Status of the Heavy Flavor Tracker Review Stephen Steadman STAR Collaboration Meeting Warsaw University of Technology July 31, 2005

S. Steadman HFT Review Status 2 Outline Proposers Basic Concept of the HFT Cost and Schedule Charge to the Review Committee & Additional Question Committee Membership Review Process Observations Summary Possible Path Forward

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 3 Proposers Z. Xu Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York Y. Chen, S. Kleinfelder, A. Koohi, S. Li University of California, Irvine, California H. Huang, A. Tai University of California, Los Angeles, California V. Kushpil, M. Sumbera Nuclear Physics Institute AS CR, Rez/Prague, Czech Republic C. Colledani, W. Dulinski, A. Himmi, C. Hu, A. Shabetai, M. Szelezniak, I. Valin, M. Winter Institut de Recherches Subatomique, Strasbourg, France M. Miller, B. Surrow, G. Van Nieuwenhuizen Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts F. Bieser, R. Gareus, L. Greiner, F. Lesser, H.S. Matis, M. Oldenburg, H.G. Ritter, L. Pierpoint, F. Retiere, A. Rose, K. Schweda, E. Sichtermann, J.H. Thomas, H. Wieman, E. Yamamoto Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California I. Kotov Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 4 Basic Concept of the HFT Active pixel sensors close to the beam: 6 ladders at 1.5 cm radius inner layer 18 ladders at 5 cm radius outer layer Each ladder contains a row of 10 CMOS chips Each detector chip contains 640 x mm square pixels, with chips thinned to 50 mm Pointing accuracy 25 mm for 1 GeV/c tracks Continuous data readout: Frame read time 4 ms Pixel read rate, after zero suppression 63 MHz For luminosity cm -2 s -1 have 10% pileup within tracking window Ladder (w/Al cable) 0.36% X o Beam Pipe Thickness 0.5 mm or 0.14% X o

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 5 Cost and Schedule Cost $8-10 million, including costs of contributed labor from participating institutions Added 75% contingency on most items DOE has expressed expectation to begin project in FY 2008, provided reviews are satisfactory. Time to complete ~3 years, but costs are heavily weighted towards third year.

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 6 Charge to the Committee Scientific Merit: Will the proposed detector 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?

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 7 Charge to the Committee Technical Feasibility: Is the proposed technology appropriate, viable, and robust; are there outstanding R&D or technical issues which are potential "show-stoppers" which must be resolved before proceeding to a fully detailed construction plan covering technical, cost, and schedule issues?

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 8 Charge to the Committee 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 scope of the upgrade justified by the physics driven requirements?

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 9 Charge to the Committee 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.?

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 10 Charge to the Committee 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? Is the technically driven schedule achievable?

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 11 Additional Question If the physics merit is strong and the technical approach is sound, is the proposal ready to submit to the DOE? If not, what R&D, simulations or other additional effort needs to be done over what time scale to make it ready?

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 12 Committee Membership Jana Bielcikova, Yale University Helen Caines, Yale University David Lynn, BNL Spiros Margetis, Kent State University Marcelo Munhoz, Universidade de Sao Paulo Hal Spinka, ANL Stephen Steadman, MIT, Chair Gerrit van Nieuwenhuizen, MIT Ex-officio: Tim Hallman, Ralph Brown, Bill Christie, Jerome Lauret, Tonko Ljubicic, BNL Dick Majka, Yale University Jay Marx, LBNL

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 13 Process Weekly conference calls began June 3 Recently committee submitted informational questions and have received responses from proponents Planned review at BNL with proponents and some experts in mid-September Report to be completed October-November

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 14 Observations A lot of work towards developing an HFT has been done, but the committee found some areas that need addressing. Physics goals and impacts need strengthening. Importance to the RHIC spin program needs to be identified. Additional simulations need to be done to better understand what physics measurements can be accomplished. Active pixel sensor technology is still under development: need to understand where it is at and how it is developing.

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 15 Observations (cont’d) Earliest time scale DOE budget permits for beginning fabrication as a project is FY 2008, with completion in FY At that time RHIC luminosity is planned to increase significantly. We need to understand if the HFT as proposed will perform adequately under these conditions. Au-Au Peak Luminosity 2x ~3x

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 16 Observations (cont’d) The HFT assumes an intermediate tracker such as the SVT as a pointing detector. The SVT will not be able to fulfill this function when the HFT becomes fully operational in FY 2010 or later. The capabilities of this pointing detector need to be properly characterized and specified. A serious discussion with the BNL CAD needs to take place regarding backgrounds created by pressure rises in the planned constricted beam pipe and halo particles stopping in the tapered beam pipe sections.

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 17 Summary The Review Committee is well constituted for the task and is analyzing the proposal carefully and thoroughly. The scientific merit of the upgrade is still under evaluation: is the science obtained worth the cost? The technology chosen is still undergoing R&D – it is not yet well established: is it far enough along to start fabrication soon? The proposal is not yet ready for submission as a project; but, how much work needed to get it into shape needs to be evaluated. The DOE seems eager to start the project in FY 2008 if it reviews well. To do so would require approval of CD-0 (Mission Need) by DOE in early 2006.

July 31, 2005S. Steadman HFT Review Status 18 Possible Path Forward This is a personal suggestion. If physics sound obtain Mission Need (CD-0) early in 2006 Put forward an R&D plan for <$2M for development of prototype that could do some useful physics Have new beam pipe (~$1.9M) developed and procured by BNL as part of RHIC infrastructure Use coming year to develop a proposal suitable for CD-1, with project to be completed on a shorter time scale (1-2 years) CD-0 Obtain mission need: Pursue R&D to determine technical choice; begin TPC CD-1 Establish technical choice: Begin to develop CDR CD-2 Establish management plan and baseline TEC based on CDR: Approve project for fabrication (solicit bids) CD-3 Begin fabrication (award contract) CD-4 Complete project: Begin operation TPC = R&D + TEC + pre-ops DOE Project Steps