Telecon Notes May. 29, 2019

Attendance: Shaul, Amy, Dave C., Al K., Charles L., Colin H., Nick B., Jamie B., Jacques D.

Notes by: Karl

• Evolution since we submitted the PICO Report also on the arXiv.
  • PCAT + ICE
  • Combined Probe publications
  • Other updates from others?
  • LiteBIRD
• Material to be included in the decadal white paper.
  • Decadal Instructions
    • Key Science Goals and Objectives 4-5 pgs
      • Do we want to include any updates/changes (H0 now 4.4 sigma …
    • Technical Overview 3 pgs
      • Any updates/changes?
    • Technology Drivers 1 pg
    • Organization, Partnerships, and Current Status
    • Schedule
    • Cost
      • Any updates/changes?
• Distribution of tasks and deadlines.

(in progress)

Goal of day is to discuss/plan white paper which is due on July 10.

Evolution since we submitted the PICO Report also on the arXiv.

• PCAT + ICE (costing. PCAT is still ongoing, supposed to converge soon as report to Paul Hertz)
  • SH/AT in meeting at Goddard recently. Heard from observers that PICO presentation went well. JPL/Goddard ICE have looked at our costs again. ICE is independent costering.
  • AT: had some courtesy conversations with ICE. making sure their models have right information. final versions will be due in ~ 1 week. sounds like costs are slightly above Team X, but nothing extreme.
  • SH: Under impression we had some chance for back/forth with ICE. Does Amy's connection count for that? Or can we respond?
  • AT: They've given us some prelim numbers. I've responded to those. Next number we hear will probably be final.
  • SH: Sounds like you don't need any input from science side? AT: correct. these ICE models are more general. based primarily on mass. So important to get masses labeled under the correct heading (i.e. spacecraft, instrument, etc). Amy has been taking care of this.
  • AT: also ICE is running 2 (maybe 3) cost models.
• Combined Probe publications
  • SH: initiative to publish all probe reports as papers. The reports would be pruned down, then submitted. Currently asked ApJ supplements. If not them, then JCAP or Jrnl astronomical instrumentation.
• Other updates from others?
  • JB: Is there a plan for Probe white paper? pushing Probe's as a class.
    • SH: Yes. Martin Elvis is planning that. Haven't seen anything recently.(CL: yes, that is still the plan)
    • SH: In past was discussion about pushing Decadal what to recommend. Probe line or specific mission or limited set of science wedges.
    • JB: talked to Paul Hertz. He doesn't want a 'X probes should fly in 2020s' recommend. Would use up money so couldn't have a facility mission.
      • SH: also under the impression that Paul wants a flagship mission. Doesn't want probes to hinder that. Also he prefers decadal to highlight science areas for probes. Not have NASA choose among many (10's) of different probes.
      • JB: PH also said writing so many proposals is a large burden on the community.
      • CL: Last mid-ex mission proposals were 14. So number is already limited. This is because JPL or Goddard have to lead big missions.
      • CL: My opinion, once every 10 year review is too infrequent and too high-level to choose the best mission. Prefer wide open selection.
• LiteBIRD
  • JAXA has chosen LiteBIRD, but funding depends on Japanese government (and international collaborations). nominal launch is 2027-28.
  • CL: currently only funding for LiteBIRD detectors is by Berkeley, funding for MO. Lots of MOs expected. Including JPL add to SPICA. Paul said there is only money for 1 international MO.
  • JD: Similar in CNES. Plan is for large CNES contribution to LiteBIRD but also involved in SPICA. Same issue that CNES has money for 1. ESA doesn't want to lead Europe portion of LiteBIRD (HFT and MFT). CNES would maybe take on this lead.
  • CL: Complicated issue. and not resolved by Decadal review time. Spica timeline for ESA decisions is ~ 2yrs. JD: yes, roughly that for ESA M5 decision.
  • AT: US contributions for LiteBIRD/SPICA are similar timeline. Step 1 selections spring 2020. Step 2 selections probably Fall 2021.
  • CL: Would say LiteBIRD is a spoiler for the decadal review. Any conclusion including LiteBIRD seems to be mainly a recommendation to delay. For white paper need to make case that PICO and LiteBIRD are not the same. Make sure decadal doesn't assume LiteBIRD will take care of all CMB science for 2020s. (JB says similar point)

Material to be included in the decadal white paper.

• Decadal Instructions SH: should be 10 pages.
• SH: Baseline would be cut 50 page report to 10 pages. But we're hearing some new things . . . (such as connection to LiteBIRD)
  • JB: Important to have how the various CMB instruments fit together. Doesn't seem like CMB community is doing this on its own.
  • Key Science Goals and Objectives 4-5 pgs
    • Do we want to include any updates/changes (H0 now 4.4 sigma …)
      • CL: Cautious of making too big a deal of this. Specific value isn't key for understanding the universe. History of H0 is big discrepancies and small errors. Don't need to emphasize this. Let Reiss emphasize it.
  • Technical Overview 3 pgs
    • Any updates/changes?
  • Technology Drivers 1 pg
  • Organization, Partnerships, and Current Status
    • SH: Currently PICO has no formal partnerships. Is in somewhat of an odd status.
    • JD: There is always the possibility of adding through a ESA proposal. MO = 50 million euros. Or an M-class call with PICO contribution. Both would need a context and some kind of joint proposal (This means a probe call in US.) Other option is through national agencies (CNES), but large inputs are less likely.
    • JD: Also a longterm, 2050, plan currently being made by ESA. CMB folks in Europe will be submitting papers to this plan. ESA will select 3 science cases later this year, but 3 missions launched 2035-2050. For CMB polarization will mention that this would be covered by PICO, ESA could contribute to PICO instead of flying a seperate M-class mission. These are due to ESA August 5.
      • SH: So no formal steps will be finalized by white paper deadline. Are there informal steps to take? Informal support by European community?
      • JD: Very difficult to make progress before July 10. Been advocating CMB space missions for past years, support for PICO and CMB-Bharat. Those proposals still being reviewed. Also, European CMB community has put lots of work toward LiteBIRD and they would likely be reluctant to risk confusing ESA by advocating for PICO.
    • AK: Suggest finessing this by putting this under cost. We showed this is doable for $1 billion and any non-US $$ can only help. The decadal is probably only looking for broad feasibility. Showing capable partners can help spread cost and make this even more possible.
    • JD: Do they look at science vs cost? SH: Yes.
  • Schedule
  • Cost
    • Any updates/changes?

Distribution of tasks and deadlines.

• SH: will be away for 2 weeks. Back June 14th. Will take lead on science section then.
• SH: Amy what can you do for the tech sections?
  • AT: need a separate email/phone conversation to nail down tasks. AT time is limited, but we'll get it done at JPL somehow.
• SH: Will be a few telecons between June 14th and July 10th. will need some input from EC folks then.