggressive?) scheduled downselect of the ADC in December? e.g. radiation tolerance of the ADC ASIC version 3? Please clarify statement on radiation tolerance of commercial ADC option.

 

8. What is the schedule risk of the late delivery of the production version of lpGBT?

 

9. Please restate/clarify Scientific travel – where is it covered in the MREFC award?  Suggest: please produce List of significant things not in there yet.... don't let us find them.

 

10. For each subsystem - what are the (5) major technical requirements, and what is your assessment of your ability to meet them (and what is the basis of that assessment?). Please trace one major science/technical specification from the international ATLAS specification, through your US ATLAS specification set, indicate where addressed in design, and demonstrate how you intend to assess compliance.

 

11. Please describe the connections between the EPO manager, the L2 managers, and the EPO proponents at the partner universities. How is communication/coordination occuring between these groups? How specifically will the project take advantage of community initiatives like QUARKNET? Give examples of joint activities being considered.

 

12. How exposed is the US project to CERN Project Management uncertainties in schedule? If CERN schedule drifts across many subsystems, could the US project be negatively impacted beyond current expectations?

 

///