Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| private:teleconsnotes20180509 [2018/05/09 15:04] – kyoung | private:teleconsnotes20180509 [2018/05/09 15:42] (current) – kyoung | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Telecon Notes May 9, 2018 ====== | ====== Telecon Notes May 9, 2018 ====== | ||
| - | Attendance: Amy, Shaul | + | Attendance: Amy, Shaul, Al |
| Notes by: Karl | Notes by: Karl | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| Report from [[http:// | Report from [[http:// | ||
| + | * SH: p 7. From Steve Ritz, planning for decadal. NASA talking delay due to JWST delay. | ||
| + | * SH: p 9. PICO-S4 tension discussion. | ||
| + | * SH: when project papers called for, could also have complementarity paper. | ||
| + | * SH: quotes on p 10. | ||
| + | * AK: need to be a clear space case, or NASA may conclude that ground can do it all and not support CMB space resources. | ||
| + | * SH: funding may be different this decade if Probe-class is funded. | ||
| + | * AK: NASA tries to follow decadal strategic priorities. CMB needs to be in this list as support for future proposals. A PIXIE response was ground observations could take away much of the value. | ||
| + | * SH: problem at science paper level? | ||
| + | * AK: no, if the discussion is what science, not how to get it. If the discussion is how, then conflict is inevitable. For NASA to support a space mission, the case needs to be made to the decadal and priorities set there. | ||
| Other items for the near future | Other items for the near future | ||
| * Final imager configuration and sensitivity, | * Final imager configuration and sensitivity, | ||
| - | | + | * AT: Status. |
| + | * SH: Some temperatures have changed, so AT-SH will discuss details offline. | ||
| + | * SH: FDM vs TDM noise ends up not making a difference. total noise difference is ~2%, which is beyond the accuracy we can expect from this study. | ||
| + | | ||
| + | * SH: Artificial to set a requirement. | ||
| + | * SH: for other science goals, possible route to setting requirements, | ||
| + | * Planck was within 20% of original design. | ||
| + | * Suggestion: reduce our numbers by a Planck factor (20%) and add a factor for yield/ | ||
| + | * AT: requirements must be met for flight. If ground tests put you close then costs and work grow to ensure meeting requirements. | ||
| + | * SH: add yield too, 20% degradation may be low. | ||
| + | * AT: cost analysis assumed 90%, so reasonable place to start. (SH: 90% seems fine) | ||
| + | * SH: So what is the additional degradation? | ||
| + | * AK: lay out chain of logic. show where numbers are coming from. so assumptions | ||
| + | * SH: This goes to costers and decadal. goals slightly different. For decadal we need to show high quality science. | ||
| + | * AT: 2 stories. Science objective is X, need Y sensitivity to reach that. Prediction is A, that is below Y by some margin which is enough for ... | ||
| * TeamX slide review | * TeamX slide review | ||
| + | * AT: We have final slides. | ||
| + | * SH: draft version still had ' | ||
| + | * AT: Yes, these were comments for the team (Shaul, Amy, etc.). Those will be removed before forwarding to costers. | ||
| * Scheduling of final TeamX session (Funding at JPL runs out at the end of fiscal year). | * Scheduling of final TeamX session (Funding at JPL runs out at the end of fiscal year). | ||
| + | * SH: apparently additional teamX round. | ||
| + | * AT: will be fairly late. No TeamX changes allowed after this point. | ||
| + | * SH: so gather in group sessions? or separate editing of slides. | ||
| + | * AT: depends on what Al Nash chooses. but likely individuals working separately. | ||
| + | * SH: funding status? Amy runs out? Al runs out? at fiscal year | ||
| + | * AT: Al's current funding roles over, so no time limit on that work. Amy and team doesn' | ||
| + | |||