==== Telecon Notes ====

March 13, 2008, 3pm EDT 

Present: Bock, Borrill, Hanany, Kogut, Meyer, Miller, Smith

== Selection of Mission Concept Studies ==

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'. 

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. 

The final report is due in April 2009. 

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. 

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. 

== Discussion of CMBPol Strategy: collection of points made by a number of people ==

Only a satellite can deliver definitive answer about the power spectrum as opposed to a statistical detection. 

A satellite will give cosmic variance limited measurement of the re-ionization bump. 

It was a strategic mistake to focus EPIC on the low \ell B-modes alone. The satellite needs to deliver other science as well. 

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. 

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.