Go to the U of M home page
School of Physics & Astronomy
Probe Mission Study Wiki

User Tools

Trace:
private:teleconsnotes20180228

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision		Previous revision
private:teleconsnotes20180228 [2018/02/28 13:44] – created hananyprivate:teleconsnotes20180228 [2018/02/28 15:59] (current) – kyoung
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Telecon Notes February 28, 2018  ====== ====== Telecon Notes February 28, 2018  ======
  
-Attendance: +Attendance: Shaul, Charles, Nick, Al, Lloyd, Clem, Hannes, Dan
  
-Notes by:  + 
 +Notes by: Karl
  
 === Agenda:=== === Agenda:===
Line 14: Line 15:
       * TeamX slides vs something else ("logistically complicated I&T not explored in this study")       * TeamX slides vs something else ("logistically complicated I&T not explored in this study")
     * Possible White papers     * Possible White papers
-      * individual+      * individual vs Collated 
 + 
 + 
 +=== Notes === 
 + 
 +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. 
  
private/teleconsnotes20180228.1519847080.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/02/28 13:44 by hanany

Page Tools