Differences

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

--- meetingsandtelecons:april03.08 [2008/04/03 09:17] – created 128.101.214.243
+++ meetingsandtelecons:april03.08 [2008/04/03 09:44] (current) – 128.101.214.243
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==== Discussion Topics for Telecon of March 13, 2008 ====
-=== Strategy for Decadal Panel ===
+==== Discussion Topics for Telecon of April 3, 2008 ====
+  * Update on decadal panel
+  * Preparations for a future possible midex (Al Kogut)
+  * Strategy for Decadal Panel
+=== Update on Decadal Panel ===
+Chuck Bennet explains the steps leading to the decadal panel:
+  * The Space Studies Board (SSB) and the Board on Physics and Astronomy (BPA) guided the process that produced the internal proposal to initiate a decadal  survey.   (I was involved with this.)  This effort  included recommending the timing, size and scope of the survey.
+  * The end result was the NRC proposal to NSF, NASA, and DOE.
+  * The agencies then weigh in on whether the scope and broad outlines of the Decadal Survey is acceptable to them.  There is a lot of back and forth at this stage.  Questions and answers, proposed modifications, etc.  In the end, everyone (NASA, NSF, DOE, and the NRC) needs to agree on the broad outline, scope, and process before any funds flow.  That has not happened yet.
+  * The National Research Council (NRC) will internally nominate people to serve on the Decadal Panel.  The nominations need to be approved internally at the highest levels of the National Academy. (The decadal panel is not selected by any of its boards) There are strict requirements on a number of balance and conflict-of-interest issues.  Balance means a lot of things (geographic, small-vs-big institutions, male/female, scientific sub-field, etc.).  No one closely associated with a project to be reviewed is likely to be selected.
+  * Once the NRC convinces itself that it has a reasonably conflict-free panel that "looks like America" people will be invited to serve.  Some people will decline.
+=== Strategy for Decadal Panel: Recap ===
 Two approaches that bracket the range of possibilities.
@@ Line 8: / Line 23: @@
 (b) A strong case for a satellite can and should be made to the decadal panel even as of today because the science return, even with a null detection, is compelling. Not only a satellite is justified, it is critical to the health of our field.
+== Charles Lawrence ==
+B-mode science is compelling, and must be pursued by a program of technology development, suborbital experiments, and a space mission (whose ultimate need and configuration will depend critically on the outcome of the suborbital experiments).
+== Jamie Bock ==
+As to your question if we should bring to the decadal panel a) a satellite to detect B-modes or b) a plan for a satellite once B-modes are detected from the ground, I have an alternative.  What if we instead bring forth the comprehensive science satellite to study all aspects of the CMB in temperature and polarization, and then say if the B-modes are detected from the ground at a high level we can come back with a cheaper small satellite option.  This strategy gets all of our science on the table, puts the issue of B-mode amplitude in the most favorable light, and keeps CMB in a favorable position programmatically at NASA.
 == The 'no case now' argument ==
@@ Line 77: / Line 100: @@
 )There are a lot of misconceptions about the feasibility of the mission. We can change that.

User Tools

Differences

Page Tools