private:teleconsnotes20191127 [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 Nov. 27, 2019  ======

Attendance:  


Notes by:  \\

Agenda: 
  * Recap on status
    * [[https://sites.google.com/umn.edu/picomission/home|PICO Report (website)]]; [[https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.10541|Report on astro-ph]] 
    * {{: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
    * 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

Page Tools
