slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Experimental Probe of Inflationary Cosmology (EPIC)

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 34

Experimental Probe of Inflationary Cosmology (EPIC) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 115 Views
  • Uploaded on

Experimental Probe of Inflationary Cosmology (EPIC). Jamie Bock JPL / Caltech. UC Irvine Alex Amblard Asantha Cooray Manoj Kaplinghat U Minnesota Shaul Hanany Tomotake Matsumura Michael Milligan NIST Kent Irwin UC San Diego Brian Keating Tom Renbarger Stanford Sarah Church

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Experimental Probe of Inflationary Cosmology (EPIC)' - bayle


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Experimental Probe of Inflationary Cosmology (EPIC)

Jamie Bock

JPL / Caltech

UC Irvine

Alex Amblard

Asantha Cooray

Manoj Kaplinghat

U Minnesota

Shaul Hanany

Tomotake Matsumura

Michael Milligan

NIST

Kent Irwin

UC San Diego

Brian Keating

Tom Renbarger

Stanford

Sarah Church

Swales Aerospace

Dustin Crumb

TC Technology

Terry Cafferty

USC

Aluizio Prata

The EPIC Consortium

JPL

Peter Day

Clive Dickenson

Darren Dowell

Mark Dragovan

Todd Gaier

Krzysztof Gorski

Warren Holmes

Jeff Jewell

Bob Kinsey

Charles Lawrence

Rick LeDuc

Erik Leitch

Steven Levin

Mark Lysek

Sara MacLellan

Hien Nguyen

Ron Ross

Celeste Satter

Mike Seiffert

Hemali Vyas

Brett Williams

Caltech/IPAC

Charles Beichman

Sunil Golwala

Marc Kamionkowski

Andrew Lange

Tim Pearson

Anthony Readhead

Jonas Zmuidzinas

UC Berkeley/LBNL

Adrian Lee

Carl Heiles

Bill Holzapfel

Paul Richards

Helmut Spieler

Huan Tran

Martin White

Cardiff

Walter Gear

Carnegie Mellon

Jeff Peterson

U Chicago

John Carlstrom

Clem Pryke

U Colorado

Jason Glenn

UC Davis

Lloyd Knox

Dartmouth

Robert Caldwell

Fermilab

Scott Dodelson

IAP

Ken Ganga

Eric Hivon

IAS

Jean-Loup Puget

Nicolas Ponthieu

slide2

US Activities and Opportunities

  • NASA funded 3 mission studies for the Einstein “Inflation Probe” in 2003
    • Envisioned as $350-$500M mission, launch 2010 & every 3 years
    • Since 2003 there have been some programmatic changes at NASA…
    • Oral reports were given at NASA HQ this month
    • Written reports are still being drafted
  • Task Force For CMB Research (Weiss Committee) in 2005
    • Programmatic and technical roadmap to a 2018 launch for US agencies
    • Two mission options described
    • Sets mission guidelines: r = 0.01 is science goal
  • NRC panel to recommend first Beyond Einstein mission to NASA
    • First Beyond Einstein mission funding is to turn on 2008-9
    • CMBPOL, Con-X, LISA, JDEM (aka SNAP), and Black Hole Finder
    • Recommendation based on “scientific merit and technical readiness”
    • NRC also to recommend areas for technology funding for next 4 BE missions
    • Three CMBPOL study teams will organize a single presentation to NRC
  • MIDEX call expected in October 2007
    • Expected cap $220 - $260M including launch vehicle and 30 % cost reserve
    • Launch 2013 - 2015
    • International participation in MIDEX’s limited in the past (~30 %)
    • Unknown if NASA would change the rules for this AO... probablyunlikely
slide3

Two Mission Scenarios for CMBPOL

  • Gravitational-Wave BB Polarization
  • Clear Justification for Space Mission
  • - Large angular scales required
  • Modest Mission Parameters
  • - Enough sensitivity to hit lensing limit
  • - Angular resolution to probe ℓ = 100
  • - Broad frequency coverage
  • High-ℓ Science
  • Lensing BB signal
  • - How deeply can we remove lensing?
  • - Will foregrounds limit us first?
  • - How much more science do we get?
  • - Do we need to go to space for this?
  • EE power spectrum to cosmic variance
  • - Much will be done from the ground

T

Scalars

Dust

E

r = 0.3

B

Synch

IGWs

Cosmic Shear

r = 0.01

B

slide4

EPIC is a Scan-Imaging Polarimeter

Scan detectors across sky to build CMB map

Simple technique. Established history in CMB.

