| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| private:teleconsnotes20170816 [2017/08/16 14:53] – hanany | private:teleconsnotes20170816 [2017/09/05 20:58] (current) – hanany |
|---|
| ====== Telecon Notes 20170809 ====== | ====== Telecon Notes 20170809 ====== |
| |
| Attendance: \\ | Attendance: Jamie, Amy, Shaul, Lloyd \\ |
| Notes by: \\ | Notes by: Shaul \\ |
| |
| === Agenda === | === Agenda === |
| * Short updates: Rita's slides; Name; JPL visit; Probe + S4 Workshops | * Short updates: {{:private:head2017_v2_sh_forrita.pptx|Rita's slide}}; Name (PICO?); JPL visit (Wed. Aug. 30); Probe + S4 Workshops |
| * Science Traceability Matrix (Amy) + tasks to WG (Shaul, all) | * {{:private:cmbpol_stm_template.docx|Science Traceability Matrix}} (Amy) + tasks to WG (Shaul, all) |
| * Probe Strategy (Shaul, all) | * {{:private:probemissionstudy_telecon_20170816.pdf|Probe Strategy}} (Shaul, all) |
| * need now; a mission should fly asap regardless of r results from sub-orbital | * need now; a mission should fly asap regardless of r results from sub-orbital |
| * a mission should fly if there are detections by sub-orbital | * a mission should fly if there are detections by sub-orbital |
| === Telecon Notes === | === Telecon Notes === |
| |
| __Probe Srategy__ \\ | * STM: Need input on first two columns before JPL visit. Shaul will fill in the first column from NASA strategic plan. Lloyd + other group leaders to fill other columns. |
| | |
| | * __Probe Strategy__ \\ |
| | |
| * Comments from Charles (by e-mail): \\ | * Jamie: what we had last decadal 'wait for detections from the ground' - what does that mean? Vague. The key issue is maintaining support for the community. Suggests a common technology program with S4. Also, we are not asked to provide a plan for the decade. We are asked to provide a Probe study. |
| | * Lloyd: situation now vastly different than last decade. Last time we had to wait for Planck results. |
| | * Comments from Charles (by e-mail): \\ |
| | |
| | "First of all, the point of the current study is to demonstrate a CMB polarization mission that could do spectacular science for under $1 B. The goal is a recommendation from the Decadal Review for a Probe line of missions. One might hope that the Decadal panel would be so impressed that they made a special recommendation about a CMB polarization mission. One might hope, but I think that hope is false. So I wouldn't let it drive us in any way. |
| |
| First of all, the point of the current study is to demonstrate a CMB polarization mission that could do spectacular science for under $1 B. The goal is a recommendation from the Decadal Review for a Probe line of missions. One might hope that the Decadal panel would be so impressed that they made a special recommendation about a CMB polarization mission. One might hope, but I think that hope is false. So I wouldn't let it drive us in any way. | Which brings me to the point. We should write a report that says a <$1 B mission can do spectacular CMB (or whatever) science. We don't have to agonize about when. If a Probe line is instituted, we'll compete, and the question will be addressed then. If a Probe line is not instituted, the question is irrelevant. For now, we can ignore the question about when. But we need to be really, really serious about less than $1 B!! And spectacular science." |
| |
| Which brings me to the point. We should write a report that says a <$1 B mission can do spectacular CMB (or whatever) science. We don't have to agonize about when. If a Probe line is instituted, we'll compete, and the question will be addressed then. If a Probe line is not instituted, the question is irrelevant. For now, we can ignore the question about when. But we need to be really, really serious about less than $1 B!! And spectacular science. | |