Origins Space Telescope (Origins) Technology Roadmap Red Team Review 2018-12-04 Meeting Notes

Date

Dec 4, 2018 & Dec 5, 2018

Attendees

  • @Sydney Jones

Goals

  • Meet with Red Team to discuss final report feedback.

Discussion items

Chair: Paul Geithner

Date: Wednesday December 5, 2018

Location: Goddard Space Flight Center

Building 34, Room W305

Time

Topic

Who

Notes

8:45 – 9:00 AM

Origins Space Telescope Baseline Mission Concept

Margaret Meixner

See PowerPoint presentation by @Margaret Meixner

9:00-9:20 AM

Origins Science Overview and Uniqueness, 10 min presentation

Asantha Cooray

  • Origins will be all access all purpose flagship observatory

  • Change “all purpose” to “general purpose”

  • Science is led by the observatory via peer review

  • Origins is not designed to be an experiment

  • Three themes (extragalactic, planetary habitability/water, exoplanet bio-signatures)

  • Posturing of Origins

    • @Gary Melnickadded that wavelength range for Origins is the wavelength range if you want to study water. @Gary Melnick the

    • Justify why a bigger aperture is so important. Why is 5.9 meters so important? Origins can make this case, and attack SPICA without mentioning SPICA at all

    • Only large cold FIR telescope has the sensitivity needed

      • Sufficiently high spectral resolving power and survey speed

      • Universally explore the water trail around stars of all masses

 

11:10-11:50 AM

Theme 3 – bio-signatures, 10 min presentation

Kevin Stevenson

  • Primary question is “Are we alone?” How common are life bearing exoplanets around m-Dwarfs.

  • Second question is “Will m-Dwarfs be sensitive to bio-signatures.

  • ACTION: Need to make habitable zone measurement clear on predicted yields plot.

  • No idea what the atmosphere is, CO2 dominated atmosphere.

  • How do we present to a general audience? 400 kelvin is concern. Be clear that we are being generous because, predicted yields of plausible numbers, include a second set of numbers.

  • K of 8 m star? Optimistic calculation to see if bio-signatures can be detected at k of 8. Number of transits needed to detect k band molecule.

    • Analogous figure of retrievals? May be better to use for those who don’t know what to make of the squigly lines. @Kevin Stevenson and team are working on retrievals for Origins and JWST.

    • Suggested including joint JWST and Origins retrievals.

    • Case has to be made carefully. Legitimate to say that with time we will get there with detector development. Be careful to present it as in “We are going to do this”, because its not quite like this.

    • Should say that this is a development project, but given that Origins launch is not until 2036, this will give us time develop this.

    • Can ensure time to optimize operations parameters for better stability.

    • ACTION: Include paragraph or two in science section on detectors, explaining JWST vs. Origins part, include this in the intro. Lead off with importance of bio-signatures for here is how Origins does this. Why M-dwarf stars. Explain comparison to imaging to JWST and Origins, ideally suited for transit techniques, space based….technology are not suited for this.

    • Bio-indicator vs. bio-marker, is important to see evidence for non-equilibrium, will have to have infrared mission to get all these features. Will have to go to infra-red in order to do this. When going to find life, it will be difficult. With transits this will be possible. This must be apparent, and explained in the final report. Will measure planet temperature; should be general goal, can map out habitable zone. This can be done relatively straight forward. Include table that highlights transit techniques, etc. to make a clear comparison, include one set of questions to address and call out why Origins.

      • Worried about “how common are” wording.

      • Huge uncertainty about…

      • Origins can trace bio-signatures…bio-indicators…or bio-enabler…it is a somewhat established term. Use whats used in exoplanet science strategy

      • How common are life bearing exoplanets? Re-word this question.

      • Same issue with habitable zones

      • There is anti-margin in this section, plots are showing m-8 star for k of 8, that’s a unicorn. Case is nice, but need to be realistic. If it will take certain parameters to achieve then state this. Do not over sell sensitivity. Explain what the observatory can do realistically.

      • Look at range of small planets, see whats there, look at bio-signatures explicitly.

      • Star formation, include paragraph that recognizes this a problem, but do not need to state that Origins can solve this problem. Pushing to new noise floor, pointing out features that are not affected by this is good.

