====== Telecon Notes May 16, 2018  ======

Attendance: Shaul, Hannes, Amy, Al, 

Notes by: Karl

=== Agenda ===

  * AAS2019 (Shaul)
  * TeamX slides (Amy)
  * {{::sensitivity_vs_frequency_20180516.pdf|Noise/Bands Figure}}
  * Noise Requirements vs Current Best Estimate (CBE)
    * Proposal: Req = CBE*rt(2)/0.9, independent of frequency
    * rt(2) because "Planck achieved noise within ~20% of CBE" (to be checked) 
    * 0.9 because the cost models assume 90% yield
    * first factor is applied on individual detectors, second factor on the array. 

=== Notes === 

AAS2019 (Shaul)
  * End of May is special session request deadline. No current Probe special session planned for 2019.
  * SH: contacted Asantha Cooray and Jason Glenn suggesting a group special session.  These 3 are most related probes.  Would give 1/2 hour to discuss each project.  Timely since right after reports finished.
    * HH: yes. Good idea.  Gets outcome of probe studies out broadly.
    * AT: surprising if NASA doesn't do this for all Probes, but this can be replaced if NASA makes full probe session.
      * SH: separate sessions give more time per study. That would better.
      * AT: Agree, just expect NASA to set one up. But if multiple sessions already set then NASA maybe doesn't bother.
    * SH: Will proceed with this 3 group session plan.  Plan of 3 thirty minute talks.  30 min per probe. groups can subdivide.  2 weeks to submit this.  Iterating with Asantha and Jason.

TeamX slides (Amy)
  * No specific hang-ups. Feelers out to export office on process.  
  * Process will probably be weeks to release.  
  * SH: I can flag a subset that is most important to release.
    * AT: ok. that would shorten time to release.

{{::sensitivity_vs_frequency_20180516.pdf|Noise/Bands Figure}}
  * Working to make a visual we have needed.  Noise level vs frequency and signal levels.  Trying to make something that makes sense.
  * This made by Josquin.
  * left vertical axis is noise levels. right vertical axis is signals (CMB, dust, synchrotron)
  * AK: Not a fan of uK_CMB above ~300 GHz. The upper range makes synchtron, dust, etc look odd.
    * AK: Like everything in Janskies or W/m^s/sr/Hz. Something more widely used in astronomy.
  * SH: Understood. This figure works for CMB community, but maybe a second product to use in a more general context.
  * HH: Al's point is good.  Reach broader groups.  This plot says 'PICO is a CMB mission' contrary to the workshop message of PICO as a mm/sub-mm instrument.
  * AT: Yes, more general units good.
  * SH: Al can send unit suggestion to Josquin.  AK: Yes, will do.
  * SH: Also planning to color code bands by pixel type.
  * AT: Error in band location? SH: yes, iterating with Josquin.

Noise Requirements vs <del>Best Case Estimate (BCE)</del> Current Best Estimate (CBE)
  * AT: standard NASA term is current best estimate (CBE)
  * starting from r is awkward as foreground limits aren't well understood. so r values don't set a noise requirement.
  * we'll adopt this empirical noise requirement and iterate that with science case.  Then we see if this pushes us off any cliffs in terms of achievable science.