Natoli, Piacentini, Montier, Komatsu, Gudmundsson, Gao, Calabrese
– Choose a notetaker for the day
– Approval of minutes of last telecon
– Detector studies
– MHFT PO organisation: Thierry not available, we may still discuss the role of the SC
– Update of our police to guarantee vote outcome
– European meeting?
Choose a notetaker for the day
Approval of minutes of last telecon
Minimal edits by Paolo to last week’s minutes.
OK to the minutes of the previous week.
Updates: Detector studies
Gao on UK study:
Regular meetings ongoing. Gao not attending. Sharing of information is going smoothly. Gert de Lange from SRON is following this closely
PTB German company (equivalent of German NIST) is also a potential option for LB, but they have no funding for space at the moment.
FP on IT detectors.
WBS and plan of activities progressing but not finalised yet.
Giovanni Signorelli to contact Gao for sharing request to VTT.
FP on KIDs option
The phase A study is based on the assumption to have the same detectors as the US, in terms of performance and interfaces. TES are the only possible PhaseA detectors in this sense.
Still, an analysis of pros and cons and modifications needed for the KIDs option may be of interest.
It is worth assessing the impact into design, readout, radiation coupling, thermal, complexity.
ESA has been supportive. ASI is granting a parallel TES/KIDs for space study, and is interested in presenting the progress to ESA.
LM: as Theirry said last week, if you proceed in this direction, the study will not be supported / recognized by CNES/PO.
FP: as stated the study will focus on TES for Phase A, and consider the KIDs as an option, to have some solid assessment about their application to LiteBIRD.
EC: the spreading the resources in an nonoptimal
RS: for LiteBIRD the technology is TESes. This may not be considered a LitBRID study.
PN: not a LiteBIRD phase A, but from ESA and ASI this is a LiteBRID study.
RS: people may interpret this in a negative way.
LM: possible French detectors have been removed from the study, because they are out of the LiteBRID framework. Are we changing the rule?
PN: KIDs are not an option from a programmatic point of view, but may be a technical solution.
GAO: from SAFARI SPICA experience. We had such a discussion in that context. The community made a choice, and preferred to choose one instead of two options. To avoid giving the impression we were not sure of the right technology to use.
EK: who may be benefitting? Nobody.
PN: clear message from the steering committee not to include this part in the study, to perturbate the international balance. What shall we do?
LM: proposed to have another contract with ESA to study KIDs. Not tagged as LiteBIRD. For a longer term study, disconnected from LiteBIRD.
RS: as a collaboration, this study should be for LiteBIRD and focus on TESes.
LM: there are other groups that are interested, and it was said that this was not an option.
EC: we have experts of KIDs, and we decided not to investigate this path, because it was not an option.
LM: I received a message from Adrian.
He knew that Flavio Gatti has contacted SeeQC for detector fabrication.
If the idea is to use SeeQC for production of detectors with Italian design, the US team does not have to be involved.
If the IT groups would like to collaborate with the US, they should contact them directly.
This must be managed with transparency.
Going through a company may be a solution, but if this is based on design from the US, we have to agree and discuss this with them.
LM: we can have a meeting with Adrian before the IT study converges to a WBS.
FP agree. We organize a Flavio – Adrian meeting
FP: what is the situation about agency meetings?
LM: no updates from Masaki
MHFT PO organisation: Thierry not available, we may still discuss the role of the SC
We had some discussion about the role of the SC in approving the PO proposal.
We agreed on the fact that the SC should find an agreement and consensus, and approve the document.
About the names in the various positions, we propose a similar approach. We discuss and approve names, then the agencies ratify. The document will be signed also by Ludo, but not as “European PI” (a figure that does not exist at the moment), but as “Spokesperson of the European SC”
We briefly discussed the PI figure. We agree that after approval of the PO, we will set the process of nominating a PI, as part of the governance discussion, which needs to be restarted. The governance sub committee is a good point to do so.
Update of our police to guarantee vote outcome (postponed)
European meeting? (postponed)
LM: on friday we have the monthly global call. Ludo will not be available.
Reports from each partner? Agenda is not out yet.