      • Suggest embracing why wavelength coverage is key. Include “present Earth like”

      • Worth pointing out that there is less science risk from the targets for direct detection, RV will have hard time with masses

      • How did we come to minimum aperture diameter? 5.9 meters. We can see that optimally we want more, single to noise is square root of area, single noise goes as linear diameter. Have to go a lot bigger to get better, going smaller (a meter here or there) wont make a difference in this case. Origins can use this as a justification for aperture size.

10:30-11:10 AM –

Theme 2 – planetary system formation, 10 min presentation

 

Klaus Pontoppidan

 

  • Trail of water is being used to highlight the path that @Klaus Pontoppidan is discussing

  • An attempt to indicate structure of planet forming disks for water

  • Questions and objectives

    • Water is a key constituent of of disks, water is a key element for the formation of life

  • Elsa Comments

    • Optimal spectral resolution is less than anything in the plot. What resolution is sufficient or insufficient?

      • The concept here is to do large survey of disks, to trace the stellar mass. Maximize sensitivity. Have a subset of 50-100 disks and use etalon to get a full line profile.

      • Challenge that Origins can follow the water trail. Idea of going to gas phased water, to clouds, there are too many variables in between these phases (not much water made it into disks). Think carefully about what you are promising to do.

        • Use HD to get water abundance

        • Understated that all the different ways water affects planet formation. Should speak to this more, and start with this. Science deliverables, HD stuff is dependent on temperature distribution. How well do we know this? Assumption is to use ALMA data for temperatures.

        • Expand scope of Origins science. Hyrda CO lines, temperature structure of disks to calibrate understanding of HD.

        • Decadal survey submission should address these things, all of planet star formations, include detailed example of water chemistry

        • The questions and objectives slide was very good and informative

          • The HDO to H2O in comets information was good

          • Broaden the question on how water and comets (variation), planet formation can help inform the audience. Can inform a broader a question by getting this data set.

            • Doing water with Origins because we are good at water. Can we say that with DOH ratio, that we have this class of comets with this chemistry, but say that this type of comet? You want all of the science.

            • 99.9% confidence level? Where did this come from? The lowest ratio. We can go way lower with the sensitivity on Origins.

            • Why is water important? Showed artists concept of disks, 8.2-22 is at the end and should be at the beginning. Show what we can do first.

            • What is typical scatter in the ratios with HD, dust and CO. Report hides temperature structure issue. Don’t have full simulation.

              • Need more context for this

              • The uncertainty in the disk mass, deriving from standard techniques, using dust to get gas mass doesn't apply to disks. The HD provides within a factor of 2 the total gas mass, can be ratioed to provide true abundance. Chemistry of abundance in disks? HD will give us abundance that allows us to do the chemistry in the disks. Why are we here, how did we get here? This needs to be explicitly stated. Get at true time scale available for planet formation. The report needs to break this down to gut level problems, that people will understand. Debree disks and comets need a lot of work. Think about the fact that we have a long way to go and these are important questions.

              • ACTION: Science white papers to submit to ASTRO 2020. Importance of water, gas masses, disks? Submitting science white papers will be a good way of getting what Origins wants to be hot topics on the ASTRO 2020 plate. Subdivide juiciest science questions, and take best of most important things and have science white paper on these things. This is a way to get the science out to, and get interest to the decadal before the final report is submitted.

  • Straightforward to show that line profile can be inverted to a radial intensity.

  •  

11:50 AM – 12:30 PM

Discovery Space programs, 10 min presentation

Asantha Cooray

 

  • 2 page Hubble like proposals

  • Feedback:

    • Show that there are other things

    • Think about coming to Decadal survey part

    • Half page of Origins and the rest dedicated to the the discovery space topic

    • This document is a larger document that the community can see

    • Prime document would not be all the discovery space write ups

    • Good to get quality tables and figures; this table needs to be organized better; organize which ones are solar system, which ones are extragalactic, bars need to be in astronomical categories; have links to full papers; table needs to be brought up a notch;

    • B.4.2 is an excellent case; sentence is well written and should be brought to the front and can make a great case

    • Needs a better introduction or needs an introduction explaining the table; what Asantha said in charge should be included in introduction; table/section should include links to white papers; themes weren't that clear; needs a quality check to make the quality better; hasnt been much mention with comparison to ALMA; Follow up to LISA is slightly weak; No mention of SKA; some were sloppy and need to be removed; currently have reasonable sampling

    • If HQ asks for table B.4-2 then add it in, this can also be included in the appendix, do not include it in the body.

      • Robin and Theona will decide on what level of information they want. They will stick to a reduced sized submission due to volume of work to be done. Will think about telling them what the uniformity will be. They both were on ASTRO 2010 and got inundated with information. They understand how much has been created.

      • Clarification of audience: For deliverable to NASA HQ, audience is Decadal (explain science vs. mission); Advice on what to distill down to a Decadal summary.

        • Think about what can be done in 12 pages

        • Triage and organization will help to get this document to a high quality

        • Contributions on HERO as an upscope to the discovery section. Why is there a discovery case for HERO?

          • This may be a dangerous thing. The plan for this is to move all upscopes to the appendix.

        • Arrive at smaller amount of pages

        • At 150 pages it will be hard to condense

        • Gathering more cases? Some will be sending in more white papers.

        • ACTION: Flag sloppy titles and instrument modes

1:30-2:00 PM

Science Traceability Matrix, STM, 5 min presentation

Dave Leisawitz

 

  • Status of OST STM is most of the way through iteration

  • @David Leisawitz provided an overview of the STM

  • May want to have a simplified version if the Decadal or HQ asks for it

  • Hard to tell what mission parameters or common to instrument segments. Need shorter table that lists performance perameters, reference to sections, so that one can see the parallell. Have discussed doing a reverse STM, a reverse matrix may help the decadle understand.

  • Need to know what level 0 science requirements, ID them and point them to the science in the document. This in term forms a technical requirement for proper systems engineering

    • @Tom Greene added that the STM seems to follow the system function engineering

    • Be careful that the mission design is not only referenced but instruments are referenced as well

    • May want to revert things to green by following up with the community, or indicate that time is one of the parameters

    • ACTION: Review yellow items to see which ones can be turned green or assess yellows

    • @Tom Greene indicated that some science was explained in detail but takes up very little time in terms of the mission. Specifying one year out of five leaves a lot of time out. In executive session, @Tom Greene can assess what is the magic spot in terms of labor hours, and provide feedback as necessary.

    • The ability to do it is what counts its not a question of the program. Be careful with having yellow boxes due to the notice-ability of technological progress needed.

      • HQ feedback or guidance will occur on Dec 4, 2018

      • The format for STM is similar to Lyncs and HabEx

    • ACTION: How much extra time is needed to convert yellows to greens in STM @David Leisawitz

2:00-2:30 PM

Design Reference Mission, DRM, 5 min presentation

Dave Leisawitz

  • DRM

    • @George Rieke (Unlicensed) doesnt think it is a design reference mission

    • Things that would go into the DRM are fundamentally missing

    • DRM seems like an explanation of what we did; assessment of science going into the mission

    • Are you using DRM to work on mission parameters

    • How did we trade on spectral resolution?

      • Compromise in having limited number of pixels

      • Long wavelength cut off

    • Need list of time estimates for discovery program, and what would be accomplished

      • Change name to sample observing program

      • Ideas on what is reasonable from an observing perspective

      • Show that Origins can do a good job with observing exoplanets

      • How much time will it take to do the science Origins is talking about

      • Make summary table of program and time allocations

        • Why 200 hours instead of 157 hours

        • Refer to observing appendix

  • Mission operations section that includes efficiency required which includes a table. They come up with data rates and discuss efficiency

  • Good to capture that we need these things done

9:20-10:00 AM

Theme 1 – extra-galactic, 10 min presentation

Matt Bradford

 

  • How to get to 1 M galaxies: Incredible diversity of galaxies, would like to chart evolution in many steps of cosmic time, have a large diversity of properties for stellar mass vs. luminosity, like to understand all galaxies to understand diversity. We need at least 100-1000 red-shift galaxies.

    • Understand question that we are trying to answer, answer as an area to justify to get the red-shift, better articulate proper bidding. Is there a justification for 1 M galaxies? Can justify this by wanting a certain number of high red-shift galaxies.

    • There is a problem here in that Origins is identifying this as a breakthrough. Look for things that are unique capabilities, for example point out breakthroughs and not just numbers.

    • Table B.1-5 and B.1-3, x-ray IR diagnostics, but when looking at diagnostic utility. Should point out what we can do with origins specifically. Interesting to see sensitivity estimates for many different types of spectra, mention large x-ray survey and what will be done here, particularly Athena.

