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

User Tools

Trace: • imagerteleconnotes20180516 • imagerteleconnotes20171121 • imagerteleconnotes20170911 • galacticsciencewg • imagerteleconnotes20170731
imagerteleconnotes20180516

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
imagerteleconnotes20180516 [2018/05/16 15:24] – wenxx181imagerteleconnotes20180516 [2018/05/16 15:49] (current) – wenxx181
Line 22: Line 22:
   * Precession Period (Kris)   * Precession Period (Kris)
     * Shaul: we've debating whether fast or slow precession; Jacques's argument was too fast precessions give large gaps     * Shaul: we've debating whether fast or slow precession; Jacques's argument was too fast precessions give large gaps
-    * high-resolution, 1.6 arcmin simulations +    * high-resolution, 1.6 arcmin simulations, single detector 
-    * 10 hours vs 48 hours +    * 10 hours vs 48 hours; 2,4,5,..., 365 days of scanning 
-    * first slide +    * blue (or gray on right side) is either 0 or just a few hits; yellow is a few hundred 
-      * blue (or gray on right side) is either 0 or just a few hits +    * short-time plots show difference, but long-time show less difference 
-    *  +    * Kris argues that either option is good at some locations; we need to specify science goals before we really answer this question. Also, since we are using action-wheels, we can fairly easily adjust precession in space. This is different from Planck. Planck did have some big gaps. 
-    * +    * Jacque argues that we need to compare gap size with beam size. 48 hours comes from CORE study, which has 2-min spin rate and 96-hour precession. 
 +    * conclusion: the report should probably say “there are a range of considerations, for either 10 or 48 hours” 
 +    * Shaul: the fly-wheel will be able to do the change of precession; slow-motion can also be done. 
 + 
 +  * Noise Requirements vs Best Case Estimate (BCE) 
 +    * Best case estimate: not everything is most optimistic, just reasonable. 
 +    * Shaul proposed BEC/sqrt(2)*0.9 
 +      * root 2 is coming from Planck, which had achieved within 20% BCE. 
 +      * 0.9 is 90% yield of pixels; BCE is optimistic on 100%-yield assumption 
 +      * This number is for feedback loop to science teams. 
 +      * Jacques: CORE did something similar, no major impacts on science 
 + 
 +  * Noise/Bands Figure 
 +    * goal: a standard visual 
 +    * needs to clarify things, needs suggestions 
 + 
 + 
imagerteleconnotes20180516.1526502281.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/05/16 15:24 by wenxx181

Page Tools