Differences

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

--- private:teleconsnotes20181128 [2018/11/28 14:10] – created hanany
+++ private:teleconsnotes20181128 [2018/11/28 16:03] (current) – kyoung
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Telecon Notes Nov. 28, 2018  ======
-Attendance:  \\
+Attendance:  Shaul H., Nick B., Charles L., Tim P., Jamie B., Raphael F., Jacques D., Alex vE., Amy T., Jim B.\\
 Notes by:  Karl \\
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
     * Dec. 20 deadline for input of new material
   * {{:private:keyesmessages.pdf|What messages should the Executive Summary include}}
+=== Notes ===
+Schedule + Repo
+  * Submission deadline moved to January 14 (+ 2 weeks)
+  * Repo inactive starting tomorrow am; send revisions by e-mail
+    * Only Tim, Shaul, Amy will maintain access. (or others with JPL clearance)
+    * This keeps the entire report contiguous.  Other contributors have to send fixes via email/phone.
+      * RF: is there another version control we can use for the science? Email is inefficient.  Maybe a 2nd git?  Shaul would still need to be in charge of updating public files into the JPL repo.
+      * SH: Seems possible.  Tim? TP: I like it. We should do this or similar.  Alex: Github can automate (forks). SH: not sure how to do this, but we can learn.
+      * TP: We will need an editing cut off sometime.  How much editing is left?
+      * SH: Moved input deadline to Dec. 20th, but still few weeks.
+      * AT: 2 issues. logistical and editorial.  Parallel work is faster, but voice is less uniform. Needs work at the end to make more uniform.
+        * SH: I agree.  Think the parallel is still useful at this point. (week or two).
+    * AT/TP: Can just leave repo open for another week. Tim/Shaul edit engineering offline through email or similar.
+      * RF: inversion of other method.  Shaul/Amy/Tim share the engineering section.
+    * SH: Ok. Makes sense.  ** Repo remains open, engineering section shared secretly**
+Various comments now on main wiki page.  How to organize response?
+  * RF: each person addresses comments for their section.  then they mark those as complete on the wiki.
+    * Alex: works for me.
+    * SH: this requires everyone to read all comments.
+    * NB: I would appreciate a summary of comments for my section, but this is harder.  SH: Yes.  I was hoping to do this, but have not had time.
+  * SH: **Plan is that each person checks all comments, addresses those for their section, marks as complete on wiki page.**
+  * SH: Please address all substantive comments, can ignore grammar/punctuation comments.  We will address those.
+{{:private:keyesmessages.pdf|What messages should the Executive Summary include}}
+  * Significant comments on this needing improvement.  Rewriting now.
+  * SH: do we need other items beyond this list? Things here that aren't important?
+    * AT: Would like mission parameters in exec summ.  Not just pointing to table.
+      * SH: Parameters are in the exec summ text (i.e. 21-800 GHz). Table is additional complete listing of bands, mission parameters, noise.
+    * CL: Under 'why space'.  Points there are true.  But there's an aspect of 'impossible to do better than space' that doesn't come across.  It is easy to sound dogmatic rather than evidence based, but think r 10^-4 is only possible from space.
+    * CL: quibble, 'Parallels to Planck' not just HFI. Full Planck is right comparison.
+      * SH: is $1B right for Planck?  CL: I usually quote $750M.  ESA contracts for spacecraft was ~$200M range. Then HFI/LFI were separate.
+        * AT: had 700M euros from some source.  Convert to 2017 $ get $990B.
+      * AT: physical mirror is 30% larger, even if effective aperture similar.  Missions do look a lot alike and there is a lot of heritage.  Experience in people analysis and hardware.
+    * CL: Heritage, maturity, path forward, and clear recommendations are all key to have. and are on that this.
+  * SH: Question of 'Why space, why now?'  In 2010 there was talk of an r detection being a prerequisite for the mission.  That is not the case now.  Need to address this?
+    * CL: This should be addressed. in 2010 it wasn't just a trigger on r.  It was also further analysis from Planck and ground.  That has happened. Now we know what levels of noise are needed and we can make scientific arguments for 10^-4 level.
+      * JD: Agree.  AT: so last decade has proved this is hard? and we need space.  What's the argument?  What have we learned?
+        * CL: 1st is 2010 argument was to pause and collect data.  Have learned about large r values and ruled out many models of inflation. Can make better statements about what is learned from detection or non-detection.  The understanding of inflation as an idea is much stronger (theory and data) than in 2010.  And we have made the measurements that were stated as requirements in 2010.
+      * JD: Also learned a lot on foregrounds (data and processing methods).  Also any further ground data won't make any significant changes to PICO design.
+      * RF: People can still say 'wait for SO'. Right? This is similar noise on a small patch.  Still are foregrounds questions like decorrelation.
+        * JD: But could any of that drive a redesign of PICO?
+        * RF: Maybe? Could do fewer bands. Might need more bands?  Can we (have we) demonstrate separation even in worst decorrelation case?
+      * JB: We need to address this because S4 will be in the 2020 panel as well. So people will be making comparisons. Also what if someone gets r = 0.01?  Then do we build a different PICO?
+    * AT: Note that we're talking about missions with Phase A in 2023. So context will change somewhat by then.
+      * CL: good point. This is really a demo of what is doable for $1B.  Not a full mission proposal.

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools