Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| private:teleconsnotes20171011 [2017/10/11 14:58] – hanany | private:teleconsnotes20171011 [2017/10/11 16:50] (current) – kyoung | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Telecon Notes 20171011 ====== | ====== Telecon Notes 20171011 ====== | ||
| - | Attendance: | + | Attendance: |
| - | Notes by: | + | Notes by: |
| === Agenda === | === Agenda === | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| === Notes === | === 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' | ||
| + | * 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. | ||
| + | * Amy: can change to 25% as stated in NASA slides. | ||
| + | * 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. | ||
| + | * 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. | ||
| + | * Line 17, thermal | ||
| + | * being refined with thermal models | ||
| + | * estimate of $70M from CORE with 50 cm focal plane. | ||
| + | * 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. | ||
| + | * 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. | ||
| + | * Jamie: Can spacecraft costs drop? MidEx are proposing L2. | ||
| + | * Amy: No. This system is bigger and class B. | ||
| + | * Jamie: Can we assume future savings? | ||
| + | * Shaul: Set a baseline for now. | ||
| + | * Sensitivities for 50cm sent to science groups. | ||
| + | * Assuming a 4 K 50 cm system. | ||
| + | * Big, 3x, hit to resolution. | ||
| + | * Jamie: Does this kill the science? | ||
| + | * CL: S4 simulated complex synchrotron foregrounds. | ||
| + | * 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. | ||