This is an old revision of the document!
Telecon Notes Oct. 17, 2018
Attendance: Amy Trangsrud, Tim Pearson, Marcel Schmittfull, Charles L., Al K., Nick B., Jim, Dan Green
Notes by: Karl Young
Agenda
Notes
Including any S4 Forecasts? (default = no)
SH (via Charles): default no. would be nice for reviewers to see, but complexity of coordinating with S4 and maybe LiteBIRD is unlikely to happen in next 30 days.
AK: There is a section about complementary. SHould say something about how probe fits in.
NB: My understanding was there is discussion of S4, but this would be additional detailed quantitative forecasts.
AT: I understood that qualitative comparisons are in already, quantitative is what under discussion.
NB: S4 is currently redoing forecasts for 2020 decadal (won't converge in < 30 days), so there isn't any way to do a quantitative comparison
DG: agree, quantitative is very difficult. Could do a 'generic ground mission' at some noise level.
CL: Need at least some comparisons to justify a $1 billion mission. For example need to discuss r. BICEP/KECK limits at 0.06, S$ aiming at r = 10^-3, etc. orders of magnitude are sufficient. What do people think?
AK: yes, makes sense.
NB: works for r, yes.
AT: yes, there are a lot of science goals. maintain the emphasis on a broad science case.
MS: are there other examples that are also clear/simple? besides r. Is PICO much better on other science goals?
DG: order of magnitude is good for r.
Including figure showing comprehensiveness of science?
Update on status of report + action items
Reminder of Schedule: essentially final version to be distributed to ~15 external reviewers by Nov. 15.
subtopic: breadth is important for space missions. Are we missing any science deliverables (even if they are not in the STM)?