    • Not sold on high-z being the killer app, make things more quantitative, include more tables, in these mass ranges this is the spectroscopy Origins can do

    • Make crucial galaxy at c of 6 be 10 to the 12 L of suns, at z of 6, needs to be better explained.

    • Looking at various slits Origins will have: Spectroscopy lines can be sorted, explain this more carefully.

    • Concerns about metalicity section: Quote the input on the output of certain references, oversimplifying aromatic band. Be careful in writing this section. Origins could play it as JWST will do a number of high-red shift galaxies, JWST will check all this. JWST # of galaxies is not as impressive. Would like to see a more quantitative comparison. Can Origins trace dust evolution overtime? If you are looking at AGM, not all AGM are dusty. This is a tough area to indicate. Still doing spectroscopy.

    • Case for outflows was slightly week and less persuasive, G of 5, is not that persuasive. Less persuasive if there is no spacial information; there is a write up on GO programs.

    • Should focus on the accretion.

    • Include paragraph about fitting the continuum and what Origins can do.

      • Continuum mapping of WFIRST field, think about how to combine these things.

      • FIP mapping can go big in-terms of coverage. Origins need to know which ones are more compelling.

      • Outflows were good, need more info on sensitivity red-shift, are we talking about extreme galaxcies, need to understand how metalicity fits in with JWST. Can killer app be that we will do a blind survey?

      • Can HD be used as a surrogate for….; favors depletion of HD, need to know temperature in order to model this. This may not be able to be interpreted in the galaxy.

  • Major points for @Matt Bradford :

    • Not sure how this will be condensed to 4 pages, given killer app. List questions to be addressed, show figures.

    • Size of survey needed

    • Value of what to say about infra red; dust vs. unique star formation indicators

    • Tie to JWST, Athena and WFIRST

    • Weaknesses in all cases; what should be elevated to be to form killer app?

      • This can be done with a larger sample, very powerful to enable a larger understanding, indicate that we will be able to do more modelling in the continuum.

2:30-3:00 PM

Executive Summary & Fact sheets, no presentation, just discussion

Reviewers

 

  • Adding disks into this, or whirly thing

    • Fact sheets: First one was impactful and included a lot more graphics. What is intended to be conveyed?

      • Thought about having a two page fact sheet

      • Didn’t see the obvious relationship between page 1 and 2

      • Generally like the fact sheets; make titles a little broader. Should think about wanting to engage the full community, don't get too specific too fast.

      • Should confidence levels be here or should they be moved to the executive summary

      • Flip the buttons to the opposite site on page 2 and put a black line between each one

      • Get rid of thumb nails

      • CAD drawings of cryocoolers gets in the way, include something else - include Northrop Grumman figure of compressors

      • Include detector types and number of pixels on page 2

      • Reduce plots to 2-4, include number of science themes

      • Violation of…order of magnitude…is false and needs to be removed

      • Get rid of photometric performance one

      • For exoplanet ones may be worth showing a plot

      • Just need the bottom right plot and not both

      • Some of the names are missing affiliations

      • Stay away from serviceability as appropriate. Do not include it in the fact sheet or executive summary; don’t put easy next to serviceability

      • Replace cartoons of cryocoolers; include simple thermo-diagram

      • Executive summary

        • Table of Contents is hard to follow

        • organized better

        • Introduce questions

        • Explain breadth of Origins

        • Science in technical topics were mixed too much

        • The point of this is to get people excited into the point of the mission

        • Refer to NASA science goals; are not synced; don’t feel that we are beholden to trace to NASAs science goals when the community has goals as well

          • Be careful not to overstate

          • Use energy instead of light

        • Negative language is used in a number of instances

        • The origins study team…and concluded. Use “and” instead of “but”, or “we are presenting the most cost effective telescope.”

        • Table B.1 - Thought it was a high level STM; ditch table and include high level STM or include the reverse table.

        • Turn this into a 25 page document.

      • Science Investigation/Intro

        • Use this to explain how themes came about but make the quality a lot better than what is currently there;

        • B.2 Figure - Here is where you want to pitch to broad audience

        • Section was well written, is written for a different audience, is this really the audience? Really scrub this if this is the intended audience

        • B.3 Figure is good; Pg. 31 needs to be cleaned up; Will actually allow us to do comparison between habitable zones (sounds more compelling); Need to lead with this. Figure out which one you want (need some sort of introduction).

