Submit by 9 am Tuesday morning, or Monday afternoon.

project summary – not written yet. Manuela and SH working on this this week.

Investigators list - add your specialty, experiments you’re associated with, and MA

• MC: lots of acronyms. Is there need to collapse projects into smaller summaries.
  • SH: using 2 lines per person if fine. Keeping all acronyms is baseline for now.

Overview: ignore all text there. Real text not written yet. Manuela and SH will write.

• 2 key points we plan to emphasize
  • oppurtunities coming in next decade. New science, new messengers, new data/new observatories.
  • need for holostic end to end approach
  • VM: highlight that this is 1 of 10 big ideas for NSF. SH: and matches astro's 'horizons on the universe'
  • Manuela: ~45-48 white papers on this for astro2020. Should we cite some of these?
    • SH: also mention references to multi-messenger institute. Manuela: related to XEMA?
    • Zabi has some connection. get ref from him.
• Figure. Goal was to captures much of science we plan. including stochastic grav wave background
  • SH: missing cosmic rays
  • Lucy: might look good to add a repeat of the GRB image next to the galaxy (replace image with a jetted radio galaxy) to show we're looking at AGN which are related jet phenomena at a different scale.
    • SH: science connection is AGN/blazars to jets in GRBs. LF: yes.
    • LF: large scale to small would be from left to right.
    • ??: then not host galaxy, since AGN aren't hosts of GRBs
    • SH: makes sense. just a question of how complicated the figure gets.
      • LF: definitely want to have AGN, otherwise missing an entire MA.
    • VM: could show stochastic background map. it's similar to the CMB map. is one a few months old.
      • ??: could split CMB/SGWB maps so each is 1/2 sky.
      • then replace galaxy with a jetted one. an agn. Then don't mention host galaxy. add cosmic rays.
      • emphasize accretion disk in AGN.
    • ??: any font restrictions for figures? LF: captions must be 10 pt. never seen limits on text in figures. ??:agree. just must be 'readable'
    • SH: will work on this new figure.

Results from Prior NSF. Josh is in charge.

• Looks disjointed, but that may be inevitable.
• 1st paragraph is exec summary. Collab deals with much of NSF.
  • will get paper count in few days.
  • if people have 1 clause papers to highlight send to Josh. probably can add.
  • Intellectual merit and broader impact are not separated out. Due to space.
    • both are mixed in and should be clear enough.
    • Can add references. feel free to add lists of your references
    • Manuela: can do just last names to save space.
      • Josh: don't think we'd gain a line. and this reads as friendlier.
      • SH: agree with Manuela, but if no savings that's fine. Don't need grant numbers. LF: no grant numbers? SH: yes, instructions are different from most NSF proposals.
    • SH: concerned that Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts aren't called out. don't want to annoy NSF's format.
      • ??: agree that it is worth a few lines to call out broader impacts.
    • SH: please send broader impact results to SH, Josh
    • VM: maybe don't need a paragraph per person? could put all GW in 1 paragraph. or similar. group by field. LF: I agree.
    • LF: could be narrative format? SH: yes is fine.
    • Josh: could do intellectual merit organized by the 4 MAs. broader impact is 5th category. can do tonight
      • SH: keep names while reorganizing, not just projects/achievements.
      • Josh: if only last names with do bold to call out to reviewer. (note 2 William's, to Marka's)
  • SH: feel free to ping lots of people.
    • Josh: Halzen and Pryke are large numbers in the grants. need a sentence from each.
  • Szabi: in past had complaints from reviewers about people with prior support from non-NSF places. might want to short circuit problems.
    • Manuela: agree some explanation of why the specific things listed here are chosen may matter.
      • Josh: should be less of a problem when reorganized with MAs as context.

MA4: (david, lucy, …)

• Szabi: yes, should distinguish high/low-energy neutrinos. (different detection method and different origins)
  • SH: high in this context? number? Szabi: for IceCube can provide numbers. (but not key detail right now)
• SH: cosmic high-energy neutrinos section modified to call out:
  • modeling (like blazars) to explain background, models inform observing plans.
  • SH: additional background possibilities (SNe). contingent on using proprietary IceCube data.
  • SH: 3rd possibility. do a census of all sources to explain background. Conflicts with first paragraph saying some of these are negligible.
    • DW/BZ: each source (GRBs, star forming, blazars) in Paragraph 1 can produce 10% each.
      • SH: I see. text needs clearing up.
• Cosmic ray accelerators:
  • 1st paragraph on galactic cosmic rays. not clear what will be done.
    • LF: yes, and who will do the work? no one called out.
  • 2nd paragraph is extragalatic CRs. all we say is we can model sources. need consensus that that is what we should do.
    • DW: ok with me.
    • LF: everyone in MA4 would be interested in working on this section. but not sure who would work on galactic CR.
      • DW: maybe IceCube folks? Justin? Can talk to him and confirm his name on paragraph 1. get a defined goal for this topic.
        • SH: yes. or this 1st paragraph removed.
    • SH: and 2nd paragraph needs some cleaning up to define the topic.
  • SN neutrinos from next supernova. from Justin?
    • BZ: these are low energy neutrinos? in IceCube.
    • ??: galactic supernova will be seen at high SNR.
    • can ask Yong Qian he is expert on this.
• SH: done editing. Please DW, LF go over and fix the things I broke. Will talk to Yong Qian.