private:teleconsnotes20171011 [Probe Mission Study Wiki]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Telecon Notes 20171011 ======

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

Notes by:  Karl Young (UMN)

=== Agenda ===

  * {{:private:forbudgetdiscussion.xlsx|budget for discussion}}
  * {{: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}}
  * {{:private:theory3.pdf|Fundamental Physics WG update}} (Raphael)

=== 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

Page Tools
