Meeting Minutes - OST 8th F2F Meeting - May 15-16, 2018



PLEASE NOTE!

The meeting note taker dialed in to the 8th OST F2F meeting and was not able to attend in person. The notes taken (below) may or may not include all items discussed during the meeting. We encourage you to review and edit this page as appropriate. 


Subject:OST STDT 8th F2F MeetingDate:5/15/2018 - 5/16/2018
Purpose:To discuss science activities for OST.Facilitator:Asantha Cooray/Margaret Meixner
Location/Time:

Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center 

Palo Alto, CA 

When it's time,  click here to join the meeting.

Join by phone: 1-510-338-9438

Access Code: 629 565 110

Meeting Password: 4k_stage

Note Taker:Sydney Jones

Day 1 - May 15, 2018


Discussion Items

Overview & Discussion Welcome – Chair Dominic Benford & Dr. Nelson Pedreiro, VP of LM ATC

  • Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center (ATC) is the Resource Management Division for space systems company 

  • Capabilities include optical systems, cryogenics, etc. 

  • Dr. Nelson Pedreiro is delighted to have everyone here

Meeting Logistics - Greg Feller & Allison Nordt

  • Presented overview of meeting logistics 
  • Provided overview of scheduled tours and baseball game

OST Study Science Themes - Asantha Cooray

  • Summarized discussion and outcome from AAS 
  • Reviewed top three science questions and themes
    • Are we alone?
      • OST question: How common are life bearing planets?
      • ACTION: Water trail write up assigned to Klaus Pontoppidan
    • How did we get here?
      • Do we agree with what biosignatures means? 
        • What is the degenergency with separating biotic and abiotic?
        • Referenced definition of biosignature provided by Lisa Kaltenegger
        • The presenence of ozone for earth can only be explained by photosynthesis. 
        • ACTION: Exoplanets working group should agree on definition of biosignatures
        • In being conversant with MC2, OST is supposed to do a better job than OST? Detection stability can be detectors
        • ACTION: Put spectral simulations into more detail for biosignatures (comets)
        • ACTION: Provide core simulations Stephanie Milam,
        • Gary Melnick should emphasize the continum tracking
        • Need number of detection's.
        • Trail part is, we are not talking about discrete sources but the links between them. 
        • Simulations are needed
        • Need quantitative measurements for
        • ACTION: Think about differences for rise of metals theme (to address criticism)
        • Water ice features are included in the trail of water case/theme. 
        • Compare last best mission at a give wavelengh 
    • GO Science Section
      • Identify 9-10 galactic cases that were not captured before
      • Solar systems
      • Direct imaging 
      • Consider including great ideas for GO science from other proposals, everything that OST can do should be highlighted for this. 
      • ACTION: There is more than one ice feature in the Far-IR (Gary Melnick will look these up)
      • Need to include missing Instrument modes capabilities  and add names for who will write papers for these. Asantha Cooray to email science working group leads for this.
      • Longer cadence time domain, formation of dust particles for time domain science, monthly cadence. Have dedicated page for this. Douglas Scott will work on this one. 
      • Think about splashy outreach science Cara Battersby
    • How does the universe work?
      • Kartik J. Sheth responses include:
        • Question is fine
        • Talks about fundamental physical processes the growth of black holes
        • It is very physics oriented
        • Things we should study for how universe works is a neutron star
        • The way this question is written is fine, and is useful. 
        • Not sure what we could change it to
      • Johannes Staguhn
        • Structure formation with respect to FIP 
      • Think about decadal survey reviewers 
      • Referenced saphire study, people on decadal survey are sophisticated
      • Should understand large and small scale aspects of how the universe works 
  • How would questions address NASA?
  • What is the physics of the black hole. Concerned about external reviewers reading the report and not seeing how OST addresses the questions through science justification. 
  • Science simulations for each theme 
  • Science text write ups by mid August 
  • Last two weeks of August combine everything into 30 pages 

