Attendance: Bill, Shaul, Dave, Dan, Lloyd, Charles, Hannes

Notes by: Karl

• Report from Steering Committee
  • consistency with CORE/LB
  • Complementarity with ground
• Brief update on Cost + adjustments to overall map depth
  • Noise V3.2: 0.61 uK*arcmin (4 years, stop @ 4K)
  • Noise V3.3: 0.57 uK*arcmin (5 years + ); 0.63 uK*arcmin with stop @ 6 K
  • Cost $890M
• Workshop deliverables + Report Draft

EC notes

Atd: Bill, Shaul, Dave, Dan, Lloyd, Charles, Hannes

Report from Steering Committee (Shaul's update)

• online was Chuck, Lyman, Scott D., Jamie, Shaul.
• update was since end of 2017.
• Lyman asked if any bad feeling relating to choosing imager over spectrometer.
  • SH: Didn't think so, but unclear how to answer Lyman.
• consistency with CORE/LB in terms of NET and map depth. Good to check (Lyman)
  • Imager group looking at consistency. Looks like all are reasonably consistent. Work ongoing.
• Complementarity with ground
  • Jamie worried that probe would achieve goal of worthwhile science at $1 billion.
    • but CMB could lose NASA continual support.
    • Scott suggested a coherent plan
    • Chuck, Lyman argue “just put best foot forward” that's all you can do.

Brief update on Cost + adjustments to overall map depth

• from TeamX Mission got overall cost numbers. 10% below cap.
  • Cost $890M
  • Still to come: NASA cost estimators and independent cost estimators. Don't know what they'll say.
  • SH: only negative, estimates always go up. So likely this will grow as process continues.
    • CL: For this type of study, this will probably remain fine. i.e. under $1 billion
  • Assumes 5 yr mission.
• Noise V3.2: 0.61 uK*arcmin (4 years, stop @ 4K)
• Noise V3.3: 0.57 uK*arcmin (5 years + ); 0.63 uK*arcmin with stop @ 6 K
  • likely to be 6 K stop due to cryogenic limits.
• final noise case is going to be in the 0.6-0.7 range. Real limit will be systematics.
• TeamX slides are being reviewed for release to TeamX

Workshop deliverables. Workshop deliverables + Report Draft

• Deliverables document, point subsection organizers to what we want out of their section.
  • Report structure reworked to reflect science goals which drive design and ancillary science. details in Report Draft (above)
    • Cluster science interesting. We do well, but not designed for. Also most science outcomes require a follow-up for z. No one has planned this follow-up.
      • CL: Seems appropriate. 1 reason this doesn't drive design is that PICO doesn't due it alone. Just point that out. Is ok.
    • This structure will be shared at workshop.
      • CL: page limit is strict? SH: yes.
      • CL: CDT did simulations details in appendix. Multiple comments that this was very effective. Details present without detracting from narrative. Could do this even within 50 page limit.
        • SH: And/or could have additional white/refereed papers with this extra simulation description.
        • SH: If decadal is delayed would add time for white papers. Not clear this will happen.
  • Following sections passed to organizers
  • Science section
    • model motivated r goals?
    • science arguments we're missing
    • science argument for guest observer program?
    • effect of foregrounds on other (beyond r) science goals
  • Foregrounds (details in workshop pdf)
    • CL: import question for foregrounds and systematics. For a full mission must demonstrate that these can be removed/understood at nK level. This is beyond the probe study. So need to point to continuing work and what will/can be done. Push as far as possible, but this problems won't be solved by time of report writing.
  • Systematics (similar to foregrounds, CL: yes)
    • explain all simplifying assumptions and what will be done, even if not in this study. (similar to CL's previous comment)
  • Technologies
    • Status/maturation of various technologies. mature = TRL 5 at phase A, 2023.
      • Hannes: yes, this is the main question which needs discussion.
  • General discussion
    • Pitch for space (both how to pitch and what to say)
      • CL: is this referring to discuss next week or in report? SH: means we discuss next week whether the report advocates space in 2020's, or wait for ground, or not put in report.
      • CL: prudent to have at least a short discussion on list of characteristics of space that are important for science. See if there is general agreement about what is gained from space. This is an important point when planning advocacy. If probe and S4 reports say same thing about benefits of space and ground that is good. Next week we should see if community is singing same song.
      • Hannes: Agree. or at least in harmony.
      • Hannes: This is a major part of report? SH: yes! Hannes: then definitely important to discuss.
      • Lloyd: Have been assuming that 'what is pitch for space' is core question of last section.
    • complementarity with S4 or balloons
    • papers beyond the report
  • Other workshop goals/comments?
    • LK: program seems light on foregrounds? So how best to use this to organize future foregrounds work? Found newer program. Looks better.
  • SH: Returning to space mission benefits:
    • probably broad agreement on full sky and broad frequency
    • resolution may have less agreement
    • CL: yeah. also systematic errors.
  • Shaul will send workshop goals to various moderators.