1. Short Shaping-Time Tracker Performance Rich Partridge and B.S. have made a crude estimate of SST tracker material burdens. Most hard info derives from Rich’s experience with the D0 upgrade project. We worried about Sensor thickness Data transmission lines Power cables Electronics and filtering Mechanical support

2. Estimating the Material Budget Sensors: Assume standard 300  m per layer  0.3% X 0 Data Lines: Two data in, two data out, bias, 5 clocks  10 data lines at 250  m per trace at 0.17% X 0 trace thickness. Assume 5cm wide ladder  5% fill factor  average thickness of 0.009% X 0 Add kapton, and x2 redundancy  0.1% X 0

3. Estimating the Material Budget (cont’d) Power: ½ of 167cm ladder (power draw falls of with distance) ~ 20K channels; assume 10A, and no more than 0.02  for trace  average X 0 of 0.3%; x2 since we need ground return  0.3% X 0, but scales with (N module -1) Electronics: 0.2% X 0 (assumes bump bonding) Mechanical Support: 0.4% X 0 ; number stolen from D0.

4. Overall Material Budget LayerSensorsData Cables Power Cables Electron -ics & Filtering SupportTotal (%X0) 10.30.1 0.20.41.1 20.30.1 0.20.41.1 30.30.10.2 0.41.2 40.30.10.2 0.41.2 50.30.10.30.20.41.3

5. Performance of SST Tracker cos  = 0 p (GeV/c)  p  /p  2 (GeV/c -1 ) LD 3/01 IDEAL LST SST In particular, how might SUSY and Higgs reconstruc- tion compare be- tween SST and LD? (Note: essentially no difference between three scenarios for impact parameter resolution)