Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| imagerteleconnotes20171010 [2017/10/10 12:56] – created hanany | imagerteleconnotes20171010 [2017/10/11 10:31] (current) – kyoung | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Telecon 20171010 ====== | ====== Telecon 20171010 ====== | ||
| - | Attending: | + | Attending: |
| __Agenda: | __Agenda: | ||
| - | * optical systems: large aperture and small aperture options (Qi) | + | |
| - | * noise model and focal plane options (for large and small apertures) (Young) | + | |
| + | * noise model and focal plane options (for large and small apertures) (Young) | ||
| * Scan pattern (Gorski, Delabrouille) | * Scan pattern (Gorski, Delabrouille) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | __Notes:__ | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Status of optics (Shaul) | ||
| + | * Matrix of larg v. small and open v. crossed. | ||
| + | * large, open is baseline. | ||
| + | * current version is un-optimized optics. | ||
| + | * small open and crossed designs work. Noise is calculated. | ||
| + | * What alpha, beta angles are allowed? | ||
| + | * Motivation is to have a cost savings option | ||
| + | * Question from group: Does cost truly scales with aperture? Or is complexity the bigger issue. | ||
| + | * focal plane size, detector count, readout and power demands, etc. likely bigger driver. | ||
| + | * Suggested: Are there other rocket options? If the payload is smaller this could be a savings location. | ||
| + | * Likely that Falcon 9 is only choice. | ||
| + | * large, crossed dragone still has sidelobe problems. | ||
| + | * Note: Al says PIXIE can observe with same scan strategy as imager. | ||
| + | |||
| + | 50 cm systems (Karl/Qi) | ||
| + | * 3x hit in resolution | ||
| + | * 4 K and 30 K systems. | ||
| + | * 4 K gives better performance than baseline at high frequencies, | ||
| + | * 30 K is worse at all frequencies. | ||
| + | * Is > 300 GHz sensitivity very useful? | ||
| + | * May not increase dust removal accuracy much. | ||
| + | * High frequencies are largely for extra-galactic science and galactic dust science. | ||
| + | * The 3x lower resolution may make these unappealing anyway. | ||
| + | * General opinion that the resolution loss is a high price to pay. | ||
| + | * Makes the science less appealing. | ||
| + | * open dragones (30 K and 4 K) are smaller and fewer pixels than baseline. | ||
| + | * likely a cost savings. | ||
| + | * 4 K assumes cooling an additional ~1m mirror, which adds cost. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Scan (Kris) | ||
| + | * Higher spin rates a concern. Data rate may become an issue. | ||
| + | * Past work by Amy said telemetry not an issue. | ||
| + | * possible spin rates in the 1-3 RPM range. | ||
| + | * needed for 1/f, data rate, ect. | ||
| + | * **Kris** to present concerns with scan next week. | ||
| + | |||