Telecon Notes Feb. 13, 2019

Attendance: Shaul H., Raphael F., Amy T., Tim P., Alex vE., Charles L.

Notes by: Karl

Agenda

Status of report
- schedule:
  - Post to astroph by ~Tues 2/26; leaves 10 days for references to be inserted into decadal science white papers.
  - Submit to NASA shortly after.
- length: currently in limit
- author page (current arrangement acceptable?)
- B-detection Figure : current; V2; V3 V4
- Spectrometer words?
- Couple remaining items
  - 'timely' words
  - FOM figure?

Notes

schedule:
- Post to astroph by ~Tues 2/26; leaves 10 days for references to be inserted into decadal science white papers.
- Submit to NASA shortly after.
length: currently in limit. SH: no major content removed, text pruning
author page (current arrangement acceptable?)
- TP: add title to page i. KY will add back
- All: no opinions.
- only change will be adding the title.
B-detection Figure (see options above) on page 6, right side
- SH: polishing versions. the binning was such that at ell > 90 only had upper limits. different binning changes this.
- SH: should cut plot earlier (300), since no high ell information.
  - RF: was balancing visually so minimum between reionization and recombination peaks in BB.
- RF: really no information at ell > 100. other versions just steal signal from ell < 100 and put it in a bin > 100. No real preference on versions though.
  - SH: didn't understand the lack of signal > 100. (see V4, no limits above 100 in 1 big bin.)
- AT: like V1 the best. could de-emphasize higher ell's and keep visual look by moving line labels to left and cutting at ell ~ 200.
- SH: concern is that there was no clear reason for del(ell) = 10 when ell > 100. Confused me when reading, not sure what to present so readers aren't confused.
- RF: original delta ell was chosen to ensure no complaints of playing with signal by changing binning.
- CL: like V3, visually. The binning choice doesn't bother me, all are fine. Like cutting off far to right to show tale.
- SH: Leave binning as is for now, but cut at 300. RF: ok, can do that.
- CL: slight preference for many bins so there is a slight curve at end. visually nice.
Spectrometer words?
- SH: currently no mention in report. People ask after/during talks. Should we have language on this is report? I think we should stick with this.
  - CL: Agree, don't mention spectrometer.
  - AT: This isn't proposal, is an example. So spectrometer shout out is ok. But no strong need. Also don't know where it would make sense.
  - CL: discussing what we didn't decide to study is odd.
  - AT: We have talked about trade-offs in terms of FDM/TDM, detectors, etc. But different mission is very different.
  - AT: The only pro is to shout out spectrometer people. SH: what about other shout-outs? like LB? and probably other spectrometer instrument papers submitted to decadal. CL: yes to spectrometers being submitted.
  - SH: will remain as is.
Couple remaining items
- 'timely' words SH: discussion of timeliness for PICO as talked about in EC a few weeks ago.
- FOM figure? SH: will only implement if can find space. JD and EV working to add an 'upper limit' type point to that plot.
- SH: All this done this week, so 1 week before submission.

SH: Paul Hertz town hall had specific words about probe presentation to decadal. Basically 'Everything is possible'. The panel can choose a funding wedge or specific missions or what ever it wants.

AT: SPHEREx accepted for Phase B. Congrats to Jamie et al.

SH: who else?
CL: midEx is SPHEREx. MO is Ariel, support for exoplanet imaging, no start date.

CL: Reiterate that this cover is very good. Have gotten many requests for this figure for people to use in talks. Talked to artist. JPL has original photoshop and owns figure. Propose:

we make a poster of this image.
make this image available as is.
make image available without lettering and without spacecraft.
Opinions?
- All: no objections. Some verbal 'yes'. AE: yes, would use. AT: yes, check with Jeff as it's from his budget. CL: Yes, I think I did.