Differences

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

--- private:teleconsnotes20181121 [2018/11/21 14:51] – hanany
+++ private:teleconsnotes20181121 [2018/11/21 16:03] (current) – kyoung
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Telecon Notes Nov. 21, 2018  ======
-Attendance: \\
+Attendance: Shaul, Jim B., Alex V.E., Nick B., Tim P., Amy T., Colin H., Jacques, Raphael \\
-Notes by:  \\
+Notes by:  Karl \\
 === Agenda ===
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
   * Frontiers in Science Article
   * [[https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/landscape2019/|USRA Conference]]
+=== Notes ===
+JB: Suggested table of mission parameters at beginning of PICO report.  SH: agree, **plan to add table.**
+Reviews, Comments, Editing of Latex in the repo, deadlines
+  * SH's summary of comments:
+    * Majority of comments are along the lines of: "It is a very impressive concept. I'm not sure there will be any astronomy left to do afterwards!" (Cathy Romer)
+    * But also "too overwhelming" "Executive Summary needs more focus" "punch lines of why PICO, why now, and remaining challenges need to be clarified".  A clear message needs to exist and should be captured by the exec summary.  Exec summary also should expand to include more information about mission, challenges, what needs to be done, and science punchlines.
+    * There are many comments at varying levels of generality.  SH will focus on broad structure issues such as exec summary and decadal ask.  Any volunteers to review/implement comments?
+    * AT: I have been looking at and responding to sections 3-6.
+    * SH: Good and appreciated.  Need help on sections 1-2 as well.
+    * TP: Can work on minor comments, typos, grammar, and similar.  But not large concept comments.
+      * SH: That is helpful.  **TP will make such corrections**
+    * SH: Have farmed out comments and will continue to do so.  **Please address as quickly as possible** so we don't need text changes at the last minutes.  Most comments are small tweaks and should be quick.
+  * AT: What about trimming to 50 pages? Who leads this?
+    * SH: Shaul leading is the plan.
+    * TP: Some minor help can be done in formatting.  Also **need to be cautious of shrinking figures too small.**
+      * SH: Should optimize figures a little. Font size, efficient use of space, etc.
+        * AT: NASA guidelines say figure text at least 8 pt.
+      * TP: This should be a high priority.  SH: agreed.  **Will ensure figures are checked**
+    * TP: Original recommendation was 20-40 pages, 50 as limit. SH: most will be 50 pg.
+    * SH: Was suggestion to write a ~ 5 page exec summary that looks like a project paper. But looked back at past CMB project paper (2010) and these were 20 pages.  Shrinking to 20 pages would be difficult.
+    * TP: Seems like this paper is trying to do 2 things.  Report on the PICO study and energize and sell future CMB science to the 2020 decadal.  Feels like the report is trying to be 2 papers.
+    * SH: True, but that's the rules that were set up. and it should work out.
+    * AT: of the probe studies I know about most are ~ 50 pages.
+    * SH: meeting the goal of selling CMB science will be an important goal for the final exec summary.
+  * SH: Some comments where 'STM text is too small'. TP/AT: should be okay when 11x17''.  **SH/AT/TP will follow up on this.**
+**Schedule**
+  * Will restrict access to public github very soon.  So need changes by science team quickly.  Github will be restricted because of the JPL release process.
+  * This change will happen by beginning of next week.
+  * Further text edits will have to go through Shaul via email.
+  * JB: Who has access behind the firewall?  AT: JPL people generally, affiliates, and US citizens/greencard holders.
+    * JB: I will have access thru JPL and will help after the shift behind the firewall.
+  * Final submission may move (back) by 2 weeks.  Still maintain same internal deadlines to meet JPL release process.
+  * Final input to science section done by Dec. 10.
+What is the ask? based on last week: start of mission next decade + additional prep work (foregrounds, systematics, technology)
+  * Question above came from JPL review.  What do we want from the decadal panel.
