Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| imagerteleconnotes20170724 [2017/07/25 15:57] – hanany | imagerteleconnotes20170724 [2017/07/30 19:10] (current) – hanany | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| * {{:: | * {{:: | ||
| - | ___Actions:___ | + | __Actions:__ |
| - | * Brad will revisit EPIC-IM sidelobe analysis, will report next week on what is required to fire the analysis for CMBP. | + | * Brad will revisit EPIC-IM sidelobe analysis, will report next week on what is required to fire up the analysis for CMBP. |
| * UMN follow up on coma corrections for the Dragone telescope | * UMN follow up on coma corrections for the Dragone telescope | ||
| + | * UMN/Brad check on sidelobes for open Dragone system; Amy will check whether there is anyone at JPL to run GRASP | ||
| + | * Amy to provide feedback on sun-shield style, geometry, and explore deployable shields | ||
| __Notes: | __Notes: | ||
| Line 19: | Line 21: | ||
| * Brad will revisit EPIC-IM sidelobe analysis and give a report next week. | * Brad will revisit EPIC-IM sidelobe analysis and give a report next week. | ||
| * Mike says they are exploring coma correction for the Dragone design that can increase DLFOV. Shaul says UMN is following this path as well. He points to a paper by him and Marrone in which they investigated these corrections awhile back. | * Mike says they are exploring coma correction for the Dragone design that can increase DLFOV. Shaul says UMN is following this path as well. He points to a paper by him and Marrone in which they investigated these corrections awhile back. | ||
| - | * Open Dragone as an option: better baffling, but at the expense of a larger primary. Jamie asks about DLFOV relative to the crossed Dragone and whether sidelobes have been investigated. Shaul says DLFOV is comparable to the Crossed design. No investigation of sidelobes have been done. | + | * Open Dragone as an option: better baffling, but at the expense of a larger primary. Jamie asks about DLFOV relative to the crossed Dragone and whether sidelobes have been investigated. Shaul says DLFOV is comparable to the Crossed design. No investigation of sidelobes have been done yet. |
| * Brad can do far sidelobes of the open dragone system; Amy will check whether there is anyone at JPL to do that as well. | * Brad can do far sidelobes of the open dragone system; Amy will check whether there is anyone at JPL to do that as well. | ||
| * Jamie is concerned about the sidelobes. The analysis showed that it was OK for EPIC, but just barely. | * Jamie is concerned about the sidelobes. The analysis showed that it was OK for EPIC, but just barely. | ||
| Line 32: | Line 34: | ||
| * Frequency bands selection | * Frequency bands selection | ||
| * Shaul describes a nominal band selection for the Probe with 25% bandwidth | * Shaul describes a nominal band selection for the Probe with 25% bandwidth | ||
| - | * Jamie says bands can be broader | + | * Jamie says bands can be broader |
| + | * Mike says that the AdvancedAct technology gives an octave of bandwidth | ||
| + | * There is broad agreement that the focal plane needs to have the flexibility to accommodate a number of technologies. | ||
| - | To be completed | ||
| - | |||
| - | - yellow table, 1-21 bands | ||
| - | - Shaul looked EPIC, CORE and LiteBird | ||
| - | - 25% fractional | ||
| - | - multi-chroic | ||
| - | - Brad mentioned that different choices of band width would affect detector choice. Shaul commented that for now a reasonable path is what we need. Mike has commented on the detector development about 2 and/or 3 bands (I did not catch this part due to the lack of knowledge). | ||
| - | |||
| - | - InitialSet | ||
| - | - Shaul will check if it’s half width or full width of the fractional band width | ||