This is an old revision of the document!

Atd: Al, Amy, Lloyd, Raphael, Charles

Notes: Karl

TeamX, AAS, Moriond, APS, Periodic Update (Amy, Shaul)

• recieved draft <note important><note tip>important</note><note>note</note></note>slides. Amy and team and Shaul reviewing draft. Hope for final release in ~2 weeks. May be only a subset of the slides.
• cost and engineering both look good. no major surprises. cooling was large cost
• discuss next steps with slides in near future. Are some actions items from TeamX
• AAS meeting, Shaul gave talk on PICO.
  • SH impression: Our focus on science deliverables was a good choice. Shaul stayed within time to moderator's surprise. All went well. Heard comments that it was an impressive set of science goals.
    • 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. Our engineering risk and cost posture was on par with the group.
    • 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. Comments?
  • 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/Shaul will coordinate via email and send information about probe mailing list and wiki to foregrounds folks.

Focus and priorities for the next few months. TeamX sessions (instrument and mission) in March. Workshop in May.

• Note: March TeamX report goes to decadal panel. So address issues from the December TeamX.
• Foregrounds
• Systematics
• General agreement these two are most important.
• SH: Will get systematics update from Brendan in ~ 2 weeks. Foregrounds – CL and SH discuss plans and funding for Andrea (sp?).

May Workshop, Minneapolis, 2.5 days out of April 30 - May 3.

• Current plan is May 1-2, Tues-Wed.
• google sheet with some program suggestions here
• 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. Are there ways to encourage people to publish on the science combination options.
  • 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. We should be careful. Decadal panels always recommend tech development which is then not funded. Also, Probe concept (competed funding line) promotes developed technology so those to aspects somewhat at cross purposes.
  • 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? Do we need a separate SOC?
    • 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/people to contact.

AT: Putting together a template for all probe studies for the 50 page report. Input is welcome.

• SH: starting on skeleton for PICO report. Will send this suggestion.

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. .seq files.
    • prep a 1.6 m and 1.2 m versions. UMN
    • 1.4 m with coma-correction and without. UMN
  • Kevin's current thermal model
  • Will get files/numbers from Roger. In email to Shaul: 0.8 uW on 100 mK, 1.8 uW on 350 mK. for TDM.
    • 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. Rest are data from SPIDER
• 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. Could be issues. increases the effective rate.
• 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 'step' glitches. example of a weird thing. steps of 1 flux quantum. Large cosmic ray causes SQUID to lose lock on rising edge. Specific to TDM. Can be avoided in design.
    • Think about what readout does when large energy depositions.
• Jeff: No evidence for bolometer response to cosmic rays hitting wafer. Good sign, likely to avoid Planck's problem.
• 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? Karl: yes.