Mission Concept 2 (MC2) - Margaret Meixner

  • Present scientists perspective of MC2
  • Convo between Margaret Meixner and STDT about what everyone thinks MC2 is to ensure everyone understands what it is 
  • How MC1 and MC2 will be treated in the reports? Both will be described. MC1 will have its own section, but MC2 may be described but MC1 graphics will be displayed as a comparison
    • Technical description for MC1 can go in as an appendix
    • MC2 will be the base
    • MC1 engineering design and cost has not been completed 
    • MC1 engineers design can be submitted to HQ 
    • MC2 cost will be submitted to HQ 
    • Engineers look at MC2 and see it as being doable
    • Study office should derive value from MC1, 
    • Need answer for 9m chilled cold telescope 
    • MC2 should be final offering 
    • ACTION: Have closed executive discussion about MC1 vs. MC2 for after HQ perspective
  • MC2 
    • a smaller engineering optimized for key science cases.
    • Minimal deployment 
    • Survey modes for imagers and map OSS
    • JWST size collecting area: ~25 m squared 
    • Preliminary designs started, to be completed by end of summer 2018
    • Fast motion of telescope: 100 arsceconds/second (needs to be refined) 
    • Survey mode for pointing observations, concept of moving mirror (Klaus Pontoppidan
    • Need to be clear in presentation between data taking slew rate vs. data rate slew
    • Presented graphic of MC2, showing no deployment
      • Some people say this is a SPITZER on steroids
      • Sunshade engineering deployment should be simplified. We have two layers as opposed to five layers, spring loaded, this instrument module is what we envision before we went to IDL
      • Sun shield is going behind the instruments
      • Secondary mirror doesn't move 
      • Fast steering mirror 
      • Presented overview of field of view 
    • 5 ppm can be justified, but 1 ppm is hard to get down to 
    • ACTION: Make sure we understand 
    • Reviewed MC2 instrument specifications 
    • ACTION: Margaret Meixner will update MC2 instrument specifications
    • 10 arc seconds at 200 is beam size
    • ACTION: Develop contiunium sensitivity plot, mapping speed plot, photometrey stablility plot 
    • Spectral Line Sensitivity: There is no fundamental limit, band is based off of 6 bands. Now we want to start at 25 microns. 
    • ACTION: Think about how we want to display spectral line sensitivity. 
    • M6 deliverable and major equipment list will be submitted in January 2019. 
    • The science team will be able to submit the M7 deliverable in June 2019, and science cases can be improved.
    • Final report is due June 30, 2019

NASA HQ Landscape - Kartik J. Sheth

  • See PowerPoint here: Kartik_OSTf2fPaloAlto2018May.pdf
  • Presented most interesting challenges for Astrophysics, and discussed perception of Astrophysics in the community. 
  • Presented status of Decadal schedule. 
  • Focus on hurdle to convice STDT/science community that OST is needed. 
  • Include separate chapter in report or discussion as to why is OST needed when we have JWST and how does it fit within APD portfolio/balance? 
  • David Leisawitz said the answer to the cryo-cool question regarding "how can you possibily cryo-cool such a large mass" question is on the OST/Goddard website? 
  • We do not have a number for what? 
    • Paul Hertz has asked the CAA to provide a resource estimate to science teams 
    • Discuss further descoping options in the discussion later on
    • ACTION: Continue thinking about what can be descoped in terms of OST 

STDT Discussion Q&A - Dominic Benford

Mission Concept 2 - Chair Susan Neff

Science Traceability Matrix for Concept 2 with STDT Discussion - David LeisawitzKimberly Ennico Smith

  • See PowerPoint presentations here:
  • ACTION: Fill in second objective for measuring feedback
    • Use objectives from Objective #1 as an example
  • Are one of those cases for FIP being chosen? 
    • Not necessarily. There are three existing science cases for FIP currently.
    • Still want to do a nearby galaxy for FIP 
    • Should stick to idea of three main theme areas 
    • "Conduct a" could be an objective for the science goal
    • Important for FIP driver to trace back to top three science cases so it becomes a mission/science and instrument driver
    • FIP has to be rooted in the three main science themes (Margaret Meixner and Asantha Cooray can discuss how GO can be included into FIP offline) 
    • Establish case that there is a trail rather than a set of different chemical objects 

Design Choices and Rationale & End to End Mission Schedule - Ruth Carter

  • See PowerPoint here: OST f2f 8 Study Office 20180512 rev1.pptx
  • How will we get a mirror, or once segments are built will they be tested (integrated and tested) on the ground? Yes this what we plan to do currently
  • Mission cost target is $5 Billion (B)
  • There will be a pre-phase A study
  • Project office will be at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and/or Goddard, doing pre-phase A project studies. Doing re-engineering for redesign, another Science Working Group (SWG)
  • Question for Mike Dipirro....

MC2 Volume and Mass Assessment - Chi Kuan Wu

STDT Discussion on Descopes - Margaret MeixnerAsantha Cooray

  • Commenting on different ways to move the observatory
  • Keep in mind there is extra cost in terms of rate
  • Fine steering mirror can be articulating
  • We need to interconnect gains of individual detectors, by having the same source run over detectors, similar to a jither pattern
    • Want flexibility with the FSM parallel to the slit. 
    • Small high fidelity scans with fine steering mirror. 
    • ACTION: Make sure engineers know what the fine steering mirror needs to do.
  • Klaus Pontoppidan in the water cases, you have about 1000 water cases in Orion. If the FOV can be moved from source to source in the fine steering mirror, then this will make the observatory more efficient  
  • ACTION: Include high or low level of stability level for pointing and calibration Klaus Pontoppidan, distance, time scale, efficiency (time scale for moving in terms of how far and how fast, and fast moving targets into spreadsheet. 
  • Do not have to think about moving the observatory or its instruments
  • Martina Wiedner will forward????
  • ACTION: Identify amount of throw needed Klaus Pontoppidan
  • ACTION: Need scanning speeds needed for observations (FIP, small maps, efficiency needed) and indicate positional accuracy needed (for pointing or control) for MISC. Klaus Pontoppidan
  • Lisigu orbit pattern and halo orbit? This is unknown.
  • Spectroscopic pointing observations Cara BattersbyMatt Bradford
    • ACTION: Ways to improve efficiency for parallel modes (OSS and FTS) 
      • Considered using OSS and FIP together 
      • OSS power is about 1500 watts 

Gravity Waves & OST - Douglas Scott / LISA

MC2 Observing Modes Open Issues - David Leisawitz

Mission Operations Concept for Observatory Design Reference Mission Exercise - Margaret Meixner

  • See PowerPoint presentation here: MIssion-Concept2-meixner.pptx
  • This spreadsheet will communicate how efficient our observatory modes are for science. This spreadsheet will go to the MDL
  • ACTION: Discuss how to make the observatory more efficient and discuss observing efficiency number Klaus PontoppidanMargaret Meixner 
  • How do we decide which science goals or cases go into this document? Include science cases that backup three things, and 9 GO cases, and include nearby galaxies, polarimetry and star formation
  • Credibility is important, and SPITZER efficiency is no moving parts.
    • Observing efficiency and lifetime are the same thing
    • Important to mention that with OST the mission will be designed with high efficiency
    • Instrument teams and science groups should complete the Design Reference Mission spreadsheet  by  

FIP - Johannes Staguhn

Science Cases for FIP Discussion - Margaret Meixner

Instruments - Karin Sandstrom

Capabilities of Other MC2 Instruments 

OSS - Matt Bradford

  • See presentation here: OSS_forSTDT_2018May15.pptx
  • Immediately identify high res objects
  • Identify outskirts of galaxies 
  • Field of view is one diffraction limited beam wide, 74 beams wide
  • May need to demonstrate that there is a confusion limit for pH. Matt Bradford will double check this. 
  • Imager case has to hinge on large areas
  • This is a three dimensional imager (OSS)
  • Spectral direction is a plus
  • Sensitivity is not gained but high resolution is gained
  • Matt Bradford mentioned that power should not be an issue 
  • What baseline technology has been chosen for FTS? Goddard engineers have come up with some solutions. This information is included in the report. One solution is magnetic. 
  • This instrument is made up of four moving parts

MISC - Itsuki SakonThomas L. Roellig


Little-HERO - Martina Wiedner

  • See PowerPoint presentation here: HERO.ppt
  • Can use two bands, and any frequency 
  • The diagram colors represent the four different bands 

Wrap-Up and Logistics - Asantha Cooray/Feller, Nordt

Day 2 - May 16, 2018


High-z galaxies & sky background models - Leisawitz      

Strategy Discussion Executive Session, Cooray & Meixner

  • Remind reader of quality of optics for each instrument
  • Recap on Discussion of Descopes        
  • Why should the astronomy community want an OST after a JWST?
  • Becuase of long wavelengths, have options with refractive instruments to shrink size and cost
  • Matt Bradford added to consider mass and not simplicity 
  • Margaret Meixner added that STDT should review the Design Reference Mission spreadsheet in terms of instrument modes
  • Suggest doing a matrix and listing possible descopes. Each descope option should list implications in all the different areas for what science and complexity is lost or gained, etc. Can then do a stop light method for the trades. 
  • Descope options
    • Descoping 5.9 to 5 m aperture so it can sit in  7 meter fairing
    • 5.9 to 5m for number of pixels
    • half # pixels for FIP and OSS
    • Change/shift in orbital parameters. Going from lower propulsion halo L2 oribit to more propulsive intensive orbit  
    • Redundancy with spica and orbit, as far as instrument capability 
    • Descope in scan speed (100 arcsec per second → 33 arcsec/sec) 
    • FIP and HERO (FIP has overlap with SPICA)
    • Trade between etalon & OSS
    • Drop etalon or HERO 
    • Continue to relax wavefront requirements (take diffraction limit up to 50) 
    • Reducing complexity, eliminate coronograph 
    • Operate at 8 or 12 kelvin 
    • Drop two longest wavelength modes of OSS (cut off gratings from OSS, starting at long wavelengths) 

