| Next revision | Previous revision |
| 20080403teleconnotes [2008/04/09 12:58] – created 128.101.214.113 | 20080403teleconnotes [2008/04/09 21:17] (current) – 71.195.59.133 |
|---|
| ==== Telecon Notes ==== | ==== Telecon Notes ==== |
| |
| March 13, 2008, 3pm EDT | April 3, 2008, 3pm EDT |
| |
| Present: Bock, Borrill, Hanany, Kogut, Meyer, Miller, Smith | Present: Borrill, Gunderson, Hanany, Kogut, Meyer, Miller |
| |
| == Selection of Mission Concept Studies == | == Update on Decadal Panel == |
| |
| Eric reports on the selection process of Mission Concept Studies. Some reviewers thought that the CMBPol proposal was exactly what the field needed, others balked at the un-usual proposal: 'it is not a mission concept study'. | Shaul reviews input from Chuck Bennet about process for selection of decadal panel. Eric reports that the authorization to the National Academy to start the process is still being considered by NASA officials. |
| |
| NASA made 19 selections. Funding for Many proposals was cut substantially. In many cases NASA removed the requirement for $200K costing that would go to JPL or Goddard. For CMBPol we had two such costing studies. Their removal brings the proposal budget from $1.6M to $1.2M. Applying a 50% cut gets the budget to the $600K awarded. | == Discussion about Future Possible Midex == |
| |
| The final report is due in April 2009. | Al points out that sometime in the future there may be a MIDEX opportunity. The discussions within the PPPDT about a future larger mission should not be perceived as limiting people from proposing for such an opportunity. |
| |
| The decadal review process has not yet started. NASA and NSF are negotiating with the National Academies who are administering the review. The panel will most likely be selected by the 'Space Studies Board' of the National Academies. | People comment that a midex can probably do some of the ultimate polarization science but not all. By covering only part of the pie it will reduce the likelihood of ever doing the full pie. Another point of view is that such a midex might involve only a slice of the CMB community not most of it, as represented by the PPPDT. |
| |
| There is likely to be a meeting between the Mission Concept PIs and the decadal panel after it starts its work but before the reports are due. | Shaul reports that according to Eric, there is no imminent midex mission on NASA's horizon. So the discussion is hypothetical for the next ~1,2 years (at least). It is hard to anticipate what will happen afterwards. |
| |
| == Discussion of CMBPol Strategy: collection of points made by a number of people == | The PPPDT's role is to unite the community toward a future satellite and to promote the project, but not necessarily to ensure that a future satellite will include the entire community. |
| |
| Only a satellite can deliver definitive answer about the power spectrum as opposed to a statistical detection. | There is consensus that the PPPDT should not be perceived as limiting the possibilities of members of the community, but also that there is nothing we should do about a midex option now. |
| |
| A satellite will give cosmic variance limited measurement of the re-ionization bump. | == Discussion of CMBPol Strategy == |
| |
| It was a strategic mistake to focus EPIC on the low \ell B-modes alone. The satellite needs to deliver other science as well. | A discussion of Jamie's formulation of the strategy where we propose the entire slew of science that can be done with CMBPol and let future developments adjust specific future designs. |
| |
| It is very easy to kill a mission. Therefore it is better to move ahead forcefully until there is good reason to not fund it. | The problem is that the cost of such a mission might be prohibitive, perhaps $2B. Only LISA's cost estimates are near that level and there is a broad perception that science return from LISA is on a class of its own. The key question then becomes whether a ~$1B satellite can be designed with a resolution of ~10' and is that resolution sufficient to give most of the small scale science. A related question is whether astrophysicists who are interested in galactic dust and magnetic fields would sign on to a mission with such a resolution. |
| | |
| Need to make a clearer case for a cosmic variance limited of the power spectrum of B. One argument is the discovery argument: unless you measure - you don't know what you will get. | |
| | |
| It was suggested to assemble all of the arguments in favor of a space mission in a review article, for example 'Annual Review' or article in 'Space Science Reviews'. JWST has review articles there. It is very effective with NASA folks. This should probably be the primary output of the theory workshop. | |
| | |
| We can strengthen the ancillary science for CMBPol by looking over the case that was made for Planck. We should mine that document. Perhaps Charles Lawrence should review this in a future telecon. | |
| |
| | How to proceed: Shaul will draft a statement in regard to a satellite strategy that will be debated by the PPPDT. The goal is to arrive at a consensus behind which we can unite large segments of the community. Shaul will circulate before the telecon next week. |
| |