Scaling to higher sensitivity →Only need better arrays

Adapt this technique for precision polarimetry

Two mission concepts*

Low Cost: High-TRL, low-resolution, sufficient capability

Comprehensive Science: Larger aperture, new arrays

*See Weiss Committee TFCR Report: astro-ph 0604101

Boomerang

BICEP

Planck

Polarbear

Maxipol

QUaD

EBEX

Spider

PLANNED

FUTURE

PAST

ACTIVE

slide5

Optical Axis

Spin Axis

(~1 rpm)

Orbit

55°

Moon

45°

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~1 rph)

Sun

Earth

SE L2

Why Space?

- All-Sky Coverage

- High Sensitivity

- Systematic Error Control

- Broad Frequency Coverage

slide7

Spin Axis

(~1 rpm)

55˚

Optical Axis

Precession

(~1 rph)

45˚

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

Downlink

To Earth

Scan Strategy

Scan Coverage

1 minute

3 minutes

1 hour

slide8

Spin Axis

(~1 rpm)

55˚

Optical Axis

Precession

(~1 rph)

45˚

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

Downlink

To Earth

Scan Strategy

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day!

slide9

Redundant & Uniform Scan Coverage

N-hits (1-day)

Angular Uniformity* (6-months)

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

1

0

*<cos2b>2 + <sin 2b>2

slide10

EPIC Low Cost Mission Architecture

Liquid Helium Cryostat (450 ℓ)

30/40 GHz

60 GHz

2 x 90 GHz

135 GHz

200/300 GHz

Deployed

Sunshield

Six 30 cm Telescopes

Commercial

Spacecraft

Solar Panels

Absorbing Forebaffle

40 K

Half-Wave Plate

2 K Refracting Optics

100 mK Focal Plane Array

100 K

155 K

295 K

8 m

3-Stage V-Groove Radiator

Delta 2925H 3-m

Toroidal-Beam Antenna

slide17

Comprehensive Science Mission Architecture

40 K

Passively Cooled Mirrors

2.8 m

Receiver & Lenses

85 K

155 K

293 K

3-Axis S/C

Solar Panels

Gimballed Antenna

3-Stage Sunshield

Wrap-Rib Deployment

LHe Dewar

or Cryocooler

3-Stage V-Groove

Atlas V 551

20 m

sensitivity with existing detector arrays
Sensitivity with Existing Detector Arrays

EPIC Projected Bands and Sensitivities

Absorbing

Baffle (40 K)

Half-Wave

Plate (2 K)

*Design Sensitivity †Goal Sensitivity

30 cm

Aperture

Stop (2 K)

Note modest detector improvement over Planck due

to relaxed time constant specification & 2 K optics

Polyethylene

Lenses (2 K)

Planck Projected Sensitivities

Telecentric

Focus

Focal Plane Bolometer Array

(100 mK)

slide19

NTD Bolometers for Planck & Herschel

143 GHz Spider-web Bolometer

Planck/HFI focal plane (52 bolometers)

NTD Germanium

SPIRELow-power JFETs

Herschel/SPIRE Bolometer Array

slide20

Antenna-Coupled Bolometers for EPIC

Measured Beam Patterns

X-polarization

Y-polarization

8 mm

Measured Spectral Response

High Optical

Efficiency!

Single Pixel – Dual Pol at 150 GHz (JPL/CIT)

Advantages

Small active volume.. 30 – 300 GHz operation

Beam collimation…... Eliminates discrete feeds

Reduced focal plane mass

Intrinsic filters…….... No discrete components

Kuo et al. SPIE 2006

low cost mission high technology readiness
Low-Cost Mission: High Technology Readiness

New technologies bring enhanced capabilities…

Antenna-Coupled TES / MKID detectors Higher sensitivity, less mass & power

Continuously rotating waveplate Better beam control

Continuous ADR Less mass, no interruptions

…but we have the technology to do this mission today

slide22

TES Bolometer Arrays

SQUID Multiplexing

Advantages

Multiplexing……. Larger array formats

Higher sensitivity

Fewer wires to 100 mK

Low cryogenic power disp.

Faster response... Useful for larger aperture

Freq. Domain (UCB/LBNL)

Time Domain (NIST)

SCUBA2 Focal Plane (10,000 TES Bolometers)

Antenna-Coupled TES Bolometers (UCB/LBNL)

low cost mission focal plane options
Low-Cost Mission Focal Plane Options

Input Assumptions

Fractional bandwidth Dn/n = 30 % Optical efficiency h = 40 %

Focal plane temperature = 100 mK Optics temperature = 2 K, with 10 % coupling

Waveplate temperature = 20 K, with 2 % coupling Baffle at 40 K with 0.3 % coupling (measured)

Psat/Q = 5 for TES bolometers G0 = 10 Q / T0 for NTD bolometers

1Sensitivity with 2 noise margin in a 1-year mission

2Calculated sensitivity in 2-year design life

3Two bolometers per focal plane pixel

4Sensitivity of one bolometer in a focal plane pixel

5Sensitiivity dT in a pixel qFWHM x qFWHM times qFWHM

6Sensitivity dT in a 120′ x 120′ pixel

7Combining all bands together

slide24

Systematic Error Mitigation Strategy

* = Already demonstrated to EPIC requirement

† = Proof of operation but needs improvement

‡ = Planned demonstration to EPIC requirement

wide field refracting optics
Wide-Field Refracting Optics
  • Wide unaberrated FOV
  • Excellent main beams
  • Telecentric focus
  • Waveplate = first optic
  • Ultra-low sidelobes
  • Field tested in BICEP

BICEP

wide field refracting optics1
Wide-Field Refracting Optics

BICEP

*Strehl ratio > 0.95

slide27

Polarization Systematics: Main Beams

Main Beam Instrumental Polarization Effects

  • Calculation
  • Difference PSB beam pairs
  • Parameterize main beam effects
  • Convolve w/ scan pattern
  • Calculate resulting power spectrum
  • Caveats
  • Calculation is conservative → single pixel
  • We can always apply post facto correction
  • Waveplate eliminates these effects

Differential FWHM

Differential Gain, Rotation

Differential Beam Offset

Differential Ellipticity

slide30

Main Beam Properties at 135 GHz

Performance at FOV Center

*Goal: Suppress effect without correction below noise

**Req’t: Suppress effect with correction below r = 0.01

†Calc: Worst performance over the FOV at 135 GHz

‡Meas: Median value measured in BICEP receiver

PSF

Performance at FOV Edge

Difference Beam

PSF

Difference Beam

slide32

1e5

1e4

1e3

100

10

1 mK

100

30

10

3nK

Far-Sidelobe Performance

Sky at 100 GHz

BICEP Measurements

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

~ 20% polarized

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky!

slide33

EPIC

WMAP-8

Planck

Foregrounds - What We Know Today

Input Sky Model

Sensitivity per 14′ Pixel

75% of sky

75% of sky

  • 2. Multi-band Removal
  • Fit only synch & thermal dust
  • Fit components spectrally
  • Let indicies float spatially
  • 1. Input Sky Model
  • All components we
  • know about today

2% patch

2% patch

Eriksen et al. 2006

Resulting Sensitivity After Subtraction

  • 3. Results
  • Removal gives a modest sensitivity loss
  • Better sensitivity → better subtraction (model is linear)
  • 4. Conclusion: FGs Look Manageable!
  • Preliminary. We might find a new component tomorrow
  • We don’t know where a linear model fails

nKCMB in 2˚ pixels

slide34

Conclusions

Exciting CMB science in the post-Planck era

§ Clear role for gravitational-wave polarization science in space

§ High-ℓ science compelling but need for space is less robust

Imaging polarimeter approach

§ Technically and scientifically feasible

§ Simple technique, established history.

§Simple scaling to higher sensitivity: improve the focal plane.

§ Design in extensive control of systematics from the beginning

§ Low-Cost option → meets Weiss Committee guidelines for GW science

§ Comprehensive Science option → more capable, more science, more $

Foregrounds

§ What we know today about polarized foreground shows they can

be subtracted below r = 0.01

Technologies

§ We can build a very capable mission today with existing technology

§ New technologies will improve the mission & reduce technical risk

ad