SPICA vs. OST Merge

  • Think about merging concepts and not necessarily doing that in a public way. Merging behind the scenes wit NASA HQ and ESA. 
  • Need overview of parameter space for OST 
  • Any  within OST community with being dragged into ?
  • Cost cap for SPICA is 550 MEUR through ESA (M-class mission profile), supplemented by a JAXA strategic L-class funding source, and funding from the national agencies of the nations participating in the implementation of the SPICA-SAFARI instrument (including NASA)
  • No overlap with exoplanet science case
  • Important for OST to show measurement capability with SPICA, vast worldwide interest in both of these missions is illustrated in both of these concepts
  • Scientific goals with SPICA and OST are different. Need to adopt an informative tone. 
  • How are you planning to track moving targets and at what speed?
  • Structure of SPICA science program? Guaranteed time components. 
  • SPICA_and_OST.pptx
  • Instrument factsheets:
  • ESA Concurrent Design Facility (CDF) results (CDF is ESA equivalent of IDL):

2019 AAS Meeting - Cara BattersbyTiffany Kataria

  • Timeline for brochures (MC2 for updated graphics). Brochure to replace current brochure.
    • Due to Goddard for printing on , final is due on  
  • Need about 1000 printed 
  • Division for Planetary Meeting will be held in October
  • Graphics Wishlist
    • Movies
    • Static graphics
    • Slides 
      • OST vs. SPICA
    • Graphics should be of high quality to be presented on the hyper wall
  • Think ahead to see what we really want to do in the next year. Plan for to do list is due on  
  • Issue with finding graphics for current best state of observatory
    • What is a reliable due date for design of observatory?
      • End of June 2019, after IDL 
  • Ruth Carter suggested creating folder to upload images 
  • Public news articles 
    • Going through production phase. Cara Battersby will let everyone know when this is done. 
    • Forbes article status
    • Shoot for fall 2019 for publication of the aforementioned articles 
  • Reoccurring technical questions to OST team
    • There is an FAQ on the Goddard OST site and IPAC public site also that addresses the cooling question (Lee Armus is lead on this). Should keep the public site simple. 
    • Gary Melnick penciled in...
    • Help teams establish a template 
  • Talks
    • Oxford meeting 
      • Originally had three people planned to go. OST management will notify STDT of who can go next week. 
      • Harvard pays travel and hotel expenses for CFA travel
    • Will have training for those who will be giving talks
    • Winter AAS 
      • All final materials will be due to Goddard by end of October for printing (or  )
      • Will do scavenger hunt again
      • Thinking of doing splinter sessions 
      • Can add infrared or galaxy infrared science language in for special sessions 
      • Look into special sessions/splinter meetings. Reach out to Kevin Stevenson if advocacy group has questions. 
      • See Cara Battersby and Tiffany Kataria for more info about science topics discussed during day 2 of the 8th F2F meeting
    • Hyperwall talks at Goddard
    • Talks in Tuscon, AZ 
      • Have draft of brochure done for for this talk 
      • Updating sensitivity plots on the MC2 version 
      • Can print out a rough draft, and then have fact sheet
      • May be easier to have a one page brochure (DPS, Oxford, IAU). Can have highly polished/final brochure for DPS
    • Harley Fransen organized talk - Landscape of Space Astrophysics in the...
      • March 2019
      • Should have OST presence for this 

Whitepapers

  • Deadline for white papers should be earlier next year

Strategy Discussion 

  • See PowerPoint presentation here: Far-IR Sky Model - COSMOS data cube.pptx
  • Interstellar components may be small and not very bright 
  • Clustering models shown in this presentation need to be improved
  • ACTION: Next step is to do convolution and increase photon noise (David Leisawitz)
  • Galaxy spectra are not all the same. Variations are shown in galaxy to galaxy formation.
  • This is built into count data, using Monte Carlo simulations. 

Final Report Discussion - Ruth Carter

  • Table of contents for interim report 
  • Schedule 
  • Mission design, cost, road map, development cost and schedule 
    • Volume 1
    • Volume 2
    • Volume 3
  • MC1 will be an appendix
  • Volume 1 content will be costed in volume 2. Cost estimate will be based on volume 1. 
  • DRM is going from science tractability matrix to implementation
  • Aperture size? Margaret Meixner will look at the interim report and get back with STDT
  • Total report page amount
    • Suggest doing 30 pages 
    • Think about making it readable 
    • Need to improve quality 
  • Start with interim report write up 
  • Imbalance of mission design compared to science 
  • Include more content on telescope and science 
  • Decrease par systems