primary cost is science analysis manpower, during and post mission
other costs: mission ops, DSN tracking, navigation, data management, etc.
Current number is scaled from $40M in EPIC. Jamie suggests recalculate this.
3 minute estimate by Shaul of $25M. Assuming 30 postdocs, ~5 yrs. Needs refining.
Balance of post-docs, senior scientists, NASA scientists greatly affects cost
Charles: 30 post-docs, 5 yrs is right idea.
Charles, Jamie: take examples from Planck and WMAP. final science costs were large. somewhat driven by organization framework in Planck's case. Could use US Planck contribution as a guide.
long time-frame drives large cost.
A/I Shaul to make effort estimate
Charles will give opinions and input.
current thoughts of 30 post-docs, 5-6 yrs, some senior folks, e.g. Julian, as well.
Al: can we break line 7 into science, ops, DSN, etc.?
Amy: majority in line 7 is science, ops < 20%.
Line 9 clarification. Reserves are 30%
Amy: can change to 25% as stated in NASA slides. 25% is aggressive.
Also, may want to aim for < $1B to give buffer for independent costing.
Shaul: do 25% as we've been told to. Leave decision of a buffer below $1B for NASA. They can tell all probe-classes to do this.
Line 14, Spacecraft $200M
currently modelling. Scaling from previous satellites.
typical that spacecraft is more than instrument
nothing is technically risky, but requirements drive costs.
power (1 kW instrument, ~2.5 kW total), data rates and telecom, spinning
CL: Planck was 1.8 kW total. 1 kw instrument. less margin in panels since no angle to sun.
CL: Planck spacecraft + ancillary (don't remember what besides launch ops) was $250M. Majority was spacecraft.
Line 17, thermal
being refined with thermal models
estimate of $70M from CORE with 50 cm focal plane. significantly large focal plane would raise this.
CL: 50 cm isn't enough focal plane to get to low frequency, 20GHz.
Jamie: 100 mK may be primary cost, more or less mass at 100 mK may make a smaller difference.
Amy: True, cost not linear with focal plane size, but does increase with increasing focal plane size.
Smaller imager? (Shaul)
if imager + Spectrometer then smaller imager. Cost limited.
Not limited by mass, volume, power, data rate. (except that these add cost)
50 cm design to evaluate cost and science trade-offs more clearly.
Amy: detailed costing of a point-design is more Team X task. Beyond scope of her group.
but confident that a CORE + PIXIE design is over budget.
CL: both imager and spectrometer are difficult, complicated science. Doing both in 1 limits the science in both. Would rather do 2 separate satellites.
Jamie: Can spacecraft costs drop? MidEx are proposing L2.
Amy: No. This system is bigger and class B.
Jamie: Can we assume future savings? Concerned about a marginal science case due to cost limits.
Shaul: Set a baseline for now.
Sensitivities for 50cm sent to science groups. They'll report in 1 week.
Assuming a 4 K 50 cm system.
Big, 3x, hit to resolution.
Jamie: Does this kill the science? (wait for WG inputs)
CL: S4 simulated complex synchrotron foregrounds. 15' beams at 20 GHz gave 5x improvement at l = few hundred.
30' beams at 20, 30, 40 GHz did similar.
more parameter space to be explored.
Dave and Nick to present science trade-offs next week. Laura gone.