Attendance: Al, Amy, Lloyd, Raphael, Charles

Notes by: Karl

• TeamX, AAS, Moriond, APS, Periodic Update (Amy, Shaul)
• Focus and priorities for the next few months
  • Foregrounds
  • Systematics
• May Workshop
  • goole sheet with some program suggestions

Periodic Update:

Instrument Status

After considering the case for a mission that includes both a spectrometer and an imager the EC concluded that the cost cap does not allow for a compelling mission with two instruments. Both instruments would need to be downscoped, sacrificing the overall capabilities compared to a mission with a single instrument. The EC decided to concentrate on a mission with an imager. The decision process included inputs from the spectrometer and imager groups, and from the various science working groups.

The imager's design is quite mature. It currently consists of a 1.4 m aperture, two-reflector telescope feeding a focal plane with 12,400 bolometers. It has 21 bands between 20 and 800 GHz. The current forecast noise is 0.63 uK*arcmin for a 4 year mission (and full sky coverage). More information about the instrument is available in the posters and talk discussed below.

Our TeamX engineering and costing session at JPL in mid-December went well. The JPL engineers reviewed the instrument (telescope, focal plane, cooling) and did not identify any challenges with the design. The cost estimate matches the overall envelope.

We will have another TeamX session to assess the instrument in mid-March, followed by an additional session that will assess the spacecraft (power, telemetry, pointing, mass, etc.).

PICO Science and Workshop

The various science groups have been working on forecasting PICO's performance for its various science goals. This activity will continue over the next 6-10 months as we are preparing the PICO final report.

Brief summary of the science case and current forecasting was presented at the most recent American Astronomical Society meeting in the forms of a 10 min talk and a poster. Both are posted on our PICO wiki page. We are also planning to give talks in Moriond and in the April meeting of the American Physical Society.

We are holding a workshop to discuss the PICO science deliverables, the complementarity of PICO data with other data sets that will become available in the next decade, and the key points to deliver to the decadal panel in our report. The workshop will start on the morning of Tuesday May 1 and will last 2-2.5 days. More details will be distributed soon. Everyone is invited to attend. You are particularly encouraged to attend if you wish to shape the message we are providing to the decadal panel. This message will consist of our science goals, areas for future technology development, and NASA's role with CMB science in the next decade.

TeamX, AAS, Moriond, APS, Periodic Update (Amy, Shaul)

• recieved draft slides. Amy and team and Shaul reviewing draft. Hope for final release in ~2 weeks. May be only a subset of the slides.
• cost and engineering both look good. no major surprises. cooling was large cost
• discuss next steps with slides in near future. Are some actions items from TeamX
• AAS meeting, Shaul gave talk on PICO.
  • SH impression: Our focus on science deliverables was a good choice. Shaul stayed within time to moderator's surprise. All went well. Heard comments that it was an impressive set of science goals.
    • A subset of probes (~half) are targeting 2030s. Significant tech developement needed. Some called out complimentarity with LISA.
    • SH: Concern if many probes are looking at 2030s that the Decadal panel may not recommend a Probe funding class.
    • CL: entire session was good. Showed broad science that nominally fits in $1 billion (a couple may be over). Message of vitality in Probe class.
    • AT: Good representation across wavelength and science range. Most not similar to each other except 3 X-ray missions. Our engineering risk and cost posture was on par with the group.
    • SH/AT: One probe (starshade) was funded for study in past and gone through CATE process at $600M. They are somewhat of a special case.
    • SH: Was also a science and optics poster at AAS. Overall good exposure.
• Continuing to spread the word is a good idea. APS meeting and Moriond upcoming.
  • SH: submitted APS abstract, but someone else could present. Moriond deadline at end of Jan.
  • LK: others outside EC may be able to present. e.g. Raphael, Dan Green, Dave Chuss, Laura Fissel, . . .
    • SH: have pinged DC and LF about some upcoming Galactic science conferences.
  • Bring up other conferences to SH.
• Next Periodic Update text shown above. Comments?
  • SH: will add few words about foregrounds workshop
  • RF: not all people at the workshop in Dec. are part of probe mailing list. Should send an email to these folks as well.
    • Raphael/Shaul will coordinate via email and send information about probe mailing list and wiki to foregrounds folks.

Focus and priorities for the next few months. TeamX sessions (instrument and mission) in March. Workshop in May.

• Note: March TeamX report goes to decadal panel. So address issues from the December TeamX.
• Foregrounds
• Systematics
• General agreement these two are most important.
• SH: Will get systematics update from Brendan in ~ 2 weeks. Foregrounds – CL and SH discuss plans and funding for Andrea (sp?).

May Workshop, Minneapolis, 2.5 days out of April 30 - May 3.

• Current plan is May 1-2, Tues-Wed.
• google sheet with some program suggestions here
• Idea is to discuss PICO, science from space, message to Decadal, complementarity with ground
• Workshop is summary of work and laying groundwork for what to put in PICO report.
• SH: Dan Green was excited about S3/S4 + PICO complementarity. Are there ways to encourage people to publish on the science combination options.
  • CL: Definite plans are difficult since timing is uncertain.
  • SH: Point is just asking what can be done with various data sets combined.
  • LK: Simulating those combinations is one goal of this. Need to advertise sufficiently.
  • SH: Grant can support people who come and contribute papers on PICO or PICO+other. Please send names to SH or contact them yourself.
• CL: Tech development in final report. We should be careful. Decadal panels always recommend tech development which is then not funded. Also, Probe concept (competed funding line) promotes developed technology so those to aspects somewhat at cross purposes.
  • SH: Getting Decadal to recommend tech development helps support long term CMB funding. Keep NASA/other from disinvesting.
• Names for presenters?
  • LK: Nick Battaglia for clusters? Do we need a separate SOC?
    • SH: Planning to form one. Would need Raphael, Nick, LLoyd (volunteered already to be on SOC)
  • Action item send names to SH if you think of presenters/people to contact.

AT: Putting together a template for all probe studies for the 50 page report. Input is welcome.

• SH: starting on skeleton for PICO report. Will send this suggestion.