====== Telecon 20180124 ====== Attending: Notes by : \\ === Agenda=== * {{::telescopei_t_v002_20171212_s.pdf|Telescope I+T}} (Tomo) * {{::bjohnson_01.24.17.pdf|GRASP status}} (Karl, Brad) * Attitude control requirements ^ ^ Pointing Knowledge ^ Pointing Control ^ Pointing Stability ^ | | (arcsec) | (arcsec) | (arcsec/sec) | | EPIC | <35 (3 sigma) | 3600 (3 sigma) | 45/0.05 | | CORE | 1 (1 sigma) | 24 | ? | | PICO | 6 (1 sigma) | 3600 (3 sigma) | ? | === Notes:=== Notes: Attitude control * Shaul: Pointing Control is how well spacecraft points at a direction; Pointing Knowledge is how well we know where it points at; Pointing stability is how stable pointing is in terms of changing rate. * Ben: thinking about map to understand definitions of pointing knowledge, control and stability; that's how engineers talk about them. * PICO rquires 6 arcsec pointing knowledge, which about 1/10 of the smallest beam. * Shaul thinks we do not need more than 1 degree of pointing control. * Bill: pointing stability is associated with spin; we may also think about how stable spin axis is aligned with star camera. * Bill: points out having 2 or more scan modes would have been very helpful for Planck. Break time constant and beam shape degeneracies. Shaul: right now we fix on having only 1 scan strategy, but it can be discussed. * Jacques: 3 star sensors garuntees 1'' pointing knowledge. This is the easiest and likely to be reasonable in cost. Worth just using 3. * Jacques: Thoughts from CORE, * Pointing control is to eliminate gaps in map. 24'' ensures no gaps in single detector maps. * 24'' was technically doable for Core with reaction wheels. Should check if that is true for PICO, if the engineers don't scream, then stop worrying about it. * Shaul: reaction wheels are current assumption for PICO * **A/I** Shaul to check with Amy about 24'' control with wheels. * Additional note from Brendan: Planck achieved 2 arcsecond rms pointing reconstruction [[https://wiki.cosmos.esa.int/planckpla2015/index.php/Detector_pointing|(see Planck Explanatory Supplement)]] I + T, lessons from Planck, options for PICO. (Tomo) * Plank tested mirrors + baffles, then focal plane and feeds separately * example of parameters that need to be tested in presentation page 5 * tests at component and subsystem levels. * feed beam patterns not tested cold * Jacques: Primary, secondary at different temperatures. difficult to test this on ground. Alignment may create issues. * Planck cold system test at CSR. Signal response test, but no beam mapping. * Photogrammetry of full structure to measure alignment, and align system. Was costly for Planck, facility needed to be adapated. * 10 um interferometry of planck mirrors. * optics needed to be sufficiently polished for this test. may need to 'overbuild' mirrors. * also consider mirror material in cost, planck was CFRP. * focal plane testing at Saturne. criteria tested on page 13. * Comments for PICO: * page 16-17, cost drivers. 3 cyrostats (all large), plus full satellite sized chamber to test full system (cooling, etc.) * cold testing drives cost, dependent on availible facilities, dependent on what is characterized in flight vs on ground * page 19, calibrations done for Planck shown. * spectral response not fully measured on ground, can't be sense * Shaul: has Planck over tested or under tested any optics? * Bill: most valuable was cold photogrammetry of flight optics. Other tests were of interest, but not as critical. * Mirror material? Bill: Silicon carbide, lower mass solution than aluminum. Jacques: Core proposal used silicon carbide, but now in doubt. carbide is expensive, machining challenge, large thermal contraction. Aluminum is cheaper, easier. * Shaul: TeamX assumed aluminum mirrors. Silicon carbide may over run cost. Aluminum below $10M. * Discussion on hold until next week due to time.