telecon_notes [PPPDT Wiki]

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
==== Telecon Notes ====

September 4, 2007, 3pm EDT

All team members present except for Peter Timbie who had a conflict.  Additionally, Nigel Sharp from the NSF and Wilt Sanders from NASA HQ were on the line.

Eric gave a brief history of why the group was formed and what has changed since the concept for the group solidified.  Initially, the team’s focus was to be primarily one of advocacy for a CMB mission to investigate signatures of inflation to the decadal survey panel(s).  Since the group was solicited however two new events may affect what the group seeks to do.  The first is the ESA Cosmic Visions call, to which a B-POL mission was proposed.  ESA selections are to be announced in October.  The second, and perhaps more time critical is the NASA Astrophysics Strategic Mission Concept Study [AMSCS] call (see text in the wiki library).  How the group will react to that occupied much of the subsequent discussion.

Shaul raised the question of how the group wants to organize itself when responding to the AMSCS.  He outlined three possibilities; (a) “business as usual” – anyone with an interest to propose does so, (b) a single proposal using a bolometric detection approach (c) two proposals, one bolometric, one HEMT. 

Comments were made to the effect that overall we all want (1) that the CMB should get a strong endorsement by the decadal panel and (2) that NASA will fund the technology development at the detector fab centers and at other places. Mention was made of the upcoming selection by ESA of mission concepts to fund under the ‘Cosmic Visions’ Program. 

Several people pointed out that there is a distinction between a common presentation to the decadal panel, which the PPPDT should lead, and the current call for studies, in which the PPPDT might or might not play a leading role.

There was a brief discussion about the timing of the upcoming decadal survey.  Panels are likely to start forming in the Spring of 2008, collect input through Winter 2008 and begin writing in late Spring 2009 so that the survey can be complete and published by early 2010. (See rough timing chart on the wiki site)

Harvey mentioned that there are doubts within the community doubt about the ability to constrain inflation in a meaningful way using CMB polarization measurements. He and others emphasized that it will be critical to show that a CMB measurement will constrain inflation in a serious way.

In response to a query Eric said that NASA expects about 30 proposals and 8-10 awards. The probability that one CMB proposal will get funded is high, the probability for a second is lower, and the probability for more is negligible. 

Amber wanted to know the arguments for submitting multiple proposals to the AMSCS and what are the drawbacks for submitting a single proposal.  There was no direct answer but an observation that a single proposal combining only the current mission studies would not include recent improvements in technologies that heretofore were thought to be out of the running, for example new developments with HEMT amplifiers.

Discussion followed about what the group might present to the decadal panels.  Julian emphasized that in any proposal, be it a combined effort, or separated by technologies, the data analysis section could be largely common.

Several people discussed the idea of taking the existing JPL and Goddard CMB mission studies and combining them into one.  However, the group did not have a good handle on whether this is at all feasible.   Shaul requested that the study leads would make their reports available. Jamie’s is in JPL review, Gary’s was not quite at a similar stage at GSFC.  Peter was not online and so there was no information on his report status.  Nevertheless, all were in agreement that these reports would represent a strong foundation on which to build, with the possible addition of information on new developments.  There was no definite date reported when these reports would be publicly available, but there was an agreement that the presentations that were made to the BEPAC panel will be posted on the pppdt site. 

Someone questioned whether this AMSCS study is the best avenue for advocacy in the upcoming decadal panel specifically in the case that there is more than a single proposal from the CMB community.   Whoever gets funded for these studies will have a chance at additional study funds, presumably giving them a better chance to mature their product. 

Charles suggested that the group is ideally suited for shepherding a coherent presentation (on CMB inflation studies) for the decadal survey, that emphasizes a common strategy scientifically.

Shaul pointed out that the PPPDT has no funding and therefore its own role in shepherding a serious presentation to the decadal panel is limited. The PPPDT can not fund any theoretical or foreground work. This work would be better carried out as part of the AMSCS.

The discussion closed with a suggestion to have a common CMB proposal to the AMSCS and that as part of this proposal we will investigate several mission concepts.  The report from this mission study will have a common science and foregrounds part, but could have several separate mission concepts. 


The telecon ended around 4:30
User Tools

Page Tools
