Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| private:teleconsnotes20180404 [2018/04/04 13:36] – created hanany | private:teleconsnotes20180404 [2018/04/11 09:03] (current) – kyoung | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Telecon Notes April 4, 2018 ====== | ====== Telecon Notes April 4, 2018 ====== | ||
| - | Attendance: | + | Attendance: |
| - | Notes by: | + | Notes by: Karl |
| === Agenda:=== | === Agenda:=== | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| === Notes: === | === Notes: === | ||
| + | |||
| + | May Workshop | ||
| + | * minor changes from 3 wks ago. All slots now filled -- except final decadal process panel. | ||
| + | * SH: Small time allocation to foregrounds currently. But not clear that more discussion time is what is most needed. | ||
| + | * final decadal process discussion: John Carlstrom tentative, Steve Ritz checking his schedule | ||
| + | |||
| + | SPIE and future Papers | ||
| + | * Sutin Abstract | ||
| + | * Format: Few paragraph science. 5 pages instrument (optical design refer to Young paper). 2-3 pages mission design. | ||
| + | * AT: due to ITAR, it will be difficult to include full groups comments. The time frame will be short. | ||
| + | * non-JPL co-authors won't have much time to read and comment. | ||
| + | * AT: so we need an internal JPL deadline to pass ITAR then release to co-authors, then submit to co-authors, then to SPIE. Tight timeframe. | ||
| + | * SH: suppose draft goes to Co-Is, give them 1 week to read/ | ||
| + | * AT: 2nd ITAR would still be 1 week (delta review). Means JPL draft circulated in ~ 1.5 weeks. | ||
| + | * SH: That seems required to give co-Is time. | ||
| + | * AT: but 1.5 weeks isn't enough time for writing a reasonable paper given manpower. Really only time for 1 ITAR round (so paper in ~3 weeks). So JPL and onboarded co-authors help write. | ||
| + | * SH: Really need time for people to read/ | ||
| + | * AK: Can we skip ITAR? AT: Nope. Not for technical paper. | ||
| + | * Deadline May 16th. AK: often can get 2 more weeks out of them. Up to conference date. | ||
| + | * SH: means release to ITAR by April 18th. Doable? | ||
| + | * AT/SH: Will take offline. | ||
| + | * Young Abstract | ||
| + | * Author list changes due April 9th. | ||
| + | * Policy for authorship? | ||
| + | * AK: If open invite we should have some sort of policy requirement. | ||
| + | * SH: Could have couple EC members review names, or bring up issues and have full EC decide. | ||
| + | * LK: Don't see downside to erring on side of inclusion. Bringing each case to EC on case-by-case basis makes most sense. | ||
| + | * AT: More inclusion is fine. | ||
| + | * Will say policy is just review by EC. Shaul will flag cases for discussion if needed. | ||
| + | * How do these papers fit in overall picture of outcomes for the study? | ||
| + | * Not flagship PICO papers, rather technical papers. | ||
| + | * AT: Need to be clear these aren't final design or go-to papers for full PICO study. | ||
| + | |||
| + | TeamX Sessions | ||
| + | * TeamX-I, -M | ||
| + | * No large changes to instrument | ||
| + | * Mission, got full end-to-end cost. Still in cost window, probably. Final number in ~ week. | ||
| + | * Review of TeamX slides | ||
| + | * input to SOMA. We will work to release (ITAR) slides to EC review. EC note issues and TeamX will clean up slides in summer. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Setting ' | ||
| + | * Forecasts are currently 'best case' | ||
| + | * example: current assumption = 100% yield. is requirement 80%? 90%? | ||
| + | * What is the right process to set requirements? | ||
| + | * AK: should set for performance of full array. what is the sensitivity where you no longer have a useful r value? | ||
| + | * SH: makes sense. Threshold value? | ||
| + | * AK: r ~ 10^-3 at 3-5 sigma seems critical. So sig(r) 2-3 * 10^-4. | ||
| + | * SH: Ok, for comparison, think (will check after telecon) that S4 proposes 5 sigma on 4*10^-3. On 3-5% of sky. | ||
| + | * AK: Also really a question for theoretical community. Is there a threshold r value? Where null result is compelling. | ||
| + | * **Shaul** will communicate with Raphael, Lloyd, others to see if we can set a requirement. | ||
| + | * SH: Other option is to take 1-2 sigma variations in inputs. Calc noise for all worst cases and get a worst case version. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||