====== Telecon Notes 20170802 ======

Attendance: Al, Julian, Jamie, Jeff, Clem, Charles\\
Notes by: Jamie\\

=== Agenda ===
**  * Workshops**
- Foregrounds (get update from Raphael)

- Science + Complementarity (Shaul waiting for reply from Carlstrom; Clem said he would raise the question about a common workshop during an S4 SOC telecon on Monday. Perhaps Clem can report on the discussion. SH also waiting for response from SOC regarding a brief Probe presentation at Harvard.) 

**  * Name for the Probe**
- Below is a draft e-mail soliciting suggestions from the community. Suggested process: people offer suggestions, EC decides. EC Discussion: any comments?

Various incarnations of proposed, US-led, CMB polarization missions had these names: Inflation Probe, CMBPol, EPIC (Experimental Probe of Inflationary Cosmology), and PIXIE (Primordial Inflation Explorer Mission).  Feel free to opine in favor of one of the past names, or propose a new name. 

**  * Update on Data Challenge (Julian or Raphael, Lloyd unavailable)**

**  * Update from the Technology WG**
- General discussion: how do we ensure that technologies that are not in the baseline Probe get proper mention and boost in the report. The long term goal is to ensure technology development support. Examples are KIDs, the 'other' readout system (whatever we end up baselining), HWP, lenses + ARCoat ...

- Below is a list of concrete questions I sent the Tech WG. They can also report their work on these. 

1. what is the plan for detector technology for the high frequency bands of the imager? 

2. are the distribution of colors for pixels as described by the worksheet reasonable? 

3. are the bandwidths assumed reasonable? 

4. what should we assume about beam sizes as a function of frequency, specifically for the high frequency bands? Is it reasonable to assume single mode coupling all the way to the highest frequencies? 

**  * Update from Imager - postponed for next week when Shaul is back**

=== Notes ===
Raphael hasn't called in\\
Clem brought up the subject of a joint workshop with S4, response was not overwhelming\\
This was in reaction to an approximately equal split in time over a 3-day period\\
Perhaps one could have the probe go first\\
Has there been any discussion about using S4 tools for the probe?\\
There certainly seems like there is overlap in certain areas, e.g. foregrounds, analysis machinery\\
S4 people did think a coordinated approach to the 2020 decadal was critical\\
No reply yet on the request to have a presentation at the Harvard meeting\\

No suggestions about probe naming plan put forward\\

Update from the data challenge (Julian)\\
Mission observation applies to a sky model in selected beams and band passes\\
The initial sky model is PISM2\\
Output maps will be available tomorrow in all the observing frequencies, beam sizes, and (white) noise levels which were taken from the wiki (see data challenge WG page for details)\\
Described as a "pipe-cleaning exercise", to check formats and the like\\
Teams of analysts were solicited by Lloyd, we should find out who has signed up.  Lots in Europe presumably\\
Clem:  is there a LiteBird or CORE++ model we can compare with?\\
Yes, though there are differences and limitations from what these groups have done\\
For example CORE++ has moved beyond PISM, machinery already exists\\

Update from the Technology WG:\\
Jeff and Roger have been working on a detector technology plan for team-X\\
Getting some input from LTD, baselining TES+TDM SQUIDS for the probe\\
Then we would outline what the CMB community has done, and diverse future improvements\\
Optical coupling can be left open, highlighting diversity of approaches\\
Plan to circulate the report more widely to gather input and support\\
Jamie:  one danger is that NASA technology support is attached to named missions in the decadal\\
We should be concerned that the probe study is for a mission class, not a named mission\\
Therefore it could fall out of long-term technology funding, and we should anticipate writing a technology white paper to justify continued investment\\
High-frequency channels can be done with a non-antenna approach, but want a science case\\
The other questions from Shaul can be addressed in the Imager telecon\\