+  * SH: last week discussion: tentative bottom line was we recommend another CMB space mission in 2020s for polarization. We'd ask for funding for studies (systematics, foregrounds) and tech development which are beyond the scope of a standard Phase A.
+    * JB: more specific?  SH: Exec summary would have lines with 'We recommend a CMB space mission in 2020s to acheive goals . . . .'  This was not said explicitly to 2010 panel.
+    * NB: What are some cons to this? Pros are obvious.
+      * SH: 1) if asking for additional study work then why are you ready to fly a mission in 2020s?  You haven't completed the study, so you don't actually know you'll be ready in 2020s. 2) could be tension with other concepts such as LiteBIRD or CMB-S4. How does this recommendation connect/conflict with LB or S4.
+      * NB: Is this a CMB wide statement?  SH: No, just a PICO wide statement. We decided early on that we speak only for PICO, not the whole CMB community.
+      * NB: Can we coordinate with S4 such that there isn't conflict? SH: Can they make a statement that doesn't impact us?  NB: is there a way to coordinate such that all benefits?
+        * SH: I have reached out to some of the J's. Hasn't been large enthusiasm for coordination.
+      * AT: We certainly don't want to disparage other efforts (LB, S4) and those have other funding sources.  This is the PICO report so not recommending a mission would seam odd.  Only reason to not recommend a mission is if there were major technology, simulation, analysis roadblocks.  Through the study we think a mission is feasible in 2020s so recommending it makes sense.
+      * NB: is there any additional complementary with the ground that could be folded into this statement? SH: Sure. That could be done.
+Cover Art (images above)
+  * 2 cover pages.  One will be art, one will be authors/endorsers.
+  * Images shown are concept.  Will be beautified by JPL designers.
+    * AT: Final version will certainly have 'PICO' name.  Don't know what additional names or logos.
+    * TP: Risk of Planck picture may sound like you're repeating Planck.
+    * TP: Is there a plan to redraw WMAP base image if used?  Reusing WMAP or Planck image feels like we're repeating the past.  Redrawing a similar image might be valuable.
+      * SH: The reuse isn't concerning to me.  The important message here is the breadth of knowledge rather than a new universe.
+    * SH: Is WMAP vertical odd?  RF: No, not really.
+    * RF: is there a way to emphasize polarization, lensing, other targets of PICO.
+    * Jacques: Agree that a new image rather than a repeat of WMAP/Planck is valuable. Then it doesn't look like the same old thing.
+    * AT: Need to start graphics folks next Monday, to allow time for iterations.
+    * Alex: Like the concentric sphere version of lookback time, rather than the conical one.
+    * AT: remember we'd like to reach a larger audience. beyond the CMB community.
+    * Jacques: Some large scale structure visible would be good. Talks a bit more to astrophysics.
+    * SH: I like the presentation with multiple science comments spread across the universe history.  Highlighting the breadth of science is good. The WMAP image isn't important for this.
+    * TP: Also like the information on the image.  Maybe we reverse the image direction. Look from earth out, angle opens towards the past.
+    * Alex: email around a concentric circle image with us at the center. Shows things going backward in time.
+      * TP: I like this baseline. Replace center with galaxy to emphasize galactic science.
+      * Alex: some large scale structure and filaments near center would also be good.
+      * **This with labels as in report is baseline. SH will send image and suggestions to AT**
+    * AT/Jacques: If the broad science doesn't end up in image need that message in exec summary.  Need to be seen as more than just an r mission.
+Special issue forthcoming in Frontiers in Science regarding CMB.  SH was approached and asked if PICO wants to publish something.  SH currently doesn't have bandwidth to pursue.  Is this interesting?
+Is USRA conference in Baltimore in March.  They want a 20 min PICO talk.  SH committed that 1 person would go and give talk.  If anyone plans/wants to attend maybe they can give talk.  Or SH can.  **Contact SH with interest.**

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools