Attendance: Amy, Kris, Roger, Shaul, Karl, Qi

Regrets:

• Science descopes (Shaul, Amy)
• Technology descopes (Shaul, Amy, Roger)
• Technology implementation plan (Roger)

PICO imager telecon - 09/12/2018

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/not-ready technology; science is about science goals
• Potential tech descopes (Roger):
  • 1) high-freq detectors; 2) multi-chroic; 3) readout
    • 3) readout is straightforward, don't suggest it to be challenging
    • 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, (Karl is taking notes…)
      • the number of bands is more restricted on the horns than antenna??
      • different edge tapers, 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
      • Roger: developing reliable tech
      • 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,
      • Roger: in terms of tech plans, people generalizsin,
      • 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
      • 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
      • Shaul: agree with; point 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: is there a reaslistic situation ,2022, 3-color, not make sense to fly 3-color?
      • Kris: ….(Karl?)
      • ??: if you have 3-color, is it possible to
      • 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
      • 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; 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
      • Roger is still waiting for Hannes for some inputs