Attendance: Shaul, Charles, Nick, Al, Lloyd, Clem, Hannes, Dan

Notes by: Karl

• May Workshop
  • Program google
• Science Team Costs
• Decadal Products
  • Engineering documents
    • TeamX slides vs something else (“logistically complicated I&T not explored in this study”)
  • Possible White papers
    • individual vs Collated

May Workshop

• Fundamental Physics
  • de Gouvea confirmed
  • Vera Gluscevic – Lloyd will check in.
  • Tracy Slatyer invited, Lloyd will follow up.
  • Panel: 3 confirmed, Lloyd/Dan to consider 1 more invite.
  • Axion DM: invited Dan Grin, he's considering. Lloyd follow up.
• Extra-galactic Science
  • replace Simone. Marcel – Nick inviting.
  • Panel: all invited.
• Galatic Science
  • all confirmed.
  • waiting to add a foregrounds person
  • Panel: Giles still considering.
• Tech
  • Panel: Adrian pinged, waiting to invite others.
• Final session
  • Moderated by Lloyd.
  • Al can't commit. 1:3 chance could come, shipping Piper. But willing to join if possible.
  • Bill in similar case, trying to make schedule work.
  • Suzanne pinged again.
  • Lloyd/Shaul to work offline to find more people. ideally S4 person, outside person,
    • Charles: Planck people relevant. volunteering if needed.
    • Looking for outside people with other input.

Science Team Costs (Al, Charles)

• for TeamX and mission costs
• basic number of people and cost per person
• manpower spread evenly over all years, ignores ramp up.
• 4 yrs flight, 4yrs I&T, 2 yrs post flight analysis
  • adjusted to 7.5 to account for ramp up.
• $52 M total, no reserves (close to 12% of WB lines 5-6, which is common rule of thumb advice.)
• Charles: US planck involvement. including early release source catalog cost. real year dollars. total cost for data analysis ends up $80-85 M. $52 is none too high, but probe is competed line so be careful.
  • CL: for example. include inflation. Planck #s include multiple (3) extended missions by senior review. those don't go in initial proposal. First Planck ask was $32 M in 2000.
  • CL: in report, data analysis is big part of the program. Planck got ratio of analysis money to hardware right. was 1:1. clearly not same case here, but weight analysis heavily.
  • CL: having second thoughts about my numbers.
• Lloyd: rich data set. need to weight analysis heavily.
• Shaul: makes sense. need to remember this goes against other costs. Currently close to the $1B.
  • Shaul: large unknowns are mission, I&T, spacecraft.
    • SH: JPL contracted with Lockheed to cost spacecraft bus for TeamX. past estimate $200M.
    • SH: thermal design passed to Goddard (Pete, Tom) for ADR cost estimates. Al will stay engaged to maintain timetable.
• CL: data analysis carried about 5% reserves for Planck. more sensible for data analysis
  • Al: reasonable. We do same things.
• CL: can also split science costs around. for example can split 3 month in flight CVP out. can be own category.

Engineering documents, TeamX slides vs something else (“logistically complicated I&T not explored in this study”)

• SH: JPL TeamX slides exist. not ITAR approved for broad release. Originally these would go to NASA and coster. Concerning. Coster could do anything.
  • AT+SH: talked with headquarters to do something different. TeamX often makes 'friendly suggestions' not always suitable for coster. They were favorable. Discussions ongoing on what input goes from TeamX to coster.
    • Al: raw teamX seems crazy.
    • SH: rule was 'engineering documents' NASA said this = TeamX slides. That rule now looks to be changing. Have argued for a narrative report along with the slides to give full explanation. No final decision yet.
    • Al: My experience with Goddard MDL was those reports going only to PI.
    • SH: agree TeamX (or MDL) are geared to give suggestions to PI.
    • CL: Goddard doing 5 studies, JPL doing 5. should be some agreement on what to send. Jeff Booth person at JPL in charge of 5. Agreement of what to send should be global.
      • SH: That was my argument! Didn't get a lot of traction with Jeff or Keith Warfield. TeamX discussion specifics was only with Keith.
      • CL: I will talk to Jeff also.
      • SH: often get 'you have 50 pages' as a response. but we want those to be mostly science. 50 pages is for decadel panel so needs to be science.
• Al: tying budget numbers to recent flights as much as possible would be good idea. tying 'detector assembly' to a recent flight prevents them from pulling numbers from thin air.