====== Telecon Notes 20170809 ======

Attendance: Jamie, Amy, Shaul, Lloyd \\
Notes by: Shaul \\

=== Agenda ===
  * Short updates: {{:private:head2017_v2_sh_forrita.pptx|Rita's slide}}; Name (PICO?); JPL visit (Wed. Aug. 30); Probe + S4 Workshops
  * {{:private:cmbpol_stm_template.docx|Science Traceability Matrix}} (Amy) + tasks to WG (Shaul, all)
  * {{:private:probemissionstudy_telecon_20170816.pdf|Probe Strategy}} (Shaul, all)
    * need now; a mission should fly asap regardless of r results from sub-orbital
    * a mission should fly if there are detections by sub-orbital

=== Telecon Notes ===

  * STM: Need input on first two columns before JPL visit. Shaul will fill in the first column from NASA strategic plan. Lloyd + other group leaders to fill other columns. 

  * __Probe Strategy__ \\
 
    * Jamie: what we had last decadal 'wait for detections from the ground' - what does that mean? Vague. The key issue is maintaining support for the community. Suggests a common technology program with S4. Also, we are not asked to provide a plan for the decade. We are asked to provide a Probe study. 
    * Lloyd: situation now vastly different than last decade. Last time we had to wait for Planck results. 
    * Comments from Charles (by e-mail): \\

"First of all, the point of the current study is to demonstrate a CMB polarization mission that could do spectacular science for under $1 B.  The goal is a recommendation from the Decadal Review for a Probe line of missions.  One might hope that the Decadal panel would be so impressed that they made a special recommendation about a CMB polarization mission.  One might hope, but I think that hope is false.  So I wouldn't let it drive us in any way.

Which brings me to the point.  We should write a report that says a <$1 B mission can do spectacular CMB (or whatever) science.  We don't have to agonize about when.  If a Probe line is instituted, we'll compete, and the question will be addressed then.  If a Probe line is not instituted, the question is irrelevant.   For now, we can ignore the question about when.  But we need to be really, really serious about less than $1 B!!  And spectacular science."