        • ACTION: @Lisa Kaltenegger will write up her comments and send them to the team

        • These are all m-Stars; concentrating on the numbers of stars that can be probed

        • The m stars that we are probing with TESS, that we are doing Hubble & Spitzer, only Origins can do this

        • Will this ever be read by congressman? If this is excepted it needs to be readable to a lay audience (congressman)

      • Pg. 56 figure

        • Should be moved to the exoplanet section, add spectra to this

      • B.3 Section

        • Figure B.3 should have emission spectrum on top

      • Table 3-1

        • Use round numbers

        • Include how many planets can be characterized

        • B.3-4 is from high temp and high trem (double check)

        • B.3-3 change argument to the fact that we can compare; need to say that m-stars are prominent and discover-able; prioritize planets and compare rocky planets in the habitable zone of m-stars

        • B.3-2 and B.3-3 - Needs to be more compelling

        • B.3.5 - Characterize planets in transits and in light

        • B.3.6- This paragraph is small. If you take yield estimation; concentrate on m-stars that can be monitored

        • Provide more context for objectives; linking to clouds

  • Paint with a bigger stroke; feeding in with a scientific understanding

  • Need to introduce the larger questions first

  • Most common stars in the universe or most abundant stars in the universe

  • Add connection to TESS?

  • Shrink the NASA product or Decadal product? Need something above this, to capture the broader interest of community

  • Overall big thing; develop executive summary a little more

    • How did we get here?

      • How do habitable

    • Are we alone?

    • Need something similar to these questions

    • Take second question and make it more general. Create a third level.

  • Science Depth Charge

    • The graph showing ALMA vs JWST should be in front, and explain that Origins has a bigger advantage see picture

    • Painting a big picture; these capabilities will help us leverage

    • Include key figures in each section/science intro

      • Need to redo figure and make it powerful (B.1-1)

      • Water figure could be higher resolution (B.3-5)

      • Exoplanet figure should be moved to the front/executive summary

      • Show retreival results; histograms in comparison to JWST; should have 99.9% percentage about features (could be an incredibly strong case)

      • B.3-5 only shows the black body; Suggest to strengthen this figure

  • Science Quantity

    • Any concerns about flagship mission:

      • Emission lines? Great but there is a continuum, and so many variables that are going on. At least get the points down as to why this observatory? Clarification of key science for objects needs to be included (AGM, starbursts. etc)

      • Don't have killer science app

      • Lots of diagnostic information; should not lead with generic science case of star formation

      • Focus on red-shifts above 5; this strikes as being compelling; this is understated; chart a vital transition of revolutionary pieces; high-z;

      • Need a comparison sample;

      • Extragalactic

        • Feedback stuff is good; outflows

        • Higher-z case for outflows is good

        • Observing strategy; can do deeper surveys by doing better metalicity, smaller deeper surveys

        • 40 micron band in the MIP; may want to consider 50 microns which would make a killer picture

        • Compelling metal and dust content. Metalicity is more compelling than objective 1. Metalicity is more compelling.

        • Star formation in the early universe has a tremendous discovery space;

        • There is a lot of missing context for the survey part; Hershel and JWST are not acknowledged enough

        • Sensus of the early universe in Spectra; JWST can do this but Origins may be able to highlight this as well

      • Disks in habitability

        • Liked @Klaus Pontoppidan overview of this

        • Is this deep enough science for a major Flagship observatory

        • 1000 disks….blow out of the water numbers but it is not backed up

        • Need to explain or portray the data that backs up claims, take it to the next step and be prepared to do this

        • Subsections need to be evened out; uneven detail

      • Trail of water

        • Like this theme

        • Need to explain going from results of mass of disks (planet forming) didn't mean anything until denominator was mentioned; what is the relevance of total mass

        • There is a disconnect in the sections

      • Exoplanets

        • Was the most cleanly presented in terms of the science goals

        • More compelling when first starting to read it

        • There are a lot of m-stars and planets that are observable; this is not explained well in the body. Suggested refocusing this on TESS

      • Readability needs improvement

        • Need more uniformity

        • Run on sentences, figures need to be consistent,

        • Need a master editor for science, be consistent with use of OST vs. Origins. Suggested using OST

        • Thoughts are not flowing; need one voice; need a template with a consistent structure and format;

