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

Notes by:

• Review of I+T Plan (Bill)
• TeamX Comments (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.

• 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:

Amy: 3. requirements should not be depend on the capability, a lot science can be written, define the required mission, then margin;

Shaul: take the current best estimate, simply degrade it; which is fine. The current best estimate assumes certain thermal model.

Amy: conservative but reasonable estimates.

Science people:

There is always risk. A lot of science depend on sensitivity. Less convincing if numbers drop too much. Resolution will not change. Probably ok. We could

High-l science, very robust, not gonna change

Nick: for extra-galactic, we have enough that can write text now,

proto-cluster, reionization balabala

Clusters: contamination Jim Barl; Alex can

10 days, reviewers

Jeff Booth, Amy’s boss. Suggested we should shrink time.

People recommend reviewers

Amy: all JPL people we will do this review. We are going to mimic decadal panel.

Shaul: We should have a substantial fraction outside our community.

TeamX slides did not reflect proper I&T, not I&T person,

The discussion last time, do we have proper I&T? because Bill had put together what he had.

Build our own slides to talk to JPL I&T person.

Bill:

I&T, haven’t changed a lot since months agog.

For the TeamX, Bill felt shocked. Cost for I&T should be very substantial based on Planck, but did not see from budget.

Amy: I&T, it happens at different levels. Final testing. Integrating and testing; there is a cost for , instrument I&T; would not

Bill: full focal plane testing , slide 2, there are not existent facility to test.

Shaul: think about SPT-3g, large focal plane.

Amy: maturity of the study, not that details.

Bill: photometry, full payload thermal back, functionality test, even that it’s very expensive.

Shaul: full payload?

Bill: check all thermal stages. Turn them on and make sure they work. At least, one time;

Shaul: agreed measuring noise is very important;

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.

Shaul: we should point similar past missions, like Planck, to point out how it should be done.

Wrap up TeamX comments

Shaul: Amy, what is the most effective way to go over these?

Amy: did read many comments. do it offline.

Bill: no more highlights, full payload testing, full focal plane, subK test