Differences

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

--- private:teleconsnotes20180516 [2018/05/16 12:53] – created hanany
+++ private:teleconsnotes20180516 [2018/05/16 15:26] (current) – kyoung
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Telecon Notes May 16, 2018  ======
-Attendance:
+Attendance: Shaul, Hannes, Amy, Al,
-Notes by:
+Notes by: Karl
 === Agenda ===
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
   * TeamX slides (Amy)
   * {{::sensitivity_vs_frequency_20180516.pdf|Noise/Bands Figure}}
-  * Noise Requirements vs Best Case Estimate (BCE)
+  * Noise Requirements vs Current Best Estimate (CBE)
-    * Proposal: Req = BCE*rt(2)/0.9, independent of frequency
+    * Proposal: Req = CBE*rt(2)/0.9, independent of frequency
-    * rt(2) because "Planck achieved noise within ~20% of BCE" (to be checked)
+    * rt(2) because "Planck achieved noise within ~20% of CBE" (to be checked)
     * 0.9 because the cost models assume 90% yield
     * first factor is applied on individual detectors, second factor on the array.
+=== Notes ===
+AAS2019 (Shaul)
+  * End of May is special session request deadline. No current Probe special session planned for 2019.
+  * SH: contacted Asantha Cooray and Jason Glenn suggesting a group special session.  These 3 are most related probes.  Would give 1/2 hour to discuss each project.  Timely since right after reports finished.
+    * HH: yes. Good idea.  Gets outcome of probe studies out broadly.
+    * AT: surprising if NASA doesn't do this for all Probes, but this can be replaced if NASA makes full probe session.
+      * SH: separate sessions give more time per study. That would better.
+      * AT: Agree, just expect NASA to set one up. But if multiple sessions already set then NASA maybe doesn't bother.
+    * SH: Will proceed with this 3 group session plan.  Plan of 3 thirty minute talks.  30 min per probe. groups can subdivide.  2 weeks to submit this.  Iterating with Asantha and Jason.
+TeamX slides (Amy)
+  * No specific hang-ups. Feelers out to export office on process.
+  * Process will probably be weeks to release.
+  * SH: I can flag a subset that is most important to release.
+    * AT: ok. that would shorten time to release.
+{{::sensitivity_vs_frequency_20180516.pdf|Noise/Bands Figure}}
+  * Working to make a visual we have needed.  Noise level vs frequency and signal levels.  Trying to make something that makes sense.
+  * This made by Josquin.
+  * left vertical axis is noise levels. right vertical axis is signals (CMB, dust, synchrotron)
+  * AK: Not a fan of uK_CMB above ~300 GHz. The upper range makes synchtron, dust, etc look odd.
+    * AK: Like everything in Janskies or W/m^s/sr/Hz. Something more widely used in astronomy.
+  * SH: Understood. This figure works for CMB community, but maybe a second product to use in a more general context.
+  * HH: Al's point is good.  Reach broader groups.  This plot says 'PICO is a CMB mission' contrary to the workshop message of PICO as a mm/sub-mm instrument.
+  * AT: Yes, more general units good.
+  * SH: Al can send unit suggestion to Josquin.  AK: Yes, will do.
+  * SH: Also planning to color code bands by pixel type.
+  * AT: Error in band location? SH: yes, iterating with Josquin.
+Noise Requirements vs <del>Best Case Estimate (BCE)</del> Current Best Estimate (CBE)
+  * AT: standard NASA term is current best estimate (CBE)
+  * starting from r is awkward as foreground limits aren't well understood. so r values don't set a noise requirement.
+  * we'll adopt this empirical noise requirement and iterate that with science case.  Then we see if this pushes us off any cliffs in terms of achievable science.

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools