Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| private:teleconsnotes20171025 [2017/10/25 14:49] – hanany | private:teleconsnotes20171025 [2017/10/25 18:05] (current) – kyoung | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Telecon Notes 20171025 ====== | ====== Telecon Notes 20171025 ====== | ||
| - | Attendance: | + | Attendance: |
| - | Notes by: \\ | + | Notes by: |
| === Agenda === | === Agenda === | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| To implement the mission we considered several instrument configurations, | To implement the mission we considered several instrument configurations, | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Minutes== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Spectrometer tradeoffs full discussion in 1 week. Some current comments: | ||
| + | - ? | ||
| + | - CL: proposing what is essentially 2 missions doubles the work. if goal is probe funding line, maybe this isn't appropriate. | ||
| + | - Amy: 50 pages for 2 missions is too short. | ||
| + | - CL: This is really 2 totally seperate missions, should do 2 reports. | ||
| + | - Shaul: Steering committee sentiment: Proposing 2 missions when asked for 1 would distract panel. They suggest focus on 1 you can do well. | ||
| + | - Shaul(steering committee): Decadal panel will see broad range of science, so reach out to broad community for PICO. | ||
| + | - Lyman: if proposal similar to EPIC and last decadal; are we doing anything new? do we need to? | ||
| + | - budget: do we assume scientists at NASA centers or Universities? | ||
| + | - some at NASA, mission ops, but most science team at universities. | ||
| + | - CL: Important to maintain 1 location with critical mass of science team. Not single members at 30 institutions. For Planck mass was at JPL, and hardware was there as well. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Presentaitons at conferences: | ||
| + | - AAS Jan. 2018 special session. | ||
| + | - Shaul giving 10 min talk. | ||
| + | - poster on optics for probe? (1-2 UMN students) | ||
| + | - UMN will circulate abstract. **A/I** | ||
| + | - Amy: other probes have some posters planned | ||
| + | - APS April, abstacts due Jan 12. | ||
| + | - currently no presentations. | ||
| + | - could send student with poster, or someone with talk. | ||
| + | - Other probes presenting? | ||
| + | - SPIE summer 2018, Brian proposing an abstract, see above. | ||
| + | | ||
| + | Imager update: | ||
| + | * Large aperture, arrays of multi-chroic bolometers. | ||
| + | * work has been on optics, scan angles, focal plane model. | ||
| + | * Scan is by spin and precession, alpha and beta angles define scan. | ||
| + | * 2 small aperture (50 cm) 2 large aperture (120*140 cm) developed. (see slide 4) | ||
| + | * 2 Open, 2 crossed dragones. | ||
| + | * reminder: cross dragones have sidelobes and focal plane view of sky. baffling challenges. | ||
| + | * open systems are well baffled. | ||
| + | * Noise levels calculated for all cases. | ||
| + | * range of 3000-15000 detectors, if mirrors are optimized shapes. Depends on choices of optimization and pixel format. | ||
| + | * Amy: optimizaiton details? | ||
| + | * Dragones are coma dominated. | ||
| + | * mirror surfaces are deformed to reduce coma. | ||
| + | * gain DLFOV, and therefore more detectors can fit on focal plane. | ||
| + | * optimized focal plane is rougly 60x80 cm. | ||
| + | * Amy: will push on cooling, but may be doable. | ||
| + | * Amy: surface accuracy of mirrors? | ||
| + | * Shaul: lambda/15 is nominal. | ||
| + | * 50 cm is 3x loss in FWHM vs 140 cm. | ||
| + | * Kris simulated scans: | ||
| + | * currently at 22 and 73 degrees. | ||
| + | * Julian has taken lead in planning more detailed simulations. | ||
| + | * Amy: Consider trading aperture diameter for scan angles? | ||
| + | * science trade-off continuing. | ||
| + | * not clear this is necessary. | ||
| + | * Future: | ||
| + | * JPL working on telescope architecture and cost. | ||
| + | * Imager is fairly ready for Team X. | ||
| + | * Jamie suggests we go to Team X with quotes in hand. | ||
| + | * Amy: this is being worked on. Will also have 2nd meeting with Team X to revise specific assumptions. | ||
| + | * Imager group will look at scan, data rates, detector distribution, | ||
| + | * CL: don't need GRASP yet. Beyond the scope of this report. | ||
| + | * Amy: Appropriate level to address systematics? | ||
| + | * systematics and risk factors in process (Brendon). nearly done. Plan is to combine their inputs with Imager group. | ||
| + | * study highest risk (as defined by Brendon' | ||
| + | * Shaul: largest item to face in decadal, complimentary with ground, given S4. | ||
| + | * CL: probe succeeds only if more ambitious than ground. | ||
| + | | ||
| + | * also in foregrounds telecon. | ||
| + | * if r = 0, get large bias, 0.005. | ||
| + | * foregrounds challenging on full sky. S4 does slightly better since on small patch. | ||
| + | * CL: also saw simulations with bias (in S4). | ||
| + | * CL/Shaul: foregrounds aren't figured out. | ||
| + | * CL: foregrounds needs to be in next steps. Part of mitigating future uncertainties. Optimizing bands and angular resolution are issues. example: small scale synchrotron for S4. | ||
| + | * Shaul: Josquin and foregrounds simulations is seperate group. | ||
| + | * Dec. foregrounds workshop is part of this. | ||
| + | * CL: best approach is to focus on complementarity with S4, not exclusivity. | ||
| + | * Shaul: working to get Al's panel reviews of PIXIE. | ||
| + | * CL: what r level is being discussed? | ||
| + | * Shaul: for most sensitive case. sigma_r ~ 1-5 x 10^-4. Raphael will give details. | ||
| + | * CL: this is good. Space can be more aggressive in goals. | ||
| + | * this type goal will be costly, but must make science work. | ||
| + | * CL: also might need better resolution at low frequency foregrounds. | ||