Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| private:teleconsnotes20170517 [2017/05/24 09:50] – created hanany | private:teleconsnotes20170517 [2017/05/24 09:58] (current) – hanany | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| Legend: **Bold face** encodes 'need more information'; | Legend: **Bold face** encodes 'need more information'; | ||
| + | Attending: Shaul, Julian, Amy, Brendan, Jamie, Al, Lloyd, Charles, Mark (Notes by Julian) | ||
| + | |||
| + | NASA Probe PI kick-off telecon: anything we want to add/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Technology | ||
| + | * | ||
| + | * Team X design process | ||
| + | * Shaul: how much is available, can we iterate? | ||
| + | * Jamie: need a sufficiently mature concept to make Team X process most effective; can start a coarse/ | ||
| + | * | ||
| + | * Amy: from Keith, 2 instrument sessions + 1 mission session; ultimately 1 detailed design study (by us, fleshing out Team X mission session) | ||
| + | * Preliminary meeting to set up plan | ||
| + | * Instrument session is a unique unit; process of in-person meetings & independent effort report writing | ||
| + | * If we just have 1 instrument, maybe 1 can be used for eg. cryogenics | ||
| + | * need to decide on instrument(s) - imager, spectrometer, | ||
| + | * Mission session is group activity after instrument sessions | ||
| + | * All probes have the same budget, process adapts to individual need | ||
| + | * Jamie: process is flexible - ask for what makes most sense for us; big question is the budget! Pertinent question for NASA telecon. | ||
| + | * Shaul: what is cost equivalent of 2 instrument + 1 mission studies | ||
| + | * Charles: mission study can be 1 to many days; roughly $30,000/day | ||
| + | * Teams: | ||
| + | * Team X - instrument team (engineers) | ||
| + | * Team X - mission team (somewhat broader) | ||
| + | * A Team - brainstorming session to solve particular problem ((case-specific experts); we’re fairly mature, don’t want/need open-ended brainstorming but may use for specific target questions (branch points) | ||
| + | * Jamie: Reports & Outreach plans? Special session at AAS - anything more? post-report Outreach? | ||
| + | * When do we go to Team X - early (10-11/17) or late (1-3/18). Early implies significant decisions this summer | ||
| + | * Charles: the further along we are the better - things Team X can’t help with (simulations) must be done first. | ||
| + | * Jamie: timing of money? Amy: should be available in late ’17, but it’s Keith’s money to manage. | ||
| + | * Shaul: No advantage to going early. No argument with that! | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Resolution/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | sigma(r=0) for f_sky=0.5, l_min = 2, 20, tau=0.06, white noise = 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 uK-arcmin | ||
| + | Reionization bump is a big advantage | ||
| + | Trade-off between noise and resolution (smaller beam/more noise vs larger beam/lower noise) | ||
| + | Doubling noise & beam is about flat; what is the cost trade-off? | ||
| + | At 0.5 uK-arcmin going from 1.2m to 1.4m only improves sigma by 25% | ||
| + | 2uK-arcmin is almost flat; resolution doesn’t help | ||
| + | Resolution => mode-sensitivity; | ||
| + | Comparable S4 effort in progress | ||
| + | |||
| + | * PCOS Technology Needs: | ||
| + | * Influences SAT call for March 18; funding in FY19. | ||
| + | * 3 CMB-related areas already being tracked | ||
| + | * mm-wave focal plane arrays for CMB polarimetry | ||
| + | * mm-wave optical elements | ||
| + | * high-efficiency cryogenics: 20K => <1K | ||
| + | * Jamie: PCOS program can only fund ~6 things - ranking guidance given by PAGs; PhysPAG rolled things into broad areas to improve priority ranking. Ranked < 10 *very* unlikely to be funded. PhysPAG members: Ed Wollack, Amber Miller. | ||
| + | * Previously “advanced focal planes” (driven by IR multiplexing) was separate, but it has merged into general FP. | ||
| + | * Charles: Is “mm” too restrictive? | ||
| + | * Julian: Software not covered by SAT (from Rita) | ||