Attendance: Shaul, Dave Chuss, Amy, Laura Fissel, Al, Julian, Lloyd, Nick Battaglia, Charles, Jamie

Notes by: Karl Young (UMN)

• budget for discussion
• Slides from Imager Group
• Slides from the Extragalactic Group
• Slides from Galactic Group
• Fundamental Physics WG update (Raphael)

Budget update (Amy)

• Line 7, E,F phase
  • includes cost + reserves
    • primary cost is science analysis manpower, during and post mission
    • other costs: mission ops, DSN tracking, navigation, data management, etc.
  • Current number is scaled from $40M in EPIC. Jamie suggests recalculate this.
  • 3 minute estimate by Shaul of $25M. Assuming 30 postdocs, ~5 yrs. Needs refining.
  • Balance of post-docs, senior scientists, NASA scientists greatly affects cost
    • Charles: 30 post-docs, 5 yrs is right idea.
  • Charles, Jamie: take examples from Planck and WMAP. final science costs were large. somewhat driven by organization framework in Planck's case. Could use US Planck contribution as a guide.
    • long time-frame drives large cost.
  • A/I Shaul to make effort estimate
    • Charles will give opinions and input.
      • current thoughts of 30 post-docs, 5-6 yrs, some senior folks, e.g. Julian, as well.
  • Al: can we break line 7 into science, ops, DSN, etc.?
    • Amy: majority in line 7 is science, ops < 20%.
• Line 9 clarification. Reserves are 30%
  • Amy: can change to 25% as stated in NASA slides. 25% is aggressive.
  • Also, may want to aim for < $1B to give buffer for independent costing.
  • Shaul: do 25% as we've been told to. Leave decision of a buffer below $1B for NASA. They can tell all probe-classes to do this.
• Line 14, Spacecraft $200M
  • currently modelling. Scaling from previous satellites.
  • typical that spacecraft is more than instrument
  • nothing is technically risky, but requirements drive costs.
    • power (1 kW instrument, ~2.5 kW total), data rates and telecom, spinning
    • CL: Planck was 1.8 kW total. 1 kw instrument. less margin in panels since no angle to sun.
  • CL: Planck spacecraft + ancillary (don't remember what besides launch ops) was $250M. Majority was spacecraft.
• Line 17, thermal
  • being refined with thermal models
  • estimate of $70M from CORE with 50 cm focal plane. significantly large focal plane would raise this.
  • CL: 50 cm isn't enough focal plane to get to low frequency, 20GHz.
  • Jamie: 100 mK may be primary cost, more or less mass at 100 mK may make a smaller difference.
  • Amy: True, cost not linear with focal plane size, but does increase with increasing focal plane size.

Smaller imager? (Shaul)

• if imager + Spectrometer then smaller imager. Cost limited.
  • Not limited by mass, volume, power, data rate. (except that these add cost)
• 50 cm design to evaluate cost and science trade-offs more clearly.
  • Amy: detailed costing of a point-design is more Team X task. Beyond scope of her group.
    • but confident that a CORE + PIXIE design is over budget.
  • CL: both imager and spectrometer are difficult, complicated science. Doing both in 1 limits the science in both. Would rather do 2 separate satellites.
  • Jamie: Can spacecraft costs drop? MidEx are proposing L2.
    • Amy: No. This system is bigger and class B.
    • Jamie: Can we assume future savings? Concerned about a marginal science case due to cost limits.
    • Shaul: Set a baseline for now.
• Sensitivities for 50cm sent to science groups. They'll report in 1 week.
  • Assuming a 4 K 50 cm system.
• Big, 3x, hit to resolution.
  • Jamie: Does this kill the science? (wait for WG inputs)
  • CL: S4 simulated complex synchrotron foregrounds. 15' beams at 20 GHz gave 5x improvement at l = few hundred.
    • 30' beams at 20, 30, 40 GHz did similar.
    • more parameter space to be explored.
• Dave and Nick to present science trade-offs next week. Laura gone.