The EPIC Concept for the Inflation...

49
The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany (Minnesota), Adrian Lee (Berkeley), and Brian Keating (UCSD)

Transcript of The EPIC Concept for the Inflation...

Page 1: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe

Shaul Hanany (Minnesota)

Adrian Lee (Berkeley) and Brian Keating (UCSD)

EPIC (Jamie Bock JPL)

Coherent Receiver Concept(Mike Seifert JPL)

NASA Mission Concept Studies 2004

bull CMBPol (Gary Hinshaw Goddard)

bull EPIC (Experimental Probe of Inflationary Cosmology Jamie Bock JPL)

(Astro-ph08054207)

bull EPIC (Einstein Polarization Interferometer for Cosmology Peter Timbie Wisconsin)

NASA Mission Concept Study 2008

Two Example Missions

bull BEPAC Reviews Concept Studies bull PPPDT (~82007) leads CMB community to a unified response to NASA Solicitation

Title Here

Experimental Probe of Inflationary Cosmology (EPIC)

Jamie BockJPL Caltech

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

The EPIC ConsortiumCaltechIPAC Charles Beichman Sunil Golwala Marc Kamionkowski Andrew Lange Tim Pearson Anthony Readhead Jonas Zmuidzinas

UC BerkeleyLBNL Adrian Lee Carl Heiles Bill Holzapfel Paul Richards Helmut Spieler Huan Tran Martin White

Cardiff Walter Gear

Carnegie Mellon Jeff Peterson

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

UC Irvine Alex Amblard Asantha Cooray Manoj Kaplinghat

U Minnesota Shaul Hanany Michael Milligan Tomotake Matsumura

NIST Kent Irwin

UC San Diego Brian Keating Tom Renbarger

Stanford Sarah Church

Swales Aerospace Dustin CrumbTC Technology Terry CaffertyUSC Aluizio Prata

(Astro-ph08054207)

Science