| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| private:teleconsnotes20170607 [2017/06/07 14:56] – jbock | private:teleconsnotes20170607 [2017/06/08 20:48] (current) – atrangsr |
|---|
| ====== Telecon Notes 20170607 ====== | ====== Telecon Notes 20170607 ====== |
| |
| Attendance: Amy, Jeff, Rafael, Al, Clem, Lloyd, Jamie, Charles | Attendance: Jamie, Amy, Jeff, Brendan, Julian, Al |
| Notes by Amy | Notes by Amy |
| | |
| **Schedule:** | **Update from Brendan on Systematics plan** (see "Systematics WG plan slides") |
| | |
| * What other milestones need to be included in the schedule | |
| * Review timelines for TeamX sessions and decision point about Imager-only vs. Imager+Spectrometer. | |
| * What questions need to be investigated/answered on the way to this decision | |
| | |
| 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. | |
| | |
| 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. | |
| | |
| (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. | |
| | |
| Al says he will present slides on design options for the spectrometer in 2 weeks. | |
| |
| **Update from Raphael:** | Do we know what CORE did? Brendan doesn't. Brendan interested in what EPIC-IM did, but Jamie remarks that its becoming increasingly outdated, and we should probably look to more recent work by Planck and suborbital. What do we do at low-l to improve over Planck? A lot is in calibration. Julian (in real time) uploads some slides ("LiteBIRD/TOAST scanning strategy doc") showing some simulation work for LiteBIRD. Some discussion about content. This gives a sense of the capabilities already running that could be used for this work. May come back to this again. |
| |
| * what's happening with the theory group? | **Update from Jeff on Technology Plan** (no slides - Jeff has been on travel) |
| * 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. | Jeff not sure what his role/scope is intended to be as Technology Lead. Some discussion about this (mostly Amy, Jeff, Jamie) brought some clarity/consensus. First, "technology" includes things where TRL is an important consideration (like detectors, readout, coolers), but not things that are considered systems engineering (like managing trades between optical architecture options) or things that are considered standard engineering/design. Jeff can participate in those things according to his availability (and will at least want to follow them enough to inform tech decisions), but he is not being asked to lead the design of the whole instrument (phew). Rather, to take a guiding role and represent the EC in working with JPL on preparing for selection of technologies for detection, readout, cooling. Has meeting scheduled with Amy and Roger RE detectors, readout. Amy will also organize a meeting including Jeff and the JPL thermal architecture lead. Amy to also work with Jeff to get him "on-boarded" to JPL to enable technical interchange (document sharing, etc.). |
| |
| **Action Items:** | **Action Items:** |
| ========================== | ========================== |
| - Raphael will organize a group of people who will work on a particular target for r | * Raphael will provide a list of potential topics for science team for 14 June |
| - Lloyd will coordinate the data challenge | * Lloyd will coordinate the data challenge, will come up with a draft plan for discussion on June 14 |
| 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 |
| - Shaul to work on band and noise definitions | * Lloyd to try to find someone to work on extragalactic science case (including complementarity with ground) |
| - 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 |
| - 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 compspec (complementary spectrometer) for 21 June |
| - Al will organize a group that will assess the motivation for a super-pixie or develop the case for compspec (complementary spectrometer) | * Update schedule based on inputs from 5/31 telecon (Amy, Shaul, Jamie) |
| in progress, will result in a presentation in 2 weeks | * Investigate if a non-EC member wants to host a foregrounds/systematics workshop |