private:teleconsnotes20190130 [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 January 30, 2019  ======

Attendance:  Shaul H., Charles L., Amy T., Colin H., Tim P., Nick B., Al K., Bill J., Alex V., Jacques D., Dan G.\\

Notes by:  Karl \\

=== Agenda ===
  * Schedules: 
    * NASA Submission: Monday, March 4
    * PCAT schedule: to be worked out
    * Decadal Panel white papers: March 11 (nominations: Feb. 5)
  * Posting on Astro-ph: 
    * pros: 
      * exposure
      * available reference 
    * cons: ? 
  * Report status {{:private:picoreport.pdf|latest version}}
    * outstanding item [mostly SH: implement comments from amy, Charles, small modification in Fnl, add sentences in ES for testing LCDM (+ blue sky?), finish ES sentences regarding 'why now']
  * Any comments on [[https://sites.google.com/umn.edu/picomission/home|PICO website]]
  * CMB-Bharat
    * Submitted to Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) call for proposals (no specific cost windows provided by ISRO). Led by Tarun Souradeep. 
    * Submitted CORE-like mission, with Large (~$1B) request
    * ISRO recognizes that the mission is beyond its capabilities to pursue alone
      * capabilities exist with launch, bus, telescope, but not with focal plane or cryogenics
    * Encouraged to proceed with development and search for partners

=== Notes ===
Schedules: 
  * NASA Submission: Monday, March 4  
    * SH: Still tentative, barring no additional shutdowns. 
    * AT: Some JPL probes are submitting early.  Anytime is fine now that NASA is open.
  * PCAT schedule: to be worked out (SH: This is the costing. Still being worked out.)
  * Decadal Panel white papers: March 11 (nominations: Feb. 5)
    * SH: Again I advocate we get engaged.  White papers and nominations. 
    * Some white paper suggestions have circulated on probe email lists.

Posting on Astro-ph:   SH: Post full report, exactly matching what is submitted to NASA. 
  * pros: 
    * exposure
    * available reference (for decadal white papers)
  * cons: ? 
  * AK: Pro. NB: no cons I see.  
  * AT: I agree good idea, but maybe wait until March 4th deadline so it isn't available to other probes.  So others can't read and modify their studies in response.  Not a big risk, but why not maintain privacy?
    * NB: But if a goal is to cite in science white papers then 4th is too late.
    * AT: Citations is more important than maintaining privacy.  The privacy risk is very small.
  * CL: As long submitted to NASA first it is good idea.
  * SH: Is to just find balance for when to post to arxiv.  Likely somewhat, but not far before March 4th.  We do want to provide a citation for white papers.


Report status {{:private:picoreport.pdf|latest version}}
  * outstanding item [mostly SH: implement comments from amy, Charles, small modification in Fnl, add sentences in ES for testing LCDM (+ blue sky?), finish ES sentences regarding 'why now']  **SH to do over next 7-10 days**

Any comments on [[https://sites.google.com/umn.edu/picomission/home|PICO website]]

CMB-Bharat  (Part of a month long school about cosmology work.  SH and JD attended the few day workshop)
  * SH: talked about PICO. Jacques talked about Core.  Francios about Planck.  
    * People were positive about PICO. Got good comments.  From Rashid S.: 'Very compelling mission' and endorsed the decision to concentrate on an imager instead of spectrometer.
    * One purpose of this day was to involve the Indian space agency in a future CMB mission.
  * CMB-Bharat was submitted to Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) call for proposals (no specific cost windows provided by ISRO). Led by Tarun Souradeep. 
    * Submitted CORE-like mission, with Large (~$1B) request SH: believe this is the largest request to ISRO.
    * ISRO recognizes that the mission is beyond its capabilities to pursue alone.  SH: not so much in terms of cost, but in terms of expertise.  My impression was money is not an issue, but they don't have experience with cyrogenics, focal planes, etc. 
    * capabilities exist with launch, bus, telescope, but not with focal plane or cryogenics.
    * They were encouraged to search for partners and continue development
    * JD: This all began with Core and a search for international partners. Worked a lot with Tarun. My impression was they are interested, but concerned the full mission is beyond ISRO capabilities.  They are in midst of determining if there is a path with significant ISRO participation.
    * SH: Next steps are really in India now.  The Europe (CORE) and US (PICO) processes are ongoing and separate. The India side is having discussions.  They need to build of a map of what the collaboration could look like to push this forward.
    * JD: This is an opportunity for adding a partner on a CORE/PICO like mission.  They main ideas and goals are similar. May need to add tweaks depending on what institutions are responsible for what aspects of a mission.
      * JD: We'll have an opportunity to offer ISRO to ESA as a partner at the next M-class call. Could coordinate this with India-US-Europe
  * SH: LiteBIRD was also invited, but there was some schedule conflict and no LiteBIRD members could attend.
  * SH: also a small spectrometer was suggested.
    * JD: This was suggested in proposal.  Another suggestion was to extend mission (by 2 years) with capability to concentrate on deep patches after the main survey (4 yrs) is completed.  Could add depth on some small CMB region or any target of opportunity. The high cost made Tarun back off these add-ons for the moment.  Could be added when/if there are clear collaborations with international partners.
    * JD: I find this appealing, but have to avoid making the mission so complicated it isn't selected.
      * SH: Agree that avoiding complexity is valuable.  JD: but many missions have multiple instruments, so don't limit ourselves prematurely.  SH/JD: The extra science and extra complications would need to be carefully balanced.  This discussion can continue later in other forum.
  * JD: From Europe perspective.  Our proposal was rejected because we lacked a major international partner (contrib. 1/3 cost). NASA could be this partner, but path is unclear.  ESA wants commitment before selection, NASA wants opposite.  PICO might push NASA forward, but NASA could also do that alone.  India provides a possible path for Europe+India
    * CL: Jacques summed it up. Also PICO is dependent on decadal recommendations.  In few years if PICO is competing on a probe line this international discussion will come up again.
    * JD: We can push these ideas of collaboration to our agencies.  And show interest around the world. Maybe some pressure will improve the ability to build up these collaborations.
      * CL: there is no stable path to collaborations currently.  It seems to always be a case by case basis.  The only official path is through bi-annual MOs, $70M.
      * JD: Even an MO (could even propose 2, imager+spectrometer) from NASA may be enough to push the ESA case forward.
      * SH: For NASA to support we really need CMB to be a 2020 decadal priority.  This is the case for other ESA-NASA satellite collabs.
      * CL: We've covered most of the options.  The landscape could change significantly with 2020 recommendations, possible probe lines, LiteBIRD decisions, etc.
        * JD: LB decision is expected in March.


** We'll continue with EC telecons to touch base through report submission **

** Next telecon in 1 week.**
User Tools

Page Tools
