Differences

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

--- private:teleconsnotes20171011 [2017/10/11 14:48] – hanany
+++ private:teleconsnotes20171011 [2017/10/11 16:50] (current) – kyoung
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Telecon Notes 20171011 ======
-Attendance:  \\
+Attendance:  Shaul, Dave Chuss, Amy, Laura Fissel, Al, Julian, Lloyd, Nick Battaglia, Charles, Jamie\\
-Notes by:  \\
+Notes by:  Karl Young (UMN)
 === Agenda ===
   * {{:private:forbudgetdiscussion.xlsx|budget for discussion}}
-  * Slides from Imager Group
+  * {{:private:ec_slides_20171011.pdf|Slides from Imager Group }}
   * {{:private:extragalactic_update_20171011.pdf|Slides from the Extragalactic Group}}
   * {{:private:galacticgroup_20170920.pdf|Slides from Galactic Group}}
@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 === Notes ===
+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.

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools