Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| playground:playground [2018/04/04 15:57] – kyoung | playground:playground [2019/07/23 17:00] (current) – kyoung | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | Attendance: Al, Shaul, | + | Online: Lucy, Liliya, Shaul, |
| - | Notes by: Karl | + | === notes === |
| - | May Workshop | + | Submit by 9 am Tuesday morning, or Monday afternoon. |
| - | * minor changes from 3 wks ago. All slots now filled -- except final decadal process panel. | + | |
| - | * SH: Small time allocation to foregrounds currently. But not clear that more discussion time is what is most needed. | + | |
| - | * final decadal process discussion: John Carlstrom tentative, Steve Ritz checking his schedule | + | |
| - | SPIE and future Papers | + | ==Review |
| - | * Sutin Abstract | + | |
| - | * Format: Few paragraph science. 5 pages instrument (optical design refer to Young paper). 2-3 pages mission design. | + | |
| - | * AT: due to ITAR, it will be difficult to include full groups comments. The time frame will be short. | + | |
| - | * non-JPL co-authors won't have much time to read and comment. | + | |
| - | * AT: so we need an internal JPL deadline to pass ITAR then release to co-authors, then submit to co-authors, then to SPIE. Tight timeframe. | + | |
| - | * SH: suppose draft goes to Co-Is, give them 1 week to read/ | + | |
| - | * AT: 2nd ITAR would still be 1 week (delta review). Means JPL draft circulated in ~ 1.5 weeks. | + | |
| - | * SH: That seems required to give co-Is time. | + | |
| - | * AT: but 1.5 weeks isn't enough time for writing a reasonable paper given manpower. Really only time for 1 ITAR round (so paper in ~3 weeks). So JPL and onboarded co-authors help write. | + | |
| - | * SH: Really need time for people to read/ | + | |
| - | * AK: Can we skip ITAR? AT: Nope. Not for technical paper. | + | |
| - | * Deadline May 16th. AK: often can get 2 more weeks out of them. Up to conference date. | + | |
| - | * SH: means release to ITAR by April 18th. Doable? | + | |
| - | * AT/SH: Will take offline. | + | |
| - | * Young Abstract | + | |
| - | * Author list changes due April 9th. | + | |
| - | * Policy for authorship? | + | |
| - | * AK: If open invite we should have some sort of policy requirement. | + | |
| - | * SH: Could have couple EC members review names, or bring up issues and have full EC decide. | + | |
| - | * LK: Don't see downside to erring on side of inclusion. Bringing each case to EC on case-by-case basis makes most sense. | + | |
| - | * AT: More inclusion is fine. | + | |
| - | * Will say policy is just review by EC. Shaul will flag cases for discussion if needed. | + | |
| - | * How do these papers fit in overall picture | + | |
| - | * Not flagship PICO papers, rather technical papers. | + | |
| - | * AT: Need to be clear these aren't final design or go-to papers for full PICO study. | + | |
| - | TeamX Sessions | + | project summary – not written yet. Manuela and SH working on this this week. |
| - | * TeamX-I, -M | + | |
| - | * No large changes to instrument | + | |
| - | * Mission, got full end-to-end cost. Still in cost window, probably. Final number in ~ week. | + | |
| - | * Review of TeamX slides | + | |
| - | * input to SOMA. We will work to release (ITAR) slides to EC review. EC note issues and TeamX will clean up slides in summer. | + | |
| - | Setting ' | + | Investigators list - **add your specialty, experiments |
| - | | + | * MC: lots of acronyms. Is there need to collapse projects into smaller summaries. |
| - | | + | * SH: using 2 lines per person if fine. Keeping |
| - | * What is the right process to set requirements? | + | |
| - | * AK: should set for performance of full array. what is the sensitivity where you no longer have a useful r value? | + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | | + | |
| - | * SH: Ok, for comparison, think (will check after telecon) that S4 proposes 5 sigma on 4*10^-3. On 3-5% of sky. | + | |
| - | * AK: Also really a question for theoretical community. Is there a threshold r value? Where null result is compelling. | + | |
| - | * **Shaul** will communicate with Raphael, Lloyd, others | + | |
| - | * SH: Other option is to take 1-2 sigma variations in inputs. Calc noise for all worst cases and get a worst case version. | + | |
| + | 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. | ||
| - | <note warning> | ||
| - | <note important> | ||
| - | |||
| - | <note tip> | ||
| - | |||
| - | < | ||