Differences

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

--- private:teleconsnotes20170719 [2017/07/19 15:26] – bcrill
+++ private:teleconsnotes20170719 [2017/07/26 14:21] (current) – hanany
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
   * Updates from{{:private:systematics_wg_update_19_july_2017.pdf|Systematics}} and data challenge WG
-----
+=== Actions ===
-Hello,
+  * Finalize Foreground Workshop Details (Raphael, by next week)
+  * Contact Kovack about a Probe update in the next S4 meeting (Shaul, this week)
+  * Contact Carlstrom about workshop coordination (Shaul, this week)
+  *
+=== Notes ===
+  *  Foreground workshop.  Raphael will finalize rooms and dates next week at UCSD.
+    * For the science meeting.  There is still a LITEBIRD meeting sponsored in Japan. This will happen before January.  Perhaps this will have more to do with instrumentation.    Mark/Bill suggested coordinating a spring Probe meeting with the S4 meeting.
+    * Shaul does not think the Probe part of an S4 meeting should be too short.  If S4 is open to coordinating the plan for the next decade, perhaps we could find common ground. Also, S4 does not have a structure like Probe; may be harder to coordinate the workshop
+    * Julian will look into hosting the next S4 meeting.  Maybe at Minn. as well.
+    * Maybe a multi-day meeting with 2 days of S4, 1-2 day of Probe/space.
+    * Shaul will talk to John K and John C about getting a short talk this August and then possibly hosting the next meeting.
-As part of the CMB Probe Mission Study led by Shaul Hanany, we are assembling a Working Group to explore potential
+  * Galactic Science (Laura and David)
-Galactic Science that can be done with such a mission.  Our goal is twofold. First, we will provide input into the design that is informed by Galactic science drivers. Second, once the concept is finalized, we will provide text to the final report that will describe the Galactic science capabilities of the instrument.
+    * Overlap between galactic science (point sources) and diffuse foregrounds.
+    * Laura:  Where are the boundaries for organizing.   Science is very resolution dependent.   Planck did not have high resolution for the more diffuse phase of the ISM.   Dust studies as well.   Both overlap with the foregrounds.
+    * Dave:  Is the foreground group going to focus on removal, or on science was well?
+    * Lloyd:  there may be no coordination require between the foreground removal group and the science group.
+    * What is the minimum resolution required to be of interest for galactic science.  Diffuse ISM - 5 armin would be  a big improvement over Planck.  For the bright regions Planck did well at some spots...  For star formation in nearby molecular clouds, we try to get to 0.1 pc.   For the closest clouds, this is 2.5 armin.   Is this achievable?  Shaul says at 800 GHz is 1 armin.
+    * Will the primary be cooled?   A huge factor above 600 GHz.
+    * Conclusion: Laura, Dave will solicit input from diffuse foregrounds folks as well. As long as they are focusing on science not on 'foreground removal' there is no conflict with 'data challenge' or 'foreground removal' folks.
-Topics under consideration include (but are not limited to) 1.) Magnetic fields in star forming regions, 2.) Magnetics fields/turbulence in the diffuse ISM 3.) ISM dust physics.
+  * Need a NAME for the Probe
+    * Shaul has been using CMBP
+    * Amy: there is advantage in using a name that is short, descriptive of science, catchy
+    * Lloyd: shall we think about it a little?
+    * Shaul: yes. Also, shall we reach out to the community?
-The product of the Mission Study will be a 50 page report that is due December 31, 2018; however, most of our work will be done in advance of that, and our contribution is likely to be ~2 pages of that report.
+  * Cost (Amy)
+    * Tech development is risky.  Can't afford to do a lot.  However, we will need to include SOME in there...probably detector/readout (best science return vs risk).  NASA says we ARE allowed to include technologies not at TRL 5.  However, it would need to get up to TRL 5 by phase A (2023).   The cost is outside the $1B cap.  BUT it will be reviewed and managed.
+    * Cap include $150M for launch, operations, management.  The amount available for all of this, but budget left for the instrument itself could be less than $200M.
+    * We are a risk classification B.  Single fault tolerant.
+    * Power - need a 75% contingency + margin on power.  We have lots of high power stuff.    Putting all these together means we may need deployable solar array.  Not much risk, but it is a cost.  To get this down, we would need to know our power needs *very* well.
+    * Start date of the project is October 2023.  Tech development would need to be done prior to this.
-We would like to invite you to participate in this working group. The commitment would involve 2-3 telecon in the next ~2 months, followed by another ~3 telecons over the next year. In addition, once we get to the point of producing text for the report, feedback would be appreciated.
-Please let us know if you have the time and the interest to join the Working Group. If you have any questions, please let one of us know.
-Best Wishes,
-Laura Fissel
-David Chuss
--------------------

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools