Telecon 20180221
Attending: Tom, Tomo, Toki, Brian, Kris, Shaul, Karl, Qi
Notes by : Qi
Agenda
Notes
Telescope I+T (Tomo)
pg24
reminder, introduction about what Tomo talks today
fully integrated test when it’s cold
optics only; tests one can possibly imagine
pg28
purpose: mirror shape
two spacial scales: large ,small scales
A combination of both scales; blue table
“Cold” means some cold temperature, not necessary the mission temp
Minimal tests for PICO: Photogrammetry and Interferometry; certainly can be done
CMM: surface, not sure if there is facility big enough for PICO mirror
Shaul: mirror vendor, whatever lab who puts the instrument together; whoever provides mirrors, they would CMM warm; CMM is part of the cost buying the mirror; I & T is beyond vendor level.
Tomo: for space mission, it’s common you repeat measurements even vendors have done so.
Brian: normally, vendors verify, we would not check again.
Tomo: different models, e.g. ground model, flight model; you can do tests in first few models, then you trust (vendors).
pg29
Tomo: partly a comment, partly a question
pre-flight: sub and full level tests; outputs: performance verification and mirror shapes
inflight: beam calibration; slide shows beam profile from Planck
post-flight: if with precise beam, with pre-flight information, systematics; if beam not precise, we need GRASP model, and correct for it.
What did Planck use to get beam? What are the key information?
Kris: LFI used Grasp model; HFI used planet measurements; signal-to-noise is the reason. LFI is much more noisy. Absolute size of beam matters. pre-flight + inflight consideration.
Beam size is important because couple to focal plane; in part of scanning. Sometimes more reliable on GRASP model.
Tomo: future mission should have tighter requirement for signal-to-noise; does this mean they will be like LFI case?
Kris: Any test before flight is valuable.
Shaul: not clear what Planck did was used and useful in terms of tests.
Kris: not sure if there is a short path compared to Planck.
Pg30