Go to the U of M home page
School of Physics & Astronomy
Probe Mission Study Wiki
imagerteleconnotes20180221

Telecon 20180221

Attending: Tom, Tomo, Toki, Brian, Kris, Shaul, Karl, Qi

Notes by : Qi

Agenda

Notes

  • Attitude Control and Reconstruction Requirements (Wrap up)
    • The discussion was from last week: based on cross scan sampling, Jacques argued that increasing precession period T_prec is an potential solution, in order to achieve better sky coverage
    • Kris did not agree
    • Kris's updates:
      • figures show the high-resolution (highest frequency beam) hits number of sky coverage, assuming precession angle 30 deg and spin spin angle 65 deg.
      • Two cases were studied, fast (48 hrs) and slow (7 hrs)
      • it's shown that hits are dense on the edge of “donuts”, and coarse in the middle
        • for slow precession, the distinction between edges and inner parts is more obvious
      • color is in log scale, red is much more dense than blue
      • color scales in slow and fast are not same; the maxium in 48 hrs is a factor of ~4 compared to 7 hrs
      • Kris's conclusion: short (fast) precession is better
    • Shaul: 1 arcmin in 3 sigma in single spin rate is based on fast precession
    • Kris: many motions of PICO are much faster than Planck, we need to be careful. Someone studing WMAP pagers is a good thing to do.
    • Shaul: we need to be careful, star tracker; In optical astronomy, they don’t scan fast, so it’s trivial for them.
  • 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
        • Large scals: you cannot probe smaller than the space between markers
        • Short scales: very 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
        • after the characterization, what information are we using?
      • 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
      • Tomo: it’s very important to characterize feed beam. For Planck, corrugated horns are classic and thus did not need more attention; PICO could use something else.
imagerteleconnotes20180221.txt · Last modified: 2018/02/22 11:34 by wenxx181