Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| private:teleconsnotes20170405 [2017/04/05 18:04] – hanany | private:teleconsnotes20170405 [2017/04/05 20:14] (current) – hanany | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== 20170405 Telecon Notes ====== | ====== 20170405 Telecon Notes ====== | ||
| - | Legend: **Bold face** | + | Legend: **Bold face** |
| * **What fidelity of mission design are we expected to deliver?** Two weeks of TeamX is hardly enough to give high fidelity design. Keith: Sufficiently credible for the ICA process to proceed; **Length of final report** is TBD. With a shorter report not much information is required. | * **What fidelity of mission design are we expected to deliver?** Two weeks of TeamX is hardly enough to give high fidelity design. Keith: Sufficiently credible for the ICA process to proceed; **Length of final report** is TBD. With a shorter report not much information is required. | ||
| * What is the overarching goal: consensus that it is to persuade the decadal to establish a funding wedge. Keith says that the previous decadal was not convinced that there was good science to be done within this funding wedge. | * What is the overarching goal: consensus that it is to persuade the decadal to establish a funding wedge. Keith says that the previous decadal was not convinced that there was good science to be done within this funding wedge. | ||
| * The Decadal panel is mandated by congress to solicit an ICA, hence the Cost and Technical Evaluation (CATE) process. They contracted with Aerospace Corp. to do the CATE. 2010 was the first time Aerospace was involved. Since then process refined. | * The Decadal panel is mandated by congress to solicit an ICA, hence the Cost and Technical Evaluation (CATE) process. They contracted with Aerospace Corp. to do the CATE. 2010 was the first time Aerospace was involved. Since then process refined. | ||
| - | * Question: do the JPL (TeamX), SOMA, and Aerospace cost models agree? TeamX and Aerospace | + | * Question: do the JPL (TeamX), SOMA, and Aerospace cost models agree? TeamX and Aerospace |
| * General guidelines: | * General guidelines: | ||
| - | * build mission around a known marker (e.g. Planck). Keith gives the examples of EXO-?? | + | * build mission around a known marker (e.g. Planck). Keith gives the examples of EXO-C, which was built around Kepler. |
| * watch out for new technologies. They tend to increase the costs. | * watch out for new technologies. They tend to increase the costs. | ||
| * stay close to JPL cost guidelines. Aerospace generally agrees with them. | * stay close to JPL cost guidelines. Aerospace generally agrees with them. | ||
| - | * if you get closer than 10% of mass and power, you incur penalty in cost. | + | * if you get closer than 10% of mass and power limits, you incur penalty in cost. |
| * // Consensus: Space mission will do full sky, and have broad frequency coverage // | * // Consensus: Space mission will do full sky, and have broad frequency coverage // | ||
| * // No appetite for V Stokes measurements // | * // No appetite for V Stokes measurements // | ||
| - | * Began discussion about resolution. // Consensus: space mission can not depend on other measurements, | + | |
| + | | ||
| + | * **What is the scaling of cost and aperture?** SH to discuss more with Amy | ||
| * // Report must address ground, sub-orbital complementarity // | * // Report must address ground, sub-orbital complementarity // | ||
| + | * We have funding for a workshop to discuss such complementarity. When should that take place? Some opinions are 'after the CDT completes its report', | ||
| + | * International participation: | ||