Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| private:teleconsnotes20170524 [2017/05/24 13:13] – created hanany | private:teleconsnotes20170524 [2017/05/25 11:55] (current) – atrangsr | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Telecon Notes 20170524 ====== | ====== Telecon Notes 20170524 ====== | ||
| + | Attendance: Shaul, Amy, Jeff, Rafael, Al, Clem, Lloyd | ||
| + | Notes by Amy | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Probe PI telecom**: Slides 2-6 (was 70 slides in 2hr – only talking about most relevant topics here) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Shaul adds: not expecting final designs or conclusions at AAS | ||
| + | Shaul has suggested to NASA that they also consider a 2019 AAS Session | ||
| + | Comment: Should have descopes/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Plan for Systematics**: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Shaul suggests that Brendan (Systematics Czar) starts thinking about this and making a plan for what to do. How to introduce systematics in to pipeline. | ||
| + | Comment: since we are low budget, good to start with existing stuff, not duplicate effort | ||
| + | Comment (Clem): S4 plan at the moment is about setting requirements on what systematics need to be, which is different from saying what instrument will deliver. | ||
| + | Comments: For a number of systematics, | ||
| + | Shaul: first thing to look at for Probe is requirements | ||
| + | Comments: Remember that the audience of this paper isn’t necessarily going to be interested in a highly detailed analysis of many systematics | ||
| + | Comment: What if systematics analysis impacts our decision on imager-only or imager+spectrometer? | ||
| + | Comment (Al): systematics for spectrometer are very different than those for an imager | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Plans for Technology**: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Shaul notes: (from PI telecom) these are not proposals for funding. | ||
| + | Comments: Cost for space-qualified kilo-pixels arrays (and electronics…) are much larger than for ground – big cost multipliers – need to get our heads around what these cost multipliers are | ||
| + | Comments: We will need to lay out steps that need to be done to prep something for space – e.g. need to develop lower-power electronics, | ||
| + | Comments: Should think twice before considering including two focal plane technologies in our proposed baseline – don’t want to raise red flags in cost and risk. Because this isn’t a proposal, we can afford to be conservative in our technologies. | ||
| + | Comment: KIDs haven’t flown on balloons, but BLAST will change that soon | ||
| + | Comment (Amy): Have some budget for Roger OBrient to support - survey tech options in detectors, optical coupling, readout, and current TRLs, etc. | ||
| + | Action item: Jeff, Amy, Roger, to talk to brainstorm a plan | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Imager / Frequency Bands**: Slides 9-10 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Shaul: It’s our understanding that LiteBIRD and CORE didn’t do detailed study to optimize what bands to use | ||
| + | Shaul: More information about this topic in Probe Mission Wiki (not exec committee) – under [[: | ||
| + | Comment (Clem): Place to measure foregrounds may be close in (to foreground minimum) where differences in spectral indices matter less | ||
| + | Comment: Note angular resolution not as good at lower frequencies | ||
| + | Comment (Al): don’t want to know how well you do if foreground model is already known – want to know if your design will be able to tell you if your foreground model is off | ||
| + | Shaul: wants to proceed with a nominal focal plane so we can begin simulations | ||