Tracking Review Committee Charge
Updated on Sat, 2006-11-18 23:34. Originally created by andrewar on 2006-11-18 20:20.
Under: The charge to the Review Committee for evaluation of the HFT proposal is archived here. The online document can be found under http://hepwww.physics.yale.edu/star/upgrades/Draft-Charge.pdf
The Review Committee is asked to review the proposed tracking upgrades to STAR and to comment on the following:
1. Scientific Merit: Will the proposed detectors significantly extend the physics reach of STAR? Is the science that will be possible with the addition of this upgrade sufficiently compelling to justify the proposed scope of the project?
2. Technology Choice and Technical Feasibility: Are the proposed technologies appropriate, viable, and robust; are there outstanding R&D or technical issues which must be resolved before proceeding to a fully detailed construction plan covering technical, cost, and schedule issues?
3. Technical specifications: Are the physics-driven requirements for this detector sufficiently understood, and will the proposed mechanical and electronics implementations meet those requirements? Is the proposed design reasonably optimized? Is the proposed scope of the upgrade justified by the physics driven requirements?
4. Detector Integration: Is the impact of integrating this detector into STAR understood and manageable: are there potential "show-stoppers" with regard to mechanical support, utilities, cabling, integration into trigger, DAQ, etc.?
5. Resources, Cost, and Schedule: Is the costing of the detector realistic; is the basis of estimate sound; has the full scope been included in the estimate; is the level of contingency realistic? Does there appear to be sufficient manpower to carry the project out successfully – including manpower for developing calibration and analysis software? Is the technically driven schedule achievable?
The Review Committee is asked to review the proposed tracking upgrades to STAR and to comment on the following:
1. Scientific Merit: Will the proposed detectors significantly extend the physics reach of STAR? Is the science that will be possible with the addition of this upgrade sufficiently compelling to justify the proposed scope of the project?
2. Technology Choice and Technical Feasibility: Are the proposed technologies appropriate, viable, and robust; are there outstanding R&D or technical issues which must be resolved before proceeding to a fully detailed construction plan covering technical, cost, and schedule issues?
3. Technical specifications: Are the physics-driven requirements for this detector sufficiently understood, and will the proposed mechanical and electronics implementations meet those requirements? Is the proposed design reasonably optimized? Is the proposed scope of the upgrade justified by the physics driven requirements?
4. Detector Integration: Is the impact of integrating this detector into STAR understood and manageable: are there potential "show-stoppers" with regard to mechanical support, utilities, cabling, integration into trigger, DAQ, etc.?
5. Resources, Cost, and Schedule: Is the costing of the detector realistic; is the basis of estimate sound; has the full scope been included in the estimate; is the level of contingency realistic? Does there appear to be sufficient manpower to carry the project out successfully – including manpower for developing calibration and analysis software? Is the technically driven schedule achievable?
»
- Printer-friendly version
- Login or register to post comments