Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| imagerteleconnotes20171017 [2017/10/17 16:48] – wenxx181 | imagerteleconnotes20171017 [2017/10/18 09:42] (current) – kyoung | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Telecon 20171017 ====== | ====== Telecon 20171017 ====== | ||
| - | Attending: Brian, | + | Attending: Brian, |
| __Agenda: | __Agenda: | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| Open Dragone: optical system + noise model + focal plane options (Young) | Open Dragone: optical system + noise model + focal plane options (Young) | ||
| * Size of pixel defined on lowest or middle frequency band. | * Size of pixel defined on lowest or middle frequency band. | ||
| - | * middle band, smaller pixel, higher sensitivity | + | * middle band means smaller pixel, higher sensitivity |
| - | * 10 db edge taper + middle band size, overall the best in terms of mapping speed | + | * 10 dB edge taper + middle band size, overall the best in terms of mapping speed |
| + | * lowest band has 4.8 dB edge taper | ||
| * edge taper is at 4K stop | * edge taper is at 4K stop | ||
| + | * Using 10 dB at middle of band moving forward. | ||
| - | * For Open Dragone, the DLFOV is small. The outer range on focal plane is not usable for high frequency, thus it’s hard to trade low -frequency detectors for more high-frequency detectors. | + | * For Open Dragone, the DLFOV is small. The outer area of the focal plane is not usable for high frequency, thus it’s hard to trade low -frequency detectors for more high-frequency detectors. |
| * We don’t know what we need for low frequency, it depends on the synchrotron structures. | * We don’t know what we need for low frequency, it depends on the synchrotron structures. | ||
| + | * Plan is to optimize mirror shapes to increase ~150 GHZ DLFOV so trading low sensitivity for high sensitivity is an option. | ||
| * Open Dragone Optics | * Open Dragone Optics | ||
| - | * V3.D: focal plane further from stop, linearly 10% more focal plane compared to base line | + | * V3.D: focal plane further from stop, linearly 10% more focal plane compared to baseline |
| - | * looks good, has room for mechanical | + | * looks good, has room for mechanical |
| - | * Karl is working on coma correction | + | * Karl is working on coma correction |
| - | * V4: 10% less DLFOV compared to baseline | + | * V4: 10% less DLFOV compared to baseline. Overall smaller telescope, allows roughly 2-3 deg. increase in alpha. |
| * sensitivity calculation uses edge taper defined as lowest band, can be done using middle band | * sensitivity calculation uses edge taper defined as lowest band, can be done using middle band | ||
| Large-aperture Cross Dragone (Wen) | Large-aperture Cross Dragone (Wen) | ||
| - | * Why 50cm? De-scoped, cost, with spectrometer | + | * Follow-up to matrix from previous week. Now we have a baffled, large cross dragone. |
| - | + | * Reminder: | |
| - | * Cross Dragone | + | * Still questions as to whether just 140cm -- 50 cm saves cost. |
| + | * Idea here is to provide options to cost and be decided on by the EC. | ||
| + | * Cross Dragone | ||
| + | * current case is limited by vignetting and blockage, not image quality. | ||
| * unlike Open Dragone case, we can trade detectors at low frequency for high-frequency detectors more easily | * unlike Open Dragone case, we can trade detectors at low frequency for high-frequency detectors more easily | ||
| * ~ 3K detectors (Open) | * ~ 3K detectors (Open) | ||
| Line 42: | Line 48: | ||
| * We have filled the matrix of telescope categories | * We have filled the matrix of telescope categories | ||
| + | * optics design is wrapping up. Polishing will be done to improve sensitivities. | ||
| + | * the large/ | ||
| Scan (Kris) | Scan (Kris) | ||
| * Simulation | * Simulation | ||
| - | | + | |
| * fast spin + different precession (fast, slow, very slow) | * fast spin + different precession (fast, slow, very slow) | ||
| - | * slower | + | * for T spin 20s (3 rpm) is fast, Kris do 1 rpm **(AI)** |
| + | * slowest | ||
| * LiteBird & Core use same convention of alpha and beta, Kris will change his definition | * LiteBird & Core use same convention of alpha and beta, Kris will change his definition | ||
| * The simulations are the average over 1 year | * The simulations are the average over 1 year | ||
| - | * simulating over other different periods will be very useful, give more opportunities to look into the scanning | + | * simulating over other different periods will be very useful, give more opportunities to look into the scanning. |
| - | | + | * Jacques: maps with no holes over week timescales are useful. |
| + | * Kris will do two-week simulation **(AI)** | ||
| Scanning strategy | Scanning strategy | ||
| - | * Julian: 6 + 1 parameters; precession angle alpha, spin angle beta, 3 rotation rates (spin, precession, HWP), radius of L2 orbit + moon light | + | * Julian: 6 + 1 parameters; precession angle alpha, spin angle beta, 3 rotation rates (spin, precession, HWP), radius of L2 orbit, + data (or sample) rate. |
| - | * Jacques will lead to make tables | + | * Jacques will lead to make table of scan drivers, wants, and evaluation metrics |
| + | * Shaul to make table of hardware or engineering limits on 6 + 1 parameters | ||
| * Brian: there may not be many options of the L2 orbits | * Brian: there may not be many options of the L2 orbits | ||
| * there could be, we need more information input from project | * there could be, we need more information input from project | ||
| - | | + | * Jacques: Planck had radius L2 = 300,000 km, small. Needed 380 kg fuel for insertion. |
| - | * Kris: demonstration is also important | + | * Brian and Amy to check details of L2 orbit **(AI)** |
| - | * 20s (3 rpm) is fast, Kris do 1 rpm **(AI)** | + | |
| - | * Shaul’s comments on this parameters study: 1) optimization of parameters; 2) systematics given parameters | + | * Kris: demonstration |
| - | * When mapping + noise correlation? | + | * Julian: Agree, the machinery exists to do these sims. They need to be in time domain. |
| - | | + | * Shaul’s comments on this scan parameters study: 1) optimization of parameters; 2) systematics given parameters |
| + | * When mapping + noise correlation? | ||
| + | | ||