Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| playground:playground [2018/01/17 15:56] – kyoung | playground:playground [2019/07/23 17:00] (current) – kyoung | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | Atd: Al, Amy, Lloyd, Raphael, Charles | + | Online: Lucy, Liliya, Shaul, Pat, Szabi, Vuk, Michael Coughlin, Claudia, David Williams, Alexandra Corsi, … and more |
| - | Notes: Karl | + | === notes === |
| - | TeamX, AAS, Moriond, APS, Periodic Update (Amy, Shaul) | + | Submit by 9 am Tuesday morning, or Monday afternoon. |
| - | * recieved draft <note important>< | + | |
| - | * cost and engineering both look good. no major surprises. cooling was large cost | + | |
| - | * discuss next steps with slides in near future. | + | |
| - | * AAS meeting, Shaul gave talk on PICO. | + | |
| - | * SH impression: Our focus on science deliverables was a good choice. | + | |
| - | * A subset of probes (~half) are targeting 2030s. Significant tech developement needed. Some called out complimentarity with LISA. | + | |
| - | * SH: Concern if many probes are looking at 2030s that the Decadal panel may not recommend a Probe funding class. | + | |
| - | * CL: entire session was good. Showed broad science that nominally fits in $1 billion (a couple may be over). Message of vitality in Probe class. | + | |
| - | * AT: Good representation across wavelength and science range. Most not similar to each other except 3 X-ray missions. | + | |
| - | * SH/AT: One probe (starshade) was funded for study in past and gone through CATE (sp?) process at $600M. They are somewhat of a special case. | + | |
| - | * SH: Was also a science and optics poster at AAS. | + | |
| - | * Continuing to spread the word is a good idea. APS meeting and Moriond upcoming. | + | |
| - | * SH: submitted APS abstract, but someone else could present. Moriond deadline at end of Jan. | + | |
| - | * LK: others outside EC may be able to present. e.g. Raphael, Dan Green, Dave Chuss, Laura Fissel, . . . | + | |
| - | * SH: have pinged DC and LF about some upcoming Galactic science conferences. | + | |
| - | * Bring up other conferences to SH. | + | |
| - | * Next Periodic Update text shown above. | + | |
| - | * SH: will add few words about foregrounds workshop | + | |
| - | * RF: not all people at the workshop in Dec. are part of probe mailing list. Should send an email to these folks as well. | + | |
| - | * Raphael/ | + | |
| - | Focus and priorities for the next few months. | + | ==Review |
| - | * Note: March TeamX report goes to decadal panel. | + | |
| - | * Foregrounds | + | |
| - | * Systematics | + | |
| - | * General agreement these two are most important. | + | |
| - | * SH: Will get systematics update from Brendan in ~ 2 weeks. | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | May Workshop, Minneapolis, | + | |
| - | * Current plan is May 1-2, Tues-Wed. | + | |
| - | * google sheet with some program suggestions [[https:// | + | |
| - | * Idea is to discuss PICO, science from space, message to Decadal, complementarity with ground | + | |
| - | * Workshop is summary of work and laying groundwork for what to put in PICO report. | + | |
| - | * SH: Dan Green was excited about S3/S4 + PICO complementarity. | + | |
| - | * CL: Definite plans are difficult since timing is uncertain. | + | |
| - | * SH: Point is just asking what can be done with various data sets combined. | + | |
| - | * LK: Simulating those combinations is one goal of this. Need to advertise sufficiently. | + | |
| - | * SH: Grant can support people who come and contribute papers on PICO or PICO+other. Please send names to SH or contact them yourself. | + | |
| - | * CL: Tech development in final report. | + | |
| - | * SH: Getting Decadal to recommend tech development helps support long term CMB funding. Keep NASA/other from disinvesting. | + | |
| - | * Names for presenters? | + | |
| - | * LK: Nick Battaglia for clusters? | + | |
| - | * SH: Planning to form one. Would need Raphael, Nick, LLoyd (volunteered already to be on SOC) | + | |
