Differences

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

--- private:teleconsnotes20191127 [2019/11/27 13:09] – hanany
+++ private:teleconsnotes20191127 [2019/12/03 14:23] (current) – hanany
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
   * Recap on status
     * [[https://sites.google.com/umn.edu/picomission/home|PICO Report (website)]]; [[https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.10541|Report on astro-ph]]
-    * PCAT Report;
+    * {{:private:pcat_finalrpt-2019-nov8.pdf|Probes Cost Assessment Team (PCAT) Report}};
+      * Probes binned into 3 cateogries:'likely' (1); 'possible' (5); 'unlikely'(3);
+      * PICO is 'possible' (All PICO's cost assessments are within 10% of $1B).
     * Decadal project panel: EOS-II
+      * Kahn (Chair), Barsotti, Barto, Bay, Elvis, Hailey, Kouveliotou, **Lawrence**, **Moseley**, Mukherjee, **Page**, Stacey
     * RFI and TRACE
-  * Response to RFI
+    * Possible outcomes ({{:private:hertz_nasa_update_caa_nov_2019_v3a_onlydecadal_s.pdf|Hertz slides from CAA meeting yesterday}})
+  * Response to {{:private:rfi-ii_space.docx|RFI}} and {{:private:rfi-ii_space_sh_comments.docx|RFI with SH embedded comments}}
+    * What are the key challenges?
+    * What are the overarching message(s)?
+    * Response Format: response to questions, flowing report, combination? Heavy referencing of existing documents or rewrite material?
+    * Executive Summary - needs revision
+    * Science
+  * Conflict with B-mode workshop at Munich: who is attending? anyone else can give the talk?
+==== Notes ====
+  * Shaul reviews state of PICO since submission of report including PCAT report
+  * Discussion of RFI:
+    * Shaul thinks the single key perceived challenge for readiness could be foregrounds. Not clear what can be done about this more than is already presented in the report.
+    * Response format: respond to specific questions, not 'another narrative report'.
+    * Some discussion of response to specific RFI elements, only in Science

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools