Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| playground:playground [2018/09/26 15:04] – kyoung | playground:playground [2019/07/23 17:00] (current) – kyoung | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | Atd: Shaul, | + | Online: Lucy, Liliya, |
| + | === notes === | ||
| + | Submit by 9 am Tuesday morning, or Monday afternoon. | ||
| - | === Agenda === | + | ==Review |
| - | * Cover Art - Volunteer(s)? | + | |
| - | * Policy for report Authors/ | + | |
| - | * Final TeamX - 2nd week of October | + | |
| - | * Status of report {{:private: | + | |
| - | * Schedule (work backwards) | + | |
| - | * Submit 12/ | + | |
| - | * 4 weeks to implement external review comments + final polish | + | |
| - | * Nov. 1: submit to external reviews; receive back between 11/9 and 11/19 | + | |
| - | * Nov. 1 version: essentially final text; essentially final forecasts; essentially final Figures | + | |
| - | *[[https:// | + | |
| - | * Revised cost estimate process for all the Probes | + | |
| - | * {{: | + | |
| - | * See more information below | + | |
| - | __PCAT__ \\ | + | project summary – not written yet. Manuela |
| - | * Independent cost estimate by Science Office of Mission Assessment is canceled | + | |
| - | * Cost Estimation and Pricing Section (CEPS) in JPL will provide a cost estimate that is independent of TeamX' | + | |
| - | * PCAT will review CEPS and RAO's (Goddard' | + | |
| - | * Q: What is the input to CEPS? | + | |
| - | * A: " | + | |
| - | * Q: Interaction with CEPS? | + | |
| - | * A: there will be a get-to-work meeting in January with opportunity for questions and some communication. Other interactions Afterwards and before the final meeting in May? Not clear. | + | |
| - | * Q: What if CEPS costs come different than TeamX? Will there be an opportunity to reconcile? | + | |
| - | * A: There will be a reconciliation meeting with PCAT. But with the teams? Not clear. | + | |
| - | __More Questions__ \\ | + | Investigators list - **add your specialty, experiments you’re associated with, and MA** |
| - | | + | * MC: lots of acronyms. |
| - | * CEPS Process: Are the TeamX slides provided to CEPS? What other inputs they require? | + | * SH: using 2 lines per person if fine. Keeping all acronyms |
| - | * For a given Probe, is there a reconciliation process between the TeamX cost and the CEPS cost? Will PCAT be managing this in real time (or is PCAT handed a reconciled cost)? | + | |
| + | 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. | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | * Update on Signal Separation (aka - foregrounds) - Clem | ||
| - | * [[https:// | ||
| - | * [[https:// | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | Recommendations for external reviewers (deliver report end of Oct.) | ||
| - | * desired perspectives: | ||
| - | * Names proposed so far | ||
| - | * US: Page, Dodelson, Bennett, Hinshaw, Ruhl, Runyan | ||
| - | * International: | ||
| - | * suggested in telecon: Francios, Ganga, | ||
| - | * Any outside CMB field? | ||
| - | * Any survey groups? | ||
| - | * AT: good to people with broad perspective. experience with mission proposals is a plus. This document is essentially a mission proposal. | ||
| - | * Jamie Bock? (is formally on EC, so more ' | ||
| - | * SH: People outside field are especially useful. Surveys? other space missions? | ||
| - | * CP: Anyone from Euclid? | ||
| - | * Ichiro (Andrian?) Klapsful (sp? | ||
| - | * JB: A Euclid group that does ' | ||
| - | * SH: LSST connections? | ||
| - | * JB: Michael Strauss | ||
| - | |||
| - | Status of Probe Report {{: | ||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | |||
| - | <note warning> | ||
| - | |||
| - | <note important> | ||
| - | |||
| - | <note tip> | ||
| - | |||
| - | < | ||