Go to the U of M home page
School of Physics & Astronomy
Probe Mission Study Wiki
imagerteleconnotes20180912

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
imagerteleconnotes20180912 [2018/09/12 15:35] wenxx181imagerteleconnotes20180912 [2018/09/12 15:58] (current) kyoung
Line 30: Line 30:
         * Amy: comment, removing high-v bands does not save a lot of money though         * Amy: comment, removing high-v bands does not save a lot of money though
       * 2) multi-chroic       * 2) multi-chroic
-        * Roger: sinuous antenna, (Karl is taking notes…) +        * Roger: sinuous antenna, 2 issues have been raised in the community 
-        the number of bands is more restricted on the horns than antenna?? +          polarization rotation with sinuous antenna. This may become an issue.  It is worse with broader bandwidth. 
-        * different edge tapersis it acceptable? is it a bad idea? +          * different edge tapers over 3 bands. is it acceptable? is it a bad idea? 
-        * Shaul: none of this is tech risks, they are systematic risks; there are experiments in near future; we are not seeing developing tech is risky +          * Experiments are fielding these pixels and both will be tested.  We should know by early 2020'
-        * Roger: developing reliable tech  +          * In both cases could go down to 2 band pixels.  This allows other tech such as horn coupled. 
-        * Shaul: it isn’t clear to me that the place to discuss that, do we discuss this in tech or systematics? it isn’t clear,  +        * 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: in terms of tech plans, people generalizsin,  +        * Roger: developing reliable tech is risky 
-        * Amy: we need to talk about if we don’t have three colors; how we distrubute, majority goes to systematics; we need to talk about the risk if we don’t have those 3-color, what would we do? For that descope option  +        * Shaul: it isn’t clear to me what is the place to discuss this, do we discuss this in tech or systematics? it isn’t clear,  
-        * Amy: descope, we could get 3-color, and therefore the solution is 2-color pixel, tech chapter or risk, not systematics; if we have 3-color, but systematics, that should be in systematics +        * Amy: we need to talk about if we don’t have three colors; how we distribute, majority goes to systematics; we need to talk about the risk if we don’t have those 3-color, what would we do? For that descope option  
-        * Shaul: agree withpoint out it will not be that we won’t have, it will be like we have those detectors, but systematics exceeds; if you have sensitivity, you can clean systematics. There are systematics, we will numerate these, and; these words should be in systematics +        * Amy: descope, we could not get 3-color, and therefore the solution is 2-color pixel, tech chapter or risk, not systematics; if we have 3-color, but with systematics, that should be in systematics 
-        * Amy: is there a reaslistic situation ,2022, 3-color, not make sense to fly 3-color? +        * 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, you can clean systematics. There are systematics, we will numerate these, and; these words should be in systematics 
-        * Kris: ….(Karl?+        * Amy: is there a reaslistic situation, that in 2022, not makes sense to fly 3-color? 
-        * ??: if you have 3-color, is it possible to  +        * Shaul: we should know that we have not developed 2-color in most of our bands either
-        * Roger:  +
-        * Shaul: 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         * Roger: there is no concern on 2-color; there is concern on 3-color
         * Amy: with greater confidence to build 2-color         * Amy: with greater confidence to build 2-color
         * Shaul: this needs a significant amount of work         * Shaul: this needs a significant amount of work
-        * Amy: agree with Shaul that it’s a lot of work; being able to address risk of 3-color is maybe worthy+        * 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: how serious is this issue? 
         * Shaul: agree that readout is not a challenge         * Shaul: agree that readout is not a challenge
-        Roger is still waiting for Hannes for some inputs+ 
 +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, data transfer and data on board. EPIC half rpm? 
 +   * 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
  
  
imagerteleconnotes20180912.1536784506.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/09/12 15:35 by wenxx181