LIGO-L1400021

This is the email thread between RickS and Mindy regarding the Design Requirements Document.

On Feb 6, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Mindy Jacobson <mjacobso@ligo.caltech.edu> wrote:
Hi Rick

I have addressed nearly all of your comments, below, in a draft revision -v3 of the DRD.
I say that it's a draft because Aidan should confirm what I've done.
He may not be able to get to it immediately.
I just wanted you (and Eric) to know that we're working on it.

Mindy

On 1/25/2014 4:44 PM, Richard Savage wrote:
Hi Mindy,

I'm way behind schedule, so sorry for the delay.

I've looked over LIGO-T000092, the DRD, and have the following list of questions/suggestions.  I hope this doesn't have the tone of re-reviewing the TCS.  In some cases it is just bringing me up to speed.

Best,

Rick

	1.	Figure 1 missing from document.
	2.	Section 2.5.1 "Note FM is missing."  This is irrelevant now, isn't it?
	3.	Figure 2.  I presume this is a plot of the maximum allowed amplitude spectral density of technical noise contributed by any one source such as TCS.  Is this correct?
	4.	Red text in Section 3.3.1 indicates that the Detector DRD requirements flow down tree should be included in this section, but it's not.
	5.	3.1.2.1 It would be helpful to know how much the change in spot size resulting from a change in mirror curvature of 35 km would be.
	6.	3.1.3.3 What is "the SRD light power" referred to in this requirement?
	7.	3.1.4.1, second paragraph.  Shouldn't "ETM" be replaced by "ITM?"
	8.	3.1.4.2 How will the identification of the optic center in the sensor out be verified with 1 mm accuracy?
	9.	3.1.6.1.1 (and folding mirror cage in the folded IFO) could be removed.  Can "XXX kg"  be updated?
	10.	3.1.7 Can the required (or estimated) MTBF of the "shielded ring heaters" be quantified at this point?
	11.	Table 2, second and third entries.  Did you intend "-40 C" rather than "40 C?"
	12.	3.1.9.1.3  What do you mean by "is assumed to be automatically met?"  Do you assume that you must seismically constrain hardware outside the vacuum? I think this is a requirement, e.g. for the PSL optical table.
	13.	3.1.13.1 Still "TBD." or is is "N/A?"
	14.	3.1.13.5 and 3.1.13.6 Can the TBSs here be replaced with document numbers?
	15.	Appendix A: What's up with this?  Can it just be removed at this point?