Differences

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

--- private:teleconsnotes20170607 [2017/06/07 15:07] – jbock
+++ private:teleconsnotes20170607 [2017/06/08 20:48] (current) – atrangsr
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Telecon Notes 20170607 ======
-Attendance: Amy, Jeff, Rafael, Al, Clem, Lloyd, Jamie, Charles
+Attendance: Jamie, Amy, Jeff, Brendan, Julian, Al
 Notes by Amy
-**Update from Brendan:**
+**Update from Brendan on Systematics plan** (see "Systematics WG plan slides")
-  * what are the plans for setting requirements for systematics?
-  * Is there a plan to set up a 'systematic working group' that will discuss and provide guidance?
-  * what are the plans with addressing spacecraft specific systematics (as opposed to those common with the ground)?
-**Update from Jeff:**
+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  Brendan doesn't. Brendan interested in what EPIC-IM did, but Jamie remarks that its becoming increasingly outdated, and we should probably look to more recent work by Planck and suborbital.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.
-  * addressing the technology development
-  * What are the key development items?
-  * How does the 'tech group' plans to address them?
-**Update from Kris Gorski:**
+**Update from Jeff on Technology Plan** (no slides - Jeff has been on travel)
-  * review of EPIC-IM + CORE scan strategy; possible modifications for the Polarization Probe
+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:**
 ==========================
-  * 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
   * 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)
+  * Al will organize a group that will assess the motivation for a super-pixie or compspec (complementary spectrometer) for 21 June
-       in progress, will result in a presentation in 2 weeks
   * Update schedule based on inputs from 5/31 telecon (Amy, Shaul, Jamie)
+  * Investigate if a non-EC member wants to host a foregrounds/systematics workshop

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools