Present: Thierry, Paolo, Ludo, Francesco, Erminia, Pete, Jon, Eiiichiro, Radek, Enrique
Previous minutes: 20/04 approved, 27/04 will be approved next time
↳ S2S Committee:
• Andrea Tartari
• Patricio Vielva (only if July)
=> Paolo sends email to Masashi
↳ Detector Studies in UK+SRON: [Pete]
• Cambridge opened doodle to find a date to discuss requirements inputs.
• Pete contacted US Team (Adrian)
– to inform Adrian about the study
– very kind discussion
– Adrian provided names (Keith/Toki)… It has been agreed to go via Adrian
• [Ludo] if further info [LM]: MH FT-PO should be kept in cc of all these interactions
• Paolo: Reports to ESC should be maintained
• Gao: Francesco provided info about who delivers SQUIDS
[Francesco]: Italy & Canada working on SQUIDs controller warm electronics. No SQUIDS, no LC filters.
Changing provider of Ic amplifiers should be made accordingly to interfaces with Canada
[Gao]: changes have to be limited since interface with warm electronics and CFT should be kept
VTT SQUIDS? is it an option?
↳ Detector Studies in Italy: [Francesco]
• Proposition to include small study on KIDs detector? small study to let ESA know the status. Martin Linder thinks this is not realistic, but interested in the status
• [Ludo]: We should be careful since other teams may want to contribute to such a study
• Paolo: It is ESA’s choice to decide tif including KIDs in this study or not.
• Radek: From Lite BIRD point of view, if there is motivation to took at KIDs, this should include all teams.
• Thierry: He will not support a study which is not compatible with current interfaces requirements. KIDS are not an option for LiteBIRD phase A. ESA can contact any group, but in the context of LiteBIRD, KIDS are not an option.
• Pete: Agrees that KIDS not an option for these LiteBIRD detectors feasibility studies. It will give a disorganised image of the collaboration.
• Gao: KIDs probably not compatible with the cooling constraints (LC filters)
• Francesco: He understands the various points and he will raise the points at the Meeting next Friday wit Italian community He will raise those points. Francesco will report.
↳ MHFT-PO: [Thierry]
• Thierry has presented the current draft
• MHFT-PO In charge of technical design & developmenent of MHFT + sub-K
• PO-Leads: 11 members
• National MHFT Project Managers: People in the Collab
• Francesco: Are National PMs invited to the MHFT Steering Committee?
Thierry: No. Only PI, PM invited
Francesco: Duty of National PMS?
Thierry: Role is to play a interface with National agencies, before going to upper level.
• PO MHFT System Team
• PO Sub-Systems Development team.
• PO Ait Team:
– Responsible of MHFT global testing.
– not responsible for the test analysis
• PO Ground Calibration Team
• Rque: 100mK ADR is not under HFT responsibility but included in the responsibility of MHFT-PO
• MHFT Steering Committee meets 1/year .
• PI, IS and Calibration Scientist will guarantee the interactions with other groups of the collaboration.
• People in the present MHFT working group must have a correct position in MHFT – PO.
• Transition should be started very soon
• More regular meetings:
– Half day / 2 weeks
– 1 day / 2 months
• Warning from Thierry:
– not confident to get correct phase A2 by the end of the year.
– CNES will not be able to commit to phase B/C/D if MHFT feasibility has not been proven, and if deliveries not agreed by agencies (pre-commitment)
– Delay for Phase-A2 is expected
– pre-commitment is due from ALL agencies before entering in phase B. JAXA will not be able to compensate for defection of a partner. CNES can do it for small sub-systems There is no “gentleman agreement” for phase B so far. Only for Phase-A. This should be discussed between agencies, before MHFT steering committee is in place.
– Which delay?: at least 6 months. Will also depend on FP studies outcomes.
• Errminia: There are usually 3 key Figures : PI, PM, Is
Why “IS” is under ‘PI & PM”?
– Thierry: This is classical.
PM has the ultimate decision on technical side
PI has the ultimate decision on scientific side
– Erminia: At the first meeting with ESA, Fabio Favata mentioned 4 key figures: PI-PM-IS + System Engineer
Thierry: This model was not this one for Planck.
Gao: Each project can be different.
• Erminia: Why Calib-deputy only for phase B/C/D?
Thierry: No need for phase A.
Erminia: What was the motivation to add a deputy?
Paolo: This has been proposed to help, but compromise has been found.
• Erminia: How were flags decided?
Thierry: This was the continuity with in-place responsibility
Radek: What is the nomination Process?
What about rotation? For future?
Thierry: Once Flag agreed; each country nominates the names, PM has nothing to say against it.
Rotation is not to be put in place for System Lead, for ex.
• Enrique: Is this structure Flexible?
Thierry: Yes it is!
Gao: It should be mentioned in the document that this organisation should be rediscussed for phase B. (this is done actually)
• Paolo:. We need further discussion (next week)
– Which role of the ESC? ESC should validate / approve / or take notice of it ?