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

User Tools

Trace: • teleconsnotes20190102
private:teleconsnotes20180627

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
private:teleconsnotes20180627 [2018/06/27 14:49] – hananyprivate:teleconsnotes20180627 [2018/06/29 13:42] (current) – hanany
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Telecon Notes June 27, 2018  ====== ====== Telecon Notes June 27, 2018  ======
  
-Attendance: +Attendance: SH, Jamie, Jacques, Charles, Amy, Al
  
 Notes by:  Notes by: 
Line 12: Line 12:
   * Status of thermal model (Amy)   * Status of thermal model (Amy)
   * Decadal Panel Science, Projects, and complementarity papers (Shaul, Julian)   * Decadal Panel Science, Projects, and complementarity papers (Shaul, Julian)
 +
 +=== Notes ===
 +
 +__Signals and Noise Figure__ \\
 +  * Paradigm: keep figure simple such that it can relay zero order information to the broad astrophysics public
 +  * Add r=1e-4
 +  * Use just one synchrotron line; Charles will provide model parameters
 +  * Change vertical label to RMS polarization intensity
 +  * We are not adding CO Lines
 +
 +__Decadal Panel Papers__
 +  * Julian + SH report on plans to have near term science papers, and later project + complementarity paper.
 +
 +__Review of TeamX Slides__
 +  * Comments from Al, Bill, Jamie, SH listed below. 
 +  * Certain commonalities detected among all comments. SH collected commonalities. They are listed below, including some of Amy's responses. 
  
 === Compilation of Common Comments (including SH) === === Compilation of Common Comments (including SH) ===
    
   * Discussion of I+T   * Discussion of I+T
-  * Mention of second option for the detectors mu-MUX, KIDS - confusing, not useful; +    * __Amy's response__: No I+T during instrument session. No I+T person during mission session. Amy met with him/her after session, but was too late to change slides. Issue known, to be fixed next round. **Shaul will get Bill to describe I+T again.**  
 +  * Detectors and Focal Plane  
 +    * additional options (mu-MUX, KIDS) - confusing, not useful; SH: need to separate the message to the decadal "need to fund technologies", which will be included in the report, from the message to SOMA, which needs to be simple and clean. 
     * "Design Weakness: TES not operated in space", misleading     * "Design Weakness: TES not operated in space", misleading
-  * Cosmic ray mitigation - confusing, incomplete;  +    * Cosmic ray mitigation - confusing, incomplete; SH: slides do not capture the legwork we have done to address the issue. 
-  * Discussion of Cryocooler power (Kogut) and heritage (Shaul) (one mention of Sumitomo option: what is LB assuming? What did CORE assume?) +    * __Amy's response__: Day's first TeamX. Acknowledges that current set of slides need to be improved along the lines described above. 
-  * Super-expensive data logging computer ($12.5M) in CDS+  * Discussion of Cryocooler power (Kogut): Accounting of margin upon margin is silly and technically not feasible.  
 +    * __Amy's response__: Agree, but the experience at JPL is that this is what the cost estimators expect.  
 +    * __SH comment__: Agree that this is what was discussed at JPL, but I am not sure that the point was (at the time) that accounting this way violates physical principles.   
 +  * Discussion of cryocooler heritage (Shaul): (one mention of Sumitomo option: what is LB assuming? What did CORE assume?) 
 +    * __Amy's response__ :  
 +  * Super-expensive data collection and compressing computer ($12.5M) and motor controller in CDS: cost seems far too excessive 
 +    * __Amy's response__ : Will be costed on the instrument side and should come out cheaper. SH points out that we expect these costs to 'come out cheaper' by factors of >10, not ~2, 3.  
 + 
 +=== Discussion of Other Items === 
 +  * Jamie has reservations about the spinning platform. Response: All detector and cooler electronics are on the spinning part, not stationary. Amy acknowledges that this was not captured properly in the slides.  
 +  * There will be heat dissipation on the rotating part. Yes, radiators need to be added; already in the work package. 
 +  * Deployment of TM antenna removed. Gimbaled, permanently deployed antenna at center.  
 + 
 +---- 
 + 
 +__Shaul's Comments__ 
 + 
 +  * Replace all references from 'mirrors' (or most with 'telescope') to 'reflectors' 
 + 
 +  * Instrument Slides 
 +    * slide 7: total instrument mass is vastly overestimated. (see e-mails) 
 +    * slide 9: ADCS comment vague, not clear, open to interpretation of 'inconclusivity' 
 +    * slide 11: Decon should mimic Planck. I sent an e-mail to Jan Tauber 
 +    * slide 15: fix spin rate. Make comments regarding Planck only to the extent they support heritage; otherwise they imply conflicts. 
 +    * slide 16: replace with SH corrected figure 
 +    * slide 19: focal plane mass needs to be updated. UMN working on focal plane model;  
 +    * slide 19: correct 1K filter mass from 10 kg to 1 kg CBE.  
 +    * slide 19: correct 18K box, and v-groove mass 
 +    * slide 20: correct ADR power values 
 +    * slide 32: 70% cost is $80,874. Is this inconsistent with slide 31 $87,823? 
 +    * slide 33: given the importance of the cost of cooling we need to augment the words about the Sumitomo cooler with more evidence. Shaul will supply references, but someone may need to do some research on cost.  
 +    * slide 59: masses need to be revised 
 +    * slide 62: comments about cross-pol are about how to handle systematic effects in data analysis and calibration of the instrument. They are not part of the technical implementation of the focal plane.  
 +    * Slide 62: the comment about cosmic rays implies that pico won't work. We have done a lot of work to show that we have a good handle on this. This should show up better.  
 +    * slide 64: requirement is *not* 3xCBE. We are planning for 1.5xCBE 
 +    * slide 66: what table 8? where is table 8? 
 +    * slide 67: revise mass estimate. Quote data rates more accurately. We know them.  
 +    * slide 69, 71: too many options for focal plane. Confusing and not useful.  
 +    * slide 72: clean up the message and combine with comment on slide 62.  
 +    * slide 79: wrong on many levels.  
 +    * slide 80: sometime we call it MIRI, sometime NGAS. Call it the same name throughout.  
 +    * slide 82: why no reference to flown Sumitomo coolers? 
 +    * slide 83: what is POD?  
 + 
 + 
 +  * Mission Slides 
 +    * slide 12: what is the reference to "2020 PICO Instrument .." 
 +    * slide 56: isn't control supposed to be 1'? It say 0.01 deg = 0.6'. Change to 0.02?  
 +    * slide 56: no flight spares for flywheels. Is that commensurate with Class B?  
 +    * slide 80: first bullet 'Large telescope'. Why 'large'? It isn't large and the word large implies technical challenges.  
 +    * slide 81: second bullet implies additional cost that haven't yet been included.  
 +    * slide 83: not *large* telescope.  
 +    * slide 88: there is a comment on 'mass savings'. See my earlier comments. 
 +    * slide 88: comment on potential mass upper invites questions about cost estimate. 
 +    * slide 92: comment on mass savings that can reduce cost. See my earlier comments.  
 +    * slide 126: the costs quoted are absolutely ridiculous relative to the tasks needed to be carried out, both for the compression computer and for the spin motor control box. By the way, do we need a redundant box? I'd say 'yes'. Is that factored in?  
 +    * slide 127: all of SVIT slides are entirely opaque. 
 +    * slide 162: cost drivers: what is ATLO?  
 + 
 +----
  
  
Line 197: Line 274:
  
 Bill Bill
 +
 +----
 +
private/teleconsnotes20180627.1530128984.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/06/27 14:49 by hanany

Page Tools