Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| imagerteleconnotes20170731 [2017/07/31 14:12] – bjohnson | imagerteleconnotes20170731 [2017/08/04 10:43] (current) – kyoung | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| __Actions: | __Actions: | ||
| + | * UMN, investigate DLFOV trade-off between crossed and open dragone | ||
| + | * Amy, determine cost difference for larger mirrors | ||
| + | * Brad, determine sidelobe analysis done for EPIC. How was galaxy contamination accounted for. | ||
| + | * Amy, find if anyone at JPL to run GRASP analysis. | ||
| + | * Amy, begin a matrix of possible science outputs. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | __Notes:__ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Attending: Jeff, Mike, Jamie, Julian, Shaul, Karl, Qi, Amy, Roger, ?? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Optics | ||
| + | * Packing the open dragone. | ||
| + | * Ray trace of possible sidelobes | ||
| + | * cross dragone has clipping sidelobe as discussed previously | ||
| + | * open dragone has no similar sidelobe. | ||
| + | * comparison of DLFOV | ||
| + | * when scaled by F*lambda open Dragone gives ~60% of the focal plane diameter of the crossed | ||
| + | * however crossed will require larger pixels (large edge taper) to control sidelobes, while open can have small pixels (low edge taper) since sidelobes are controlled by baffling. | ||
| + | * **UMN** to further investigate DLFOV trade-off between the systems | ||
| + | * Goal of settling on system in 3-4 weeks. | ||
| + | * Physical optics analysis: | ||
| + | * Brad can run GRASP once a system is designed. | ||
| + | * For EPIC GRASP simulations were convolved with galaxy map to get polarization leakage. | ||
| + | * **Brad** will continue investigating details of what was done. | ||
| + | * Julian can also run full time domain simulations if/when needed. | ||
| + | * JPL has a GRASP license. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Scan | ||
| + | * Julian points to work done for LiteBIRD({{:: | ||
| + | * LiteBIRD looked at full focal plane and assessed uniformity of coverage, angle of attack of each pixel, beam distortion from spin and precession speeds, ability to calibrate on dipole. | ||
| + | * saw broad minimum in coverage uniformity for alpha = 25-65 deg. | ||
| + | * narrower range where dipole signal is strong for all scans. | ||
| + | * condition is good with and without HWP (for full focal plane) | ||
| + | * CORE looked at single detector maps to asses ability to control systematics. | ||
| + | * further constraints on CMBP scans need our own simulation. | ||
| + | * Decision to take alpha + beta = 95 deg as the standard for now, no reason for 100 deg. | ||
| + | | ||
| + | Focal Plane | ||
| + | * delayed to next week due to time. | ||
| + | * one key question is the need to go to 800 GHz. | ||
| + | * needs input from Galactic science group | ||
| + | * **Amy** will start a matrix of science outputs to help communicate between science goals and design trade-offs. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||