Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| imagerteleconnotes20180912 [2018/09/12 15:17] – created wenxx181 | imagerteleconnotes20180912 [2018/09/12 15:58] (current) – kyoung | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | d | + | ====== Telecon Notes Sep 12, 2018 ====== |
| + | |||
| + | Attendance: Amy, Kris, Roger, Shaul, Karl, Qi\\ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Regrets: | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Agenda === | ||
| + | * Science descopes (Shaul, Amy) | ||
| + | * Technology descopes (Shaul, Amy, Roger) | ||
| + | * Technology implementation plan (Roger) | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Notes === | ||
| + | PICO imager telecon - 09/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Technology descopes | ||
| + | * To specify potential descopes we can see | ||
| + | * Roger: not sure whether technology descopes are technology driven, whether the technology maturation is the right place for them | ||
| + | * Amy: there are different descops, only tech descopes be in tech section | ||
| + | * Shaul: science descopes and techo descopes; tech descopes is about ready/ | ||
| + | * Potential tech descopes (Roger): | ||
| + | * 1) high-freq detectors; 2) multi-chroic; | ||
| + | * 3) readout is straightforward, | ||
| + | * 1) high-freq detetors | ||
| + | * Shaul: not sure if high-freq is challenging | ||
| + | * Roger: agree that it’s not a challenge | ||
| + | * Shaul: it could be a science descope | ||
| + | * Amy: risk matrix; two dimensions: one is risk being relized, another is consequences; | ||
| + | * Shaul: removing high-v is not just affecting galaxy science, they might affect foreground, they are necessary from some studies; it’s debatable if we decrease number of pixels on the focal plane but keep bands, or simply remove some bands | ||
| + | * Shaul: we can be very open, “at the moment, we don’t know; at phase A, we will know; there will be more knowledge about foreground available” | ||
| + | * Amy: comment, removing high-v bands does not save a lot of money though | ||
| + | * 2) multi-chroic | ||
| + | * Roger: sinuous antenna, 2 issues have been raised in the community | ||
| + | * polarization rotation with sinuous antenna. This may become an issue. | ||
| + | * different edge tapers over 3 bands. is it acceptable? is it a bad idea? | ||
| + | * Experiments are fielding these pixels and both will be tested. | ||
| + | * In both cases could go down to 2 band pixels. | ||
| + | * Shaul: none of sound like tech risks, they are systematics risks; there are experiments in near future; we are not seeing developing tech is risky | ||
| + | * Roger: developing reliable tech is risky | ||
| + | * Shaul: it isn’t clear to me what is the place to discuss this, do we discuss this in tech or systematics? | ||
| + | * Amy: we need to talk about if we don’t have three colors; how we distribute, majority goes to systematics; | ||
| + | * Amy: descope, we could not get 3-color, and therefore the solution is 2-color pixel, tech chapter or risk, not systematics; | ||
| + | * Shaul: agree; also points out that it will not be that we won’t have, it will be like we have those detectors, but systematics exceeds; if you have sensitivity, | ||
| + | * Amy: is there a reaslistic situation, that in 2022, not makes sense to fly 3-color? | ||
| + | * Shaul: we should know that we have not developed 2-color in most of our bands either | ||
| + | * Roger: there is no concern on 2-color; there is concern on 3-color | ||
| + | * Amy: with greater confidence to build 2-color | ||
| + | * Shaul: this needs a significant amount of work | ||
| + | * Amy: agree with Shaul that it’s a lot of work; but being able to address risk of 3-color is maybe worthy | ||
| + | * Shaul: how serious is this issue? | ||
| + | * Shaul: agree that readout is not a challenge | ||
| + | |||
| + | Science descopes | ||
| + | * Amy: what to save money: shrinking the operation, scaling down requires less mechanical reduces cost; | ||
| + | * one thing that’s is simple would be to slow the spin speed, it would reduce the requirement on motor, makes it easier to point reconstruction, | ||
| + | * Kris: what is the range to reduce? | ||
| + | * Amy: now 1rpm, if half rpm, don’t know how much can save | ||
| + | * Shaul: from science point of view, the impact is on noise, more 1/f, not easy to quantify; that is something has to be assessed by simulation | ||
| + | * Shaul: all of the small scale science should be fine, the only science affected could be largest angular scale and B modes; we can simply say "the effect on the largest angular scale will be accessed" | ||
| + | * Amy: for baseline, it was 950 M, under 1B cap. Last decade, EPIC review increased 20-30%; showing some descopes is safer | ||
| + | |||