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

User Tools


playground:playground

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Next revision
Previous revision
playground:playground [2017/11/21 14:02] – created kyoungplayground:playground [2019/07/23 17:00] (current) kyoung
Line 1: Line 1:
-notes for probe imager telecon+Online: Lucy, Liliya, Shaul, Pat, Szabi, Vuk, Michael Coughlin, Claudia, David Williams, Alexandra Corsi, … and more
  
-Attending: Brian, Ranajoy, Shaul, Qi, Karl, Francios, Kris, Jeff, +=== notes ===
  
 +Submit by 9 am Tuesday morning, or Monday afternoon.
  
-focal plane model and noise (Karl+==Review of status:== 
-  * + 
 +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 galaxyto 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**.
  
  
-Readout 
  
  
-Deployable shield size 
playground/playground.1511294551.txt.gz · Last modified: 2017/11/21 14:02 by kyoung