private:teleconsnotes20180711 [Probe Mission Study Wiki]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== Telecon Notes July 11, 2018  ======

Attendance: Amy, Dave, Nick, Dan,  Bill, Hannes

Notes by: 

=== Agenda ===
  * {{:private:pico_i_t_jones_20180228.pdf|Review of I+T Plan}} (Bill)
  * TeamX Comments ([[https://zzz.physics.umn.edu/ipsig/private/teleconsnotes20180627|see last telecon notes]])
  * Report Status, Schedule + External Advisory Board
     * Sept. 1 First draft (first round of text + key figures) 
     * October 1: 2nd draft 
     * October 30: 3rd draft; semi-final 
     * Nov. 1: submit to external review 
     * Nov. 10: receive external review comments 
     * Nov. 10 - Nov 30: implement external review changes 
     * Dec. 1-15: final review 
     * Dec. 31, 2018 - Submit.

=== 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

Page Tools
