Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
| private:teleconsnotes20190529 [2019/05/29 15:03] – kyoung | private:teleconsnotes20190529 [2019/05/29 15:51] (current) – kyoung | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Telecon Notes May. 29, 2019 ====== | ====== Telecon Notes May. 29, 2019 ====== | ||
| - | Attendance: | + | Attendance: |
| Notes by: Karl \\ | Notes by: Karl \\ | ||
| Line 30: | Line 31: | ||
| === Notes === | === Notes === | ||
| (in progress) | (in progress) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Goal of day is to discuss/ | ||
| + | |||
| Evolution since we submitted the [[https:// | Evolution since we submitted the [[https:// | ||
| - | * PCAT + ICE | + | * PCAT + ICE |
| + | * SH/AT in meeting at Goddard recently. Heard from observers that PICO presentation went well. JPL/Goddard ICE have looked at our costs again. | ||
| + | * AT: had some courtesy conversations with ICE. making sure their models have right information. final versions will be due in ~ 1 week. sounds like costs are slightly above Team X, but nothing extreme. | ||
| + | * SH: Under impression we had some chance for back/forth with ICE. Does Amy's connection count for that? Or can we respond? | ||
| + | * AT: They' | ||
| + | * SH: Sounds like you don't need any input from science side? AT: correct. these ICE models are more general. based primarily on mass. So important to get masses labeled under the correct heading (i.e. spacecraft, instrument, etc). Amy has been taking care of this. | ||
| + | * AT: also ICE is running 2 (maybe 3) cost models. | ||
| * Combined Probe publications | * Combined Probe publications | ||
| + | * SH: initiative to publish all probe reports as papers. The reports would be pruned down, then submitted. | ||
| * Other updates from others? | * Other updates from others? | ||
| + | * JB: Is there a plan for Probe white paper? pushing Probe' | ||
| + | * SH: Yes. Martin Elvis is planning that. Haven' | ||
| + | * SH: In past was discussion about pushing Decadal what to recommend. Probe line or specific mission or limited set of science wedges. | ||
| + | * JB: talked to Paul Hertz. He doesn' | ||
| + | * SH: also under the impression that Paul wants a flagship mission. Doesn' | ||
| + | * JB: PH also said writing so many proposals is a large burden on the community. | ||
| + | * CL: Last mid-ex mission proposals were 14. So number is already limited. This is because JPL or Goddard have to lead big missions. | ||
| + | * CL: My opinion, once every 10 year review is too infrequent and too high-level to choose the best mission. Prefer wide open selection. | ||
| * LiteBIRD | * LiteBIRD | ||
| + | * JAXA has chosen LiteBIRD, but funding depends on Japanese government (and international collaborations). nominal launch is 2027-28. | ||
| + | * CL: currently only funding for LiteBIRD detectors is by Berkeley, funding for MO. Lots of MOs expected. Including JPL add to SPICA. | ||
| + | * JD: Similar in CNES. Plan is for large CNES contribution to LiteBIRD but also involved in SPICA. Same issue that CNES has money for 1. ESA doesn' | ||
| + | * CL: Complicated issue. and not resolved by Decadal review time. Spica timeline for ESA decisions is ~ 2yrs. JD: yes, roughly that for ESA M5 decision. | ||
| + | * AT: US contributions for LiteBIRD/ | ||
| + | * CL: Would say LiteBIRD is a spoiler for the decadal review. Any conclusion including LiteBIRD seems to be mainly a recommendation to delay. | ||
| + | |||
| Material to be included in the decadal white paper. | Material to be included in the decadal white paper. | ||
| - | * {{: | + | * {{: |
| + | * SH: Baseline would be cut 50 page report to 10 pages. But we're hearing some new things . . . (such as connection to LiteBIRD) | ||
| + | * JB: Important to have how the various CMB instruments fit together. Doesn' | ||
| * Key Science Goals and Objectives 4-5 pgs | * Key Science Goals and Objectives 4-5 pgs | ||
| - | * Do we want to include any updates/ | + | * Do we want to include any updates/ |
| + | * CL: Cautious of making too big a deal of this. Specific value isn't key for understanding the universe. History of H0 is big discrepancies and small errors. Don't need to emphasize this. Let Reiss emphasize it. | ||
| + | * | ||
| * Technical Overview 3 pgs | * Technical Overview 3 pgs | ||
| * Any updates/ | * Any updates/ | ||
| * Technology Drivers 1 pg | * Technology Drivers 1 pg | ||
| * Organization, | * Organization, | ||
| + | * SH: Currently PICO has no formal partnerships. Is in somewhat of an odd status. | ||
| + | * JD: There is always the possibility of adding through a ESA proposal. MO = 50 million euros. Or an M-class call with PICO contribution. | ||
| + | * JD: Also a longterm, 2050, plan currently being made by ESA. CMB folks in Europe will be submitting papers to this plan. ESA will select 3 science cases later this year, but 3 missions launched 2035-2050. | ||
| + | * SH: So no formal steps will be finalized by white paper deadline. | ||
| + | * JD: Very difficult to make progress before July 10. Been advocating CMB space missions for past years, support for PICO and CMB-Bharat. Those proposals still being reviewed. | ||
| + | * AK: Suggest finessing this by putting this under cost. We showed this is doable for $1 billion and any non-US $$ can only help. The decadal is probably only looking for broad feasibility. Showing capable partners can help spread cost and make this even more possible. | ||
| + | * JD: Do they look at science vs cost? SH: Yes. | ||
| * Schedule | * Schedule | ||
| * Cost | * Cost | ||
| * Any updates/ | * Any updates/ | ||
| + | |||
| Distribution of tasks and deadlines. | Distribution of tasks and deadlines. | ||
| + | * SH: will be away for 2 weeks. | ||
| + | * SH: Amy what can you do for the tech sections? | ||
| + | * AT: need a separate email/phone conversation to nail down tasks. | ||
| + | * SH: Will be a few telecons between June 14th and July 10th. will need some input from EC folks then. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||