Campuses:
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| systematicswg:telecons:2017-10-04:start [2017/10/04 11:00] – bcrill | systematicswg:telecons:2017-10-04:start [2017/10/04 12:15] (current) – bcrill | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | On the call: Eric, Brendan, | + | On the call: Eric, Brendan, Joy, Ranajoy, Maurizio, Jacques, Colin, |
| Agenda / Notes: | Agenda / Notes: | ||
| - | * Big Picture look at the systematics list | + | * Probe study purpose: inform NASA and 2020 Decadal Survey panel, show that excellent CMB science can be done for <=$1 Billion. |
| + | |||
| + | | ||
| * do we agree that the risk factor=5 items are really the riskiest effects? | * do we agree that the risk factor=5 items are really the riskiest effects? | ||
| - | * Items that got a 5 in SRF: | + | * Items that got a 5 in SRF: |
| * Sidelobes: | * Sidelobes: | ||
| * Sidelobes: Stray reflections | * Sidelobes: Stray reflections | ||
| Line 12: | Line 14: | ||
| * Scattering | * Scattering | ||
| * Sidelobes: diffraction | * Sidelobes: diffraction | ||
| - | * Polarization Angle calibration | + | * Polarization Angle calibration: maybe rated too high? we do have the workaround that sacrifices the cosmic bifringence. |
| - | * Gain stability | + | * Gain stability: for CORE, looked at how well calibration could be done on the dipole, but not propagated to science errors. |
| + | * Also note that beam mismatch leakage did not get a 5 but we must mention this for sure in the report, since it is a big issue that everyone thinks about, and perhaps other work can be cited to show that there are mitigations in analysis already available at the level we need. | ||
| + | * note that EVERY item on our list must be discussed, even just to argue that it's not a problem. | ||
| + | * will optical simulations be available for the baseline spacecraft/ | ||
| + | * action for Brendan to come up with simple model to cover most of the effects listed above. | ||
| + | * Maurizio would be happy to look into gain stability starting with the CORE setup, but he's busy with LSPE until December. | ||
| + | * As far as estimating spectra from simulated maps in order to evaluate errors. Polspice is a good choice, works well on large sky patches, corrects for E/B leakage due to masking (not perfectly optimal, but probably good enough). | ||
| + | * action for Ranajoy to use existing tools to start from a CMB map, and look at effects of misaligned pol angles. | ||
| + | * missing/ | ||