From CMB-S4 wiki
Revision as of 12:08, 27 February 2017 by Jc (talk | contribs) (→‎Introduction)
Jump to navigationJump to search


Post talks here.

Comments on Path Forward - John Carlstrom

This is our 5th collaboration meeting.

  • At the first (a day in the MN CMB polarization conference), there was a sense that we knew how to do CMB-S4 and that the science case was so obvious that we did not need to write it down. Of course, many felt that way, but they did not all agree with each other. Concerns with working with DOE and its labs also were discussed. At the end of the meeting we had decided we needed to write a science book, and we needed to work on what CMB-S4 would be -- telescopes sizes, styles etc.
  • The second workshop at UMichigan was devoted to setting up the science working groups. We also had introductory talk by Harry Weerts on "When Projects get a large DOE Involvment". Detectors, readout, telescopes technology was discussed.
  • The third workshop at LBNL had reports from the science working groups, and led to the big push to get the book done in the next four months. Technology working groups were set up.
  • The fourth workshop at Chicago was held soon after the submission of the first edition of the Science book to the agencies. There were sessions devoted to better understanding the high-ell science drivers, so a conceptual project design could be advanced. Updates from the technology working groups were made; the need for a systems engineering working group was identified. We learned the plans for the joint DOE NSF "Concept Definition Task Force", a FACA subpanel of the AAAC. The CDT being good news in that it clearly indicated DOE and NSF interest and the need for "official" advice to the agencies for advancing CMB-S4.
  • Kent just reviewed the plans for the current, fifth, workshop - moving all the above forward.

The bottom line is that we have a functioning collaboration!

But, we need to make the collaboration more formal; it needs to be defined.

For DOE or NSF to move forward they require the community to come together "officially". Right now if you click on the collaboration tab of the web pages, you will get a blank page. The agencies or potential foreign partners need for there to be a there there. They need a number they can call. A spokesperson? Spokespeople? Policy documents, Boxology...

We will hear more about the need for a collaboration from Kathy Turner this morning. We have arranged for Jim Yeck to give a talk on "DOE/NSF Project Experience - Key Ingredients for Success" in which he no doubt will tell us about the need for- and functions of- a collaboration for a successful project. Tomorrow afternoon there will be a panel describing how collaborations have been set up, what has worked well, what has not.

A new push for our collaboration is to define it, set up the structure, elect people, councils, draft policies, etc.

The plan is for this work to start now and report well thought out options at the sixth workshop, to be held at Harvard in roughly 6 months.