| - | * **Action item** send names to SH if you think of presenters/ | + | |
| - | AT: Putting together a template for all probe studies for the 50 page report. Input is welcome. | + | project summary – not written yet. Manuela and SH working |
| - | * SH: starting | + | |
| + | 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' | ||
| + | * 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. | ||
| + | * 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? | ||
| + | * 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. | ||
| + | * SH: keep names while reorganizing, | ||
| + | * Josh: if only last names with do bold to call out to reviewer. (note 2 William' | ||
| + | * 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/ | ||
| + | * SH: high in this context? number? | ||
| + | * 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? | ||
| + | * 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. | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | Atd: Tom, Joy, Brian, Shaul, Karl, Qi, Toki, Jeff, Julian, Al, Jacques | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | Notes: | ||
| - | |||
| - | No telecon next week (TeamX meeting) | ||
| - | |||
| - | Preparations for TeamX (JPL + UMN, led by Brian/Amy) | ||
| - | * Brian making a list of files TeamX needs. | ||
| - | * CodeV files. | ||
| - | * prep a 1.6 m and 1.2 m versions. | ||
| - | * 1.4 m with coma-correction and without. | ||
| - | * Kevin' | ||
| - | * Will get files/ | ||
| - | * Shaul will ensure Roger has a wire count for FDM. | ||
| - | * Cryogenics, ADR cooling power 10 uW. Kevin made a model that works for this. | ||
| - | * Roger estimated FP mass, for 12-15k detectors estimate 7-8 kg. | ||
| - | * in EPIC-IM a 1.5 m focal plane was 26 kg. | ||
| - | * Core had similar focal plane size with waveguides and was 8 kg. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Cosmic Rays (Jeff Filippini) B-mode from Space slides | ||
| - | * first 2-3 slides are intro to problem. | ||
| - | * Antarctic balloons good approximation of space at L2 | ||
| - | * impact rate set by area, deposition energy set by thickness. | ||
| - | * Planck issue was wafer hits. long time constant (seconds) and high rate (few Hz) | ||
| - | * new space mission, wafers hit at 100 Hz. need short time constants. need bolometers unresponsive to cosmic ray hits on wafers. | ||
| - | * should be able to absorb ballistic phonons and cool to thermal if wafer is coated in a superconductor (or normal metal). | ||
| - | * then heatsink wafer well. | ||
| - | * if crosstalk of cosmic ray hits is nonlinear. | ||
| - | * consider hits to readout electronics as well. LC resonators could shift. SQUIDs respond. etc. | ||
| - | * Shaul: anyone planning to test this? like the phonon down-conversion? | ||
| - | * Jeff yes, in progess. and Berkeley is also testing this month. | ||
| - | * SPIDER data. low coincidence rate, so no long distance propogation across wafer. | ||
| - | * in lab tests see ~ 8 ms time constants. See saturated TES at high energies. | ||
| - | * saw ' | ||
| - | * Think about what readout does when large energy depositions. | ||
| - | * Jeff: No evidence for bolometer response to cosmic rays hitting wafer. | ||
| - | * Shaul: what are 1st priorities to look for in EBEX data? | ||
| - | * Jeff: Coincidence is good. | ||
| - | * Shaul: Why does SPIDER see no long glitches? | ||
| - | * Jeff: Better heat sinking. easier at 300 mK. | ||
| - | * Shaul: 100 mK measurements would be nice. Really show the problem or not. | ||
| - | * Jeff: 100 mK is planned at JPL. | ||
| - | |||
| - | GRASP (Brad) | ||
| - | * Running, but Brad can't attend so topic delayed to next telecon. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Focal plane model, V3.0 (Young) | ||
| - | * Focal plane with pixels and hexagonal wafers is laid out. | ||
| - | * New sensitivity is 0.62 uK arcmin. | ||
| - | * Version posted on wiki. | ||
| - | * Toki: are all arrays < 150 mm wafer? | ||