          • Exoplanet section talks about hot planets as opossed to rocky planets which goes against what was initially planned

        • Themes vs. discovery science

          • Organizing discovery space by broad science

          • Seems very uneven right now

          • Some of was good quality and some of it was bad quality

          • Should provide editor with instructions or guidance on how to do the re-write or editing

          • Need to have one editor who looks over the whole document and have a a template first

          • Have some kind of lead off for parameter space to see if they can lead of discovery space with reminder of Origins observatory being only observatory that can measure the discovery space

          • Everything mentioned about JWST may have a huge impact

            • Origins mapping speed is different than JWST but why is it important in terms of answering science questions

            • H2 is not mentioned in the report; this could be unique space

            • Find and search sentences of what they will do in the report and can do the re-write on this

          • Explain what science driven capabilities can enable

          • How should Origins balance themes vs. discovery

            • Does Origins have the right amount of time?

              • May not be able to sell a mission on 12 science goals; 3 is the maximum

              • Need mission that is flexible; but highlighting too many things confuses the audience

              • Origins to life? Water? Make Origins compellingly different from the other missions

          • Comparing case to other studies?

            • Point out strengths and go with what Origins will do uniquely

            • Give context to other missions; numerous planets in habitable zone such as m-star planets that Origins will be able to find

            • Show transit plus emergent spectra; but may get down a slope on this one; can use this as an example

            • Hard to avoid mentioning Lynx; can note potential synergy with Lynx and discuss the general synergies wit the data; mention capabilities at other wavelengths

          • How much should Origins compare science case with competitors?

          • Is report suitable for Decadal?

          • Origins involves such a wide community. Origins looks like the broadest and widest. Science needs to be integrated. This has the broadest astrophysics scope.

          • Order

            • Lead with Water, follow with exoplanets and extragalactic

          • ACTION: Collate individual tables and sections that need improvement

          • Have two really strong science objectives or three, and focus on these.

8:30-9:00 AM

Charge

 

  • Does the section capture the current state of technology accurately?

  • ACTION: Fill out one sheet in the file, specifically the table. Send it to…and he will send it to @Margaret Meixner. It is important to understand who the audience is for the roadmap. The roadmap informs people and helps them understand the investment.

  • Selling this to the astronomical community will be a lot on the technology development side. Can this be posted to the archive? The Decadal may not read and understand the full thing.

    • Discussed having a dedicated JDISS volume and discussed making one of the papers technology

    • Decadal will ask for brief part of technology road-map. Having something more accessible with more detail.

      • The report may be too difficult to understand and needs to be simplified

      • What is needed is super conducting technology roadmap for non-experts

      • Would like basic explanations of the technologies with serious references

      • Those who will make decisions about investments, will need to see a plan

      • Target audience is a group of observational astronomers and HQ managers/directors

      • There is a risk here that has to be wrestle with. A lay audience should be able to clearly understand what the challenges are.

 

 

9:00 - 9:30 AM

Mission Concept Overview

 

  • Test as you fly- Whole instrument with deployment fits in the sunshield

    • High fidelity test plan

    • Seems ambiguous

    • ACTION: Study team to look into what we mean by “test as you fly”

    • This text is on the summary chart and on the fact sheet and the brochure

  • No mission NASA does has a test as you fly

  • Serviceability

    • Is an excellent idea

    • Extending mission lifetime by swapping out instruments is an excellent idea

    • No discussion on gen 2 instruments

      • Technology roadmap will show where we've been, where we want to go with launch, and where the technology is going. This is why an instrument will be Gen-2 instrument because it takes advantage of detector technology

      • The document doesn’t mention this

      • Mention quantum capacity devices

      • Too many options in the document

      • Focal

 

 

Origins Instrument Focal Plane

 

  • Alma is more expensive due to mapping speed and field of view

  • There is an opportunity that has been missed in the science write up regarding a fifty micron survey done by JWST, which could be quite valuable for Origins

    • GOs can propose the same thing

9:30-10:10 AM

Mid-infrared detectors, 5

Tom Roellig

  • ACTION: @Margaret Meixner to email slide (to add to technology roadmap) to speaker

  • Upscope for MISC will not be considered

    • Multiplexer situation for silicon ID detectors is really scary

    • No development for IBCs, there were sketches, but we pulled them out

  • Problems

    • Putting together mission that is low risk enough to be accepted and ability to build a mission.

