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/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

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. 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. 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 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 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

Action Items:

1. Raphael will organize a group of people who will work on a particular target for r
2. Lloyd will coordinate the data challenge; Shaul to work on band and noise definitions
3. Julian will set up a probe project space at NERSC.
4. Al will organize a group that will assess the motivation for a super-pixie or develop the case for compspec (complementary spectrometer)