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

[Gustaaf Brooijmans <gusbroo AT nevis.columbia.edu>]

It's technical, to demonstrate that there is no technical hurdle left. 
So ADC ENOB, 25 Gbps link speeds, etc.

On 9/11/19 8:27 PM, Elliot Lipeles wrote:
> I second Johns suggestion on the risks.
>
> I'm a bit stumped on the "what are the (5) major technical 
> requirements,". I.e. what level are we talking about?...
>
> Should this be extracted from the technical specifications document?  
> E.g. TP provides external links, full-mesh backplane data sharing, and 
> mezzanine I/O for 8 ITK layers (input event rate of 1 MHz for 10% of the 
> detector plus 100 kHz for the full detector) or 5 ITK layers (100 kHz 
> for the full detector) for first and second stage, respectively.
>
> Or something more flowdown like, e.g. HTT provides 2 GeV tracking in 
> region that comprise 10% of the detector data at 1 MHz?
>
> Elliot
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:19 PM John Parsons <parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu 
> <mailto:parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>> wrote:
>
>
>     If we interpret #3 as, as it sounds to me, the top 5
>     risks by rank per subsystem, can't we just ask George to extract
>     that info based on the ranks in the RR?  (sorry George,
>     but you did volunteer! :)
>
>     (and if we interpret it that each L2 should choose which
>     5 "bother them most", we just open ourselves to the
>     question of what the risk rank in the RR actually means)
>
>     On 9/11/19 7:55 PM, Gustaaf Brooijmans wrote:
>      >
>      > Hello all,
>      >
>      > Just to be clear, the questions with input needed from the
>     L2s/system
>      > teams are:
>      >
>      > 1. if you haven't done so yet, please provide an earliest/latest
>      > decision point to Hal to update our table
>      >
>      > 3. Please provide an ordered table to me
>      >
>      > 4. Each L2, please send me and Hal the item you're most worried
>     about,
>      > and we'll downselect
>      >
>      > 7. LAr to provide 1-2 slides
>      >
>      > 8.  LAr and muon to provide a few sentences each
>      >
>      > 9.  Mike, please provide a phrasing that's not too contradicting
>      >
>      > 10. Each L2 provide 2 slides: one with top 5 items, one with DD
>     for one
>      > of them
>      >
>      > 11.  Mark K: please provide a slide
>      >
>      > Thanks,
>      >
>      > Gustaaf
>      >
>      > On 9/11/19 5:36 PM, Michael Tuts wrote:
>      >> Probably homework assignments are obvious…enjoy
>      >>
>      >> *From:* Tony Beasley <tbeasley AT nrao.edu <mailto:tbeasley AT nrao.edu>>
>      >> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 5:26 PM
>      >> *To:* Michael Tuts <tuts AT pmtuts.net <mailto:tuts AT pmtuts.net>>;
>     Mark Coles (mcoles AT nsf.gov <mailto:mcoles AT nsf.gov>)
>      >> <mcoles AT nsf.gov <mailto: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?
>      >> ///
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >>
>      >> _______________________________________________
>      >> Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l mailing list
>      >> Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>     <mailto:Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>      >>
>     https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l
>      >>
>      >
>
>     -- 
>     ______________________________________________________________________
>
>     John Parsons
>     Nevis Labs,             Email: parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu
>     <mailto:parsons AT nevis.columbia.edu>
>        Columbia University   Phone: (914) 591-2820
>     P.O. Box 137            Fax: (914) 591-8120
>     Irvington, NY 10533     WWW:
>     
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nevis.columbia.edu_-7Eparsons_&d=DwIDaQ&c=aTOVZmpUfPKZuaG9NO7J7Mh6imZbfhL47t9CpZ-pCOw&r=Z0wuTxQYnTTMlYma4lGZlO3skeCGVBrGGurYkWbhJsJuG5HaY82rmCNSdFOV7C4Z&m=QmXFkjjm7kvHTI3zuSjkPm_NAHfhDWgT9kqSRzQKOrc&s=utMfkvqWsR7l_ekRvJPDYbrChTMFqHmgKDEntVEZGME&e=
>
>
>     ______________________________________________________________________
>     _______________________________________________
>     Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l mailing list
>     Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov
>     <mailto:Usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l AT lists.bnl.gov>
>     https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/usatlas-hllhc-l2deputymgmt-nsf-l

--
Gustaaf Brooijmans - Columbia University
@Columbia: (212) 854 4527; Nevis virtual phone: (914) 591 2804

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.