    • Superconducting detectors look great and safe for the proposal, but they require a great deal of responsibility in terms of having a skilled astronomer who can provide the technology necessary for their effective management

  • Do not need to go to large pixel numbers

  • ACTION: @Thomas L. Roellig will do a find and replace in the technology roadmap for references to large pixel numbers

  • Merekat challenge might be operability and small well depth

  • Operable means having low dark current not just responding to light

  • Level of discussion pertaining to discussing the issues of Merkekatt and TESS, including a complete description for non-expert showing that technology and design is coupled in with instrument design, and explain the technology roadmap and include references. Keep introduction short but accurate.

 

 

8:50-9:30 AM – Cryo-coolers, 4.5 K and Sub-Kelvin, 5 min presentation by Mike Dipirro

 

 

 

 

 

  • See PowePoint presentation

  • Make distinction….needed for other missions…any development for other missions can be leveraged

    • Turbo…have an advantage at higher powers…can deliver watts at cooling at 10 kelvin

    • Origins baseline does not count on efficiency of cryocooler

    • Origins is allowed to claim TRL based on foreign technology. JAXA has a technology cryocooler that falls within the TRL levels

    • The compressor looks like other compressors

    • 4 kelvin cryocoolers have a clear roadmap

    • ACTIONS: In selling TRL levels…need to replace CAD models

  • Our study is here to advance technology and to achieve a costable mission with as few developments as possible

  • We are developing an architecture where we dont have to make compromises…designed our system and calculared how many cryocoolers it would take to do this…moderate compromise made in going from 4 to 5 kelvin

  • Need distributed cooling? No. Design is isothermal with beryllium (segmented) mirrors and back-plane, baffle temperature is also 4.5

    • How does temperature stability require whats for FIR and for HITOMI

      • Have not worked out number for FIR?

  • Temperature stability is important to consider for Origins

    • Matts instruments has 1 ADR and 6 different arrays. Array has to have a stable temperature

    • Larger transition difference between array

    • Individual stages of high TRL should show thermal models instead of CAD models

    • Modules of high TRL may need to be scaled

  • There is a place in OST report for mirrors and instrument mechanisms

    • Should acknowledge or explain in the technology roadmap that there is engineering readiness level development to do, and real technology development is needed in respective parts

    • Caution about saying “compare to spitzer cover deployment”. Jumping 3 orders of magnitude of mass? Just needs stringers

      • F number of primary mirror? May be lower than 3. May present a few test challenges

    • ACTION: @Michael Dipirro to clarify cryocooler development in the technology roadmap

    • ACTION: @Michael Dipirro add better specifics on shoving design for coolers, detectors and magnetic field stability

 



Far-IR direct detectors, 5 min presentation by

Johannes Staguhn



  • Longer wavelengths may present a bigger challenge

  • The comparision between MKID and TES needs be better spelled out

  • When presenting a parameter make sure to explain that it meets the requirement

  • MKID and TES are suitable detector

  • In getting to 10 to the minus 20, should not understate this fact

  • Given range of spectral resolution, can you push to get a higher resolution

    • At a given wavelength, for a set of sources, the dynamic range stays the same for spectral resolution

  • Suggestion; make a table comparing two technologies showing how technologies are different, ability to make large arrays, magnetic field sensitivity so there is a strike comparison of relative strengths

  • Pixel sensors/bias; add this as a note to the report

    • Super conductor that is designed so the bias keeps it on transition temperature

  • Point out that baseline works; total power load for warm electronics is 172 watts; important to say that we can solve this with current technology by going to zylics

  • Multiplexing schemes; hybridized CDM references should not be in there

  • Kilopixel detector; 3.10 by 3.10 milimeter wafer

  • The readout section had more about MKID and not much about TES

  • Clean up connection to FIP in the final report

  • Photon counting; cant tell what the goal is with this in the write up, seems distracting

  • Was not impressed with knowing that goals can be met in five years; 1 year or 2 doesnt get us a lot of progress; present parameters as a function of calendar year (for example, presenting array pixels as a function of progress); this would give reassurance to non-experts

  • Are really dark backgrounds technology developments themselves; it is an engineering feat but it is challenging; make sure to clarify this in the report; everything hinges on TES spots; make clear how many TES spots will be needed and what the cost

 

TES Development Schedule

Mid-IR Development Scheudle

Development Schedule

 

  • ACTION: Add TRL levels to each of these

  • ACTION: Add vibration testing information

  • ACTION: Environmental and development (all the way to TRL 5-6) testing should be included in schedule before PDR

  • ACTION: Consider doing environmental testing of test articles a lot earlier

  • ACTION: Consider demonstrating an intermediate scaled up array; make the clarification that single pixel is done in an array

  • ACTION: Consider mentioning the SAT is super hermes (10 to the minus 18)

  • ACTION: Not looking for extra resources for 18 and 19

  • ACTION: Peripheral schedules for calibration sources, measuring what truth is

  • ACTION: @Thomas L. Roellig, @Johannes Staguhn & @Michael Dipirro to email @Margaret Meixner project schedules

  • ACTION: @Michael Dipirro to add numbers to development schedule

 

Executive Session

  • Reviewers

 

  • Technology Roadmap includes raw material but needs a single editor for front end that connects the strategies and technology development

  • Technology roadmap was better written

    • Technologies need to be explained in user friendly way

    • Include boxes for those who may not understand; simplify

  • Substantial reorganization needed

    • Organization doesnt carry high level technology through, rather it flips back and forth

  • No prescribed a format to follow

    • Should have overall description of technology decription for overall plan of engineering

    • Include explanatory boxes in each technology section

    • Difficulty of persuasion; unsure how to solve it

    • Have raw material for current state of art

      • Need to include plan for how to get to needed TRL

      • Not sure if QCDs should be mentioned

        • Pushing multiple generations of instruments is high risk

        • Do not want to tie mission to this boat anchor at this stage; indicate in backup that we are not precluding multiple generations of instrument

        • First generations of instrument have to do flagship science

    • The progress made since Spitzer and Herschel has been great; The message is not clear that there was a revolution here that allows Origins to push harder;

    • Clarify pitch

    • More specificity needed in development plan

    • Figure out how much this will cost and how long it will take and determine cost for technology development program

      • Strike a balance between to make mission work need a factor of three, and clarify pitch for here's what we can do

      • Do not need to over do it; define what is good enough

    • Positive Point

      • Pictures of existing detector arrays; actual sky images; showing that these do exist

      • Would be more positive by connecting what part of thinks links to certain milestones

    • When to reconvene for Red Team review?

      • End of December 2018, beginning of January 2019, Red Team review can review

        • Will send the stand alone document to Red Team for review beginning of January 2019

      • Would like comments back by Dec 10, 2018

      • Teams are working on writen ups by COB Dec 10, 2018

      • Write up is due to copy editorJan 11, 2019

      • Final report is due to HQ by end of February, 2019

    • Individual Feeback

      • @George Rieke (Unlicensed) tone should include that we should have overall description of technology for overall plan of engineering and claim what we can do great so far

      • There is some order of magnitude gain of what Origins currently has

      • @Tom Greene

        • Good description of technology and requirements

        • Roadmap fro how to get from technology to requirements is unclear

          • Include graphics and tables to help support this

        • Format

          • Include intro that relates technologies to different sections

          • Third section includes detailed description of what has to be done to get where we have to go

          • Technology for dummies can be in the form of boxes or tables

          • Restructuring so that each technology development milestone section

          • Need to include more detail in plan by describing what each milestone requires; useful to treat different development plans separately and then show down select

            • TSs need to demonstrate right thermal

    • Important to present parameters and show that these requirements meet parameters

    • Description @Matt Bradford gave would be good to add in the summary area

      • Proposing to write a MKID QCD section? No sure. @Margaret Meixner recommends separating these

      • Don’t write with the intention of thinking of what HQ should and shouldn’t do

 

 

Upscopes

 

  • Upscope technology can be an appendix that would not be apart of the main report

  • ACTION: Discuss including upscopes in appendix and separate reports offline

  • Emphasize sensitive gains to Herschel in the upscope section

  • How is the budget for technology development costing being handled? Should be separate

  • Upscope work would be done outside of NASAs budget

  • Is there an impact to other instruments in terms of mass, power and volume.

    • The design accommodates the extra size of the MISC instrument

    • CAD drawing of full observatory are for HERO

      • May be good to explain in the text that there are no definite impacts outside of this enhancement; what were showing accommodates mass, volume and power

 

 

 

 

 

Action items

Decisions