Tilo wasn't sure of what to do about the review. Instructions weren't clear enough. Tilo was confused about scope of what they were evaluating per Luke as well.
In practice, a few points:
Look at all positioning of diagnostics and how to control, protect that. ATLAS, imaging, etc. Controls, procedures, etc. Be cautious about it.
We hadn't fully de-conflicted in the review
SOP and pinhole cameras (in scope to comment on this?). Probably mostly affects requirements for what benches are around.
Pinhole and streak camera diagnostics to compare timing and alignment - not so straightforward to implement except for maybe a low-res fixed one.
Learn lessons for PDR:
The committee needs to be ready. Doesn't much need scientific input.
Charge needs to be clearer perhaps. I speculate that they could be less
Did we really need a review for this work? We wanted to mark a line.
Vetting through a review had the knock-on effect of forcing us to think through some things that we might not have.
New requirements organization
Global requirements document is the place for science needs. Doesn't need to be stated in terms of the old flagship experiments
Beginning to discuss with intern Jennifer to prepare work on .
CST code... Amir asked by Mikael to have review. Next week will go over plan.
MEC-U workshop topics
Discussion of possible white papers
This comes to mind in describing a risk or a novel solution that may not be currently incorporated in our thinking. E.g. contrast and rep rated plasma mirrors
Prior workshop topic notes:
December
Assumptions to get feedback on:what does it mean not to precludedynamic tomography. ← this is a new workshop with those who came up with the idea plus maybe Diling, other X-ray experts: Diling, Corey, Rick Kraus team (originators Stefan, etc.), Sandberg, Ulf, David Montgomery, Luke, Arianna
Kai has proposal for how to define this, which could be discussed.
Recall original working groups. Need to go beyondthis.
DELFI - what does it mean not to preclude this science case vs engineering issues (we will likely get a spectrum of definitions)?
Question: additional science use cases? - possibly, for higher refinement
Reviewing the current response to our requirements and see what iteration is needed.
Could make sense to have a longer UAP meeting with more detail on trade-offs
Don't make it just about getting through the slides: more interactive