Participants
Natoli, Piacentini, Montier, Stompor, Komatsu, Calabrese, Hargrave, Gao
Agenda
– Choose a notetaker for the day
– Approval of minutes of the two previous calls on 02/03 and 09/03
– Distribution to ESA of minutes from 09/03
– Any remarks on PRODEX proposal as submitted?
– All round agency update, following JAXA meeting and discussion at IGB
– Newly proposed LB members
– Update of our policy to guarantee vote outcome (Radek)
– Gruber conference
– AOB
Choose a notetaker for the day
Notetaker: Francesco
Approval of minutes of the two previous calls on 02/03 and 09/03
Regarding meeting with ESA, Ludo will add his comments and will prepare a synthesis to be agreed.
Distribution to ESA of minutes from 09/03
The synthetic version will be sent to ESA
Any remarks on PRODEX proposal as submitted?
Enrique not present
All round agency update, following JAXA meeting and discussion at IGB
Ludo:
- the meeting was positive
- Jaxa repeated their point of view, with the new procurement baseline
- CNES described the new “plan” for phase A2
- CNES confirmed the new baseline with no Nasa procurement
- the current assumption is to keep the US technology for phase A2
- in parallel, will push feasibility of other items: ADR + FPUs
- ESA had positive reaction to this change
- Fabio insisted on the fact that it is very important to explore the Technological Transfer option from US to Europe. Otherwise difficult for Europe
- Action on Masashi, Thierry, Adriain Ludo, to study the TT option
- It will be discussed soon with Adrian
- Masaki proposed a new Interagency meeting very soon, to push on the new baseline procurement
Gao:
- the note by our director matches with a report by Lodo.
PN
- buy vs tech transf option discussion at IGB.
- funding for the US scientific activity is still an issue
RS:
- they committed to reach TRL 6
- feasibility study fund by ESA is investigating detectors development, not TT
Gao:
- Even if we make a copy of the US design, we still need a feasibility study.
Pete:
- critical review of the US design, and then see if we have the capability to reproduce as a starting point
- can we do something better, in terms of radiation coupling
FP:
- Italy has been contacted by Elena Saenz for potential detectors study
- a meeting of Italian community occurred
- a meeting with ESA will be held next week or later
- the document by Adrian can be shared
- it was mentioned the SeeQC company, which has a branch in Italy
LM:
- Italy should involve Thierry and Ludo in the discussion
Gao:
- it will be good to send a representative of the ESC to the inter-agency meeting.
LM:
- for Masaki this is an agency meeting, and the collaboration is not invited.
- Thierry is invited as Cnes.
PN:
- about acceptable delay asked by Fabio
- Is a 3 years delay acceptable?
- Jaxa seems willing to accept a delay, while Masashi made the point that this is not favorable.
LM:
- Masaki asked the collaboration to give a requirement
- Masashi is trying to keep the delay as short as possible
EC:
- how to convince US vs TT before decadal outcome?
LM:
- part of the answer will come soon from decadal
EC:
- I guess it will be vague. Then more time will be needed to define the US roadmap
LM:
- They have to start the process if they want activity by the end 2022.
RS:
- if there is a favourable review, this will open to other possibilities, such as PICO.
EC:
- if NASA commits we may lose ESA.
- ESA is willing to lead
EK:
- we will not know in advance
EC
- Is it in our interest to try to convince the US to go for a TT now?
- without waiting for decadal?
EK:
- there are many uncertainties. We don’t know who is receiving the TT today.
PH:
- the US array design is not unique at the moment. Nothing really impossible in terms of processing. Cambridge has a lot of expertise. We may not need TT.
- most of the TT is present in already publications
Gao:
- if UK want to repeat LiteBIRD specific technology, with TRL 6, this will bring a delay
LM
- Stafford mentioned that TT will speed up the process, and will cost a couple of years in any case.
- after the study, we will have more information about
- Answering to Erminia, I am not sure we have a preferred option today, we may need to wait before taking a decision.
- It is better to have EU detectors developed in EU, but this may not be the best option for the mission.
- We want ESA onboard
Newly proposed LB members
Belgium:
- Classe approved by Project scientist
CSL:
- replies from Paolo, Bruno and Giamapaolo.
- Paolo: what if we don’t use CLS
- Bruno: CSL is already working on a test plan. They are very active. DIfficult to see the implication of the single members
- Giampaolo: they can contribute. Some overlap with absorbers activity
- What if CSL is then not part of LiteBIRD calib plan?
EC:
- Reporting from meeting of the membership board:
- The current configuration only applies to PhaseA. The full collaboration will change later.
- we decided to keep the simple style configuration at the moment. No tracking, no much counting. We will restructure the collaboration later. Possibility of money based membership.
- Masashi wants to use this as a leverage to ask more to agencies
LM:
- in phase B we may end up with a very different number of people in the collaboration
- it may be very hard for people in the collaboration to accept this
- we will need a smooth transition
EC:
- there are political issues related to memberships
- everything we do now, only apply for this phase
- if CSL will not be used, CLS members will not be in the following phases.
LM:
- CSL is engaged in phase A already, in contact with MHFT and RF groups to coordinate and be complementary.
- BELSPO is now convinced by the science community. If ESA commits to LiteBIRD, BELSPO will support the mission.
Belgium proposal:
7 Members online are ok with Belgium proposal (Radek has left the meeting)
email needed to reach the quorum
Italy
- Chiocchetta ok
- All instrumentalists ok by MHFT WG
7 Members online are ok with Italian proposal
email needed to reach the quorum
Update of our policy to guarantee vote outcome (Radek)
Deferred
Gruber conference
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mB4yiFrYX0jnMuZwDiqhjBbv6ItauaDgHazux5SpXaM/edit
nothing new.
The idea is to go from Planck to LiteBIRD
Highlight the heritage of Planck for LB
Jan has been waiting for some feedback for 2 weeks.
Ludo can organize a small meeting. Inviting expert people on the topics proposed.
Paolo to send specific topics for the systematics/DA item
Francesco suggests to add detectors to the list, given the current situation.