Differences

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

--- private:teleconsnotes20180711 [2018/07/11 13:49] – hanany
+++ private:teleconsnotes20180711 [2018/07/17 14:49] (current) – hanany
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Telecon Notes July 11, 2018  ======
-Attendance:
+Attendance: Amy, Dave, Nick, Dan,  Bill, Hannes
 Notes by:
@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 === Agenda ===
   * {{:private:pico_i_t_jones_20180228.pdf|Review of I+T Plan}} (Bill)
-  * {{:private:i_t_v3b.pptx|Plan for TeamX?}} (Amy, SH)
+  * TeamX Comments ([[https://zzz.physics.umn.edu/ipsig/private/teleconsnotes20180627|see last telecon notes]])
-  * TeamX Comments (see last telecon notes)
+  * Report Status, Schedule + External Advisory Board
-  * Schedule + External Advisory Board
      * Sept. 1 First draft (first round of text + key figures)
      * October 1: 2nd draft
@@ Line 20: / Line 19: @@
 === Notes ===
+  * Review of Report Schedule as listed above
+  * Shaul: there is an issue with absence of thermal model. We don't know the heat loads on various elements, we don't know the temperatures. Dilemma - what to do with noise predictions. There are two paths: 1. Thermal model is finalized very soon; 2. use what we have now, generate best case estimate we have, key figures of merit, and revise after another round after thermal model.
+  * Amy: suggest to use newer more conservative temperatures, set requirements. Final numbers are not likely to change very much.
+  * Dan: r depends on detailed noise calculations, but high-l science not so much
+  * Dave: much of Galactic science depends on resolution, not detailed noise. So not such a big issue
+  * Nick: Doesn't think there would be significant impact on extra-galactic. "We have enough that can write text now". Nick and Marcelo would write reionization. Gianfranco = sources. Colin and Jim Clusters. Alex = lensing.
+  * Shaul discusses outside reviewers. Amy says that JPL will enlist reviewers. Shaul: we should make sure we have reviewers from outside our community. Requests suggestions for outside reviewers.
+  * Discussion of I+T. TeamX did not reflect our I&T properly. Reasons have been discussed before. The goal is to review and check whether we are satisfied with our current plan. Amy will need to work with I&T person to insert the proper information. Amy explains that I&T doesn't appear in one place. It is distributed in a number of places.
+  * Bill reviews his previous I&T slides. Same slides as of several months ago.
+  * Need to build a facility to test full focal plane. Shaul comments that this is not unusual. Think SPT-3G.
+  * Another new element: "full payload testing". Was expensive for Planck. Shaul asks what do we want to measure and whether there is a simple way to do this, for example without cooling primary to its final temperature. Answer: noise. Suggestion: cap the stop with an appropriate load?
+  * Bill: Planck detectors were forgiving. Shaul: safety factor plays that role.
+  * Bill: we still need a chamber. The cost of load to do similar tests for Planck was very high.
+  * Amy: we should include these slides from Bill into TeamX. We want Bill on the phone with the TeamX person. We need to get that person on the phone.
+  * Shaul: TeamX cost background: they don’t know how to do unique things, if unique, they don’t know what to do. Even if it’s cheaper.
+  * Amy: they are conservative, they want to be consistent from study to study.
+  * Other TeamX Wrap-up items. Amy: did read many comments. Better discuss them offline.

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools