Go to the U of M home page
School of Physics & Astronomy
PPPDT Wiki

User Tools

Trace:
meetingsandtelecons:oct18.07

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
meetingsandtelecons:oct18.07 [2007/10/17 20:34] – 24.118.179.208meetingsandtelecons:oct18.07 [2007/10/17 20:41] (current) – 24.118.179.208
Line 5: Line 5:
 [[ProposalWorkPlanSteve20071015|Proposed Work Plan 20071015]] [[ProposalWorkPlanSteve20071015|Proposed Work Plan 20071015]]
  
-The proposal purpose: +=== First Draft Budget ===
- +
-January 2009 will be nearly the last opportunity to bring new information into the decadal report committees. At that time, a carefully defined program of research and development leading to a future CMBPol mission would be very useful. If the report outlines the scientific justification the science risk, the technology and technology risk, the schedule and the cost of potential future mission concepts, the report would build a strong case for decadal support for a technology development program. +
- +
-The report is to be a community-wide effort. All activities, detailed study reports, workshop proceedings and the final report will be available to all. A webpage will be maintained to ensure public access and permit public feedback. +
- +
-___________________________________________________ +
-Contents of report to decadal committees +
- +
-The main point of the report is to define the promise of the science. This is an absolute necessity if the report is to be effective. From the science the requirements for the mission are derived. Because this will be a broad study, where there are several options, each should be discussed. For the most important options, a plan and a time estimate for developing each to the point where a decision can be made should be included. +
- +
-An important issue is that this report should be written, and seen as, an extension to the Weiss report. In the event that a new finding conflicts with the Weiss report, a detailed description of the reason for the difference should be stated. +
- +
-___________________________________________________ +
-Proposal team strucuture +
- +
-The structure of the proposing group will be the PI and CoIs who serve as the steering committee for all of the activities. Each CoIs will lead of one of two activities outlined below: workshop lead or detailed study lead. Each CoI will be responsible for the successful outcome of the activity they lead. The PI will lead the final writing workshop and the report writing that follows. The PI will be responsible for maintaining the webpage. The PI will also oversee the activities of each of the CoIs. +
- +
-___________________________________________________ +
-Steps to be taken +
- +
-The actual steps needed to get to the point where a report can be written are: +
- +
-1. Define the needed measurement parameters to reach the goal of probing inflation at a specified level. Define the ancillary science that is possible with such an instrument. Two main mission templates should be considered: a 1 degree resolution mission and a 4 arcminute resolution mission. +
- +
-2. Explore the instrument, spacecraft, and scan requirements for reaching the measurement parameters above. +
- +
-3. Assemble the known detector and instrument technologies relevant to 1 and 2 above. Determine the TRL level of these technologies. Determine the schedule and cost to bring two (probably a 1 degree and a 4 arcminute) template missions to the point where a mission could be proposed. +
- +
-___________________________________________________ +
-Main Activities +
- +
-To carry out the steps above the three main activities are: +
- +
-   1. Three public Workshops as described below +
-   2. Several detailed studies. This includes, but is +
-      not limited to, the required costing studies. +
-   3. One final writing workshop in late October 2008 +
-      followed by a report writing exercise. +
- +
-___________________________________________________ +
-Workshops +
- +
-Workshop topics: +
-   1. Theory and ancillary science +
-   2. Foregrounds, systematic errors and observing strategies +
-   3. Technology definition and costs +
- +
-Each workshop will be lead by a proposal CoI. They will be three days long with each day consisting of presentations in the morning followed by afternoon and evening subgroup meetings. Each subgroup has a topic or set of topics which they are to develop. +
- +
-Careful planning of the workshops is essential for their success and is the responsibility of the workshop lead. This includes determining the presenters, defining subgroup topics and convening the subgroups. Following the workshop, a proceedings including the written versions of the presentations, the subgroup written findings, and a workshop summary outlining the findings and results of the workshop will be compiled. +
- +
-All presenters are responsible for a written version of their presentation (not just the slides) and the subgroups are responsible for developing a document that outlines a consensus or a number of alternative opinions about their topic. The workshop lead writes the workshop summary and compiles the proceedings. +
- +
-All travel and room and board will be supported for approved participants. The workshop lead will have control of a workshop budget which can include relevant support staff salaries and a month of summer support for the study lead or collaborator. +
- +
-___________________________________________________ +
-Detailed Studies +
- +
-A number of detailed studies will be undertaken. Ideally, each would lead to a presentation in a workshop if the timing works out. Each study will be lead by a proposal CoI. The study will result in a report written by the study lead. There should be no restriction to otherwise publishing the results of these studies in journals. The only requirement here is that we get a report. +
- +
-1. Technology development costing studies. At least one for a bolometric focal plane and one for an amplifier study. These studies must include cooler studies. +
- +
-2. Template Mission study. One for each 1 degree and 4 arcminute telescopes. +
- +
-3. Foreground method study. What are the effects of point sources, lensed point sources, galactic foregrounds. This will probably include simulations and new ideas. +
- +
-4. Scan method and systematic study for template mission. +
- +
-I am hoping that two of the focal plane studies also takes on the study of one of the template missions. If that is so then there could be about 5 detailed studies. +
- +
-The costs of these studies, in addition to the NASA center Team X and IDC costs will include up to 6 months of support for a postdoc and a summer month salary or equalent for the study lead or collaborator. +
- +
-___________________________________________________ +
-Final Writing Workshop. +
- +
-A month or two after the last of the topical workshops, the final writing should be underway, A last workshop bringing together the first draft of the report will be held. This workshop will be lead by the PI. +
- +
-___________________________________________________ +
-Webpage +
- +
-A webpage of the activities and progress will be maintained. It will contain the reports, the workshop proceedings and the drafts of the report as it develops. Access to the webpage will be open. +
- +
-___________________________________________________ +
-Budgeting +
- +
-Each CoI will have a subcontract from the PI institution to carry out CoI activity. Working out the details of the budget will be the major work of the next month. A first draft budget is in the making. +
- +
-=== Strawman Budget === +
  
 +{{meetingsandtelecons:20071015_budget.pdf|First draft budget}}
meetingsandtelecons/oct18.07.1192671283.txt.gz · Last modified: 2007/10/17 20:34 by 24.118.179.208

Page Tools