Differences

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

--- techmaturation [2018/10/18 11:41] – robrient
+++ techmaturation [2018/10/18 11:55] (current) – robrient
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Technology Maturation Section of the PICO report.
-I have been tasked to draft the technology maturation section of the PICO report.  This outlines how we will have all new technologies at TRL5 by 2023.  Since this may impact NASA funding decision's you should have incentive review this and offer feedback.  We stress that many of the decisions made here were to retire as much risk as possible, so the design does not use "cutting edge" technologies, but rather uses established hardware.  The design is basically finalized for the report at this point, so we can't really change that at this point, but are rather interested in knowing how to get to TRL5.  There is a subsection that includes "enhancing technologies" that are more speculative.  Also note that this really can't exceed 5 pages.
+I have been tasked to draft the technology maturation section of the PICO report, a NASA probe study for a CMB polarimetry satellite that Shaul has been leading. I'm interested in feedback on what we have from people in the community outside the team at JPL.  Since this may impact NASA funding decisions, you should all have incentive review this and offer feedback.
-Jonas Zmuidzinas and Peg Frerking (from JPL) will review this section and offer comments as well for an internal review.  This needs to be finalized over the next week, so if you have opinions, please provide them sooner rather than later.
-For obscure reasons related to export compliance, I cannot email this draft to you.  Rather, I posted it to the UMN wiki for Pico, at the bottom of the this page:  https://zzz.physics.umn.edu/ipsig/techmaturation
+This section outlines how we will have all novel technologies at TRL5 by 2023.  We stress that many of the decisions made here were to retire as much risk as possible, so the design does not use “cutting edge” technologies, but rather uses established hardware. The design is basically finalized for the report at this point, so we can't really change that at this point, but are instead interested in knowing how to get to TRL5.  There is a subsection that includes “enhancing technologies” that are more speculative and that may of you may be working on now.  Also note that this really can't exceed 4 pages since the entire report is limited to 50, and this is but one small part.
-{{::tech_maturation_section.pdf|PICO's Technology Maturation Section}}
+Jonas Zmuidzinas and Peg Frerking (from JPL) will review this section and offer comments as well for an internal review. This needs to be finalized over the next week, so if you have opinions, please provide them sooner rather than later.
+For obscure (nonsensical?) reasons related to export compliance, I cannot email this draft to you. Rather, I posted it to the UMN wiki for Pico, at the bottom of this page: https://zzz.physics.umn.edu/ipsig/techmaturation
 Please ask Shaul for access if you do not already have it.
-Best,
+{{::tech_maturation_section.pdf|PICO's Technology Maturation Section}}
+Thanks in advance,
 Roger

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools