Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- private:teleconsnotes20170531 [2017/05/31 15:06] – created jbock
+++ private:teleconsnotes20170531 [2017/05/31 18:22] (current) – lknox
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Telecon Notes 20170531 ======
-Attendance: Shaul, Amy, Jeff, Rafael, Al, Clem, Lloyd
+Attendance: Amy, Jeff, Rafael, Al, Clem, Lloyd, Jamie, Charles
 Notes by Amy
-**Probe PI telecom**: Slides 2-6 (was 70 slides in 2hr – only talking about most relevant topics here)
+**Schedule:**
-Shaul adds: not expecting final designs or conclusions at AAS
+  * What other milestones need to be included in the schedule
-Shaul has suggested to NASA that they also consider a 2019 AAS Session
+  * Review timelines for TeamX sessions and decision point about Imager-only vs. Imager+Spectrometer.
-Comment: Should have descopes/downscaling options thought out before going in to Team X so we can respond quickly if/when Team X finds our baseline design to be over cost
+  * What questions need to be investigated/answered on the way to this decision
-**Plan for Systematics**: Slide 7
-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.
+Generally felt the science workshops are very important and should be included and planned.  Interest in workshops on CMB science + inflation, and foregrounds + systematics.  Key question here is who wants to host a workshop (general silence).  Since we only have resources for one workshop, we could go out to the community to find interested hosts.  That worked very well in 2009, resulted in several.  Foreground workshop should be held earlier if possible since it has a more direct linkage to mission design.
-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, hard to prove design will meet requirement.
-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**: Slide 8
-Shaul notes: (from PI telecom) these are not proposals for funding.  Should not assume there would be funding for any of the technologies that we put there.
+Decided to make an updated schedule, including this discussion and Amy's workforce and list of developments for the mission study.  We will need WF to develop the mission for the team-X study.  Felt that the instrument sessions need a motivating question, could be the combined mission for the first one.  Amy+Jamie present an updated draft next week.
-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, or do radiation testing
+(Amy) familiar with imager approach, but need more information on spectrometer in order to judge effort for combined architecture and going from there to team-X study if included.
-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
+Al says he will present slides on design options for the spectrometer in 2 weeks.
-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
+**Update from Raphael:**
-**Imager / Frequency Bands**: Slides 9-10
+  * what's happening with the theory group?
+  * what is the plan of work?
+  * what/when are the milestones?
+Have compiled a list of volunteers to look at specific scientific questions.  However have not had an opportunity to do much work.  Plan of work will require interaction with the mission study.  To start, make a list of topics with people in charge, what studies you want to accomplish, and the amount of work and duration.  Warning:  many of the discussions about r have fuzzy boundaries, but maybe there are tests available at low ell.  (Lloyd) there is a potential extragalactic science with the high frequency channels we should investigate.  Let's have that list of science topics and discussion in 2 weeks.
+**Action Items:**
+==========================
+  - Raphael will organize a group of people who will work on a particular target for r
+  - Lloyd will coordinate the data challenge
+       so far this has become a list of names, will come up with a draft plan for discussion on June 14
+  - Shaul to work on band and noise definitions
+  - Lloyd to try to find someone to work on extragalactic science case (including complementarity with ground)
+  - Julian will set up a probe project space at NERSC.
+  - Al will organize a group that will assess the motivation for a super-pixie or develop the case for compspec (complementary spectrometer)
+       in progress, will result in a presentation in 2 weeks
-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 [[:imageroptions|Image Options]] working group
-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

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools