====== 20170517 Telecon Notes ======

Legend: **Bold face** encodes 'need more information'; //italics// encodes issues that are (semi)settled in the sense that they are the basis for future discussions; __Underlined Text__ are action items.

Attending: Shaul, Julian, Amy, Brendan, Jamie, Al, Lloyd, Charles, Mark (Notes by Julian)

NASA Probe PI kick-off telecon: anything we want to add/ask? 

  * Technology
    *   Shaul: How do we estimate the cost of technology that will mature in the near future?
  * Team X design process
    *  Shaul: how much is available, can we iterate?
    *  Jamie: need a sufficiently mature concept to make Team X process most effective; can start a coarse/piecewise process before full end-to-end session; can pay for 1 person’s time rather than a full team;
    *   Charles: no fixed cost for Team X - iterate with Team X on cost/process; is the budget overall or per probe?
    * Amy: from Keith, 2 instrument sessions + 1 mission session; ultimately 1 detailed design study (by us, fleshing out Team X mission session)
       * Preliminary meeting to set up plan
       * Instrument session is a unique unit; process of in-person meetings & independent effort report writing
       * If we just have 1 instrument, maybe 1 can be used for eg. cryogenics
       * need to decide on instrument(s) - imager, spectrometer, both ...
       * Mission session is group activity after instrument sessions
       * All probes have the same budget, process adapts to individual need
    * Jamie: process is flexible - ask for what makes most sense for us; big question is the budget! Pertinent question for NASA telecon.
    * Shaul: what is cost equivalent of 2 instrument + 1 mission studies
    * Charles: mission study can be 1 to many days; roughly $30,000/day
       * Teams:
          * Team X - instrument team (engineers)
          * Team X - mission team (somewhat broader)
          * A Team - brainstorming session to solve particular problem ((case-specific experts); we’re fairly mature, don’t want/need open-ended brainstorming but may use for specific target questions (branch points)
    * Jamie: Reports & Outreach plans? Special session at AAS - anything more? post-report Outreach?
  * When do we go to Team X - early (10-11/17) or late (1-3/18). Early implies significant decisions this summer
    * Charles: the further along we are the better - things Team X can’t help with (simulations) must be done first.
    * Jamie: timing of money? Amy: should be available in late ’17, but it’s Keith’s money to manage.
    * Shaul: No advantage to going early. No argument with that! 

  * Resolution/Delensing

    sigma(r=0) for f_sky=0.5, l_min = 2, 20, tau=0.06, white noise = 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 uK-arcmin
    Reionization bump is a big advantage
    Trade-off between noise and resolution (smaller beam/more noise vs larger beam/lower noise)
        Doubling noise & beam is about flat; what is the cost trade-off?
        At 0.5 uK-arcmin going from 1.2m to 1.4m only improves sigma by 25%
    2uK-arcmin is almost flat; resolution doesn’t help
    Resolution => mode-sensitivity; dominated by E/B; want to reach l~500 in E 
    Comparable S4 effort in progress

  * PCOS Technology Needs: 
    * Influences SAT call for March 18; funding in FY19.
    * 3 CMB-related areas already being tracked
        * mm-wave focal plane arrays for CMB polarimetry 
        * mm-wave optical elements
        * high-efficiency cryogenics: 20K => <1K
    * Jamie: PCOS program can only fund ~6 things - ranking guidance given by PAGs; PhysPAG rolled things into broad areas to improve priority ranking. Ranked < 10 *very* unlikely to be funded. PhysPAG members: Ed Wollack, Amber Miller.
    * Previously “advanced focal planes” (driven by IR multiplexing) was separate, but it has merged into general FP.
    * Charles: Is “mm” too restrictive? Formally 30-300GHz (Jamie says 30-600MHz is quoted) - maybe push down to 10GHz?
    * Julian: Software not covered by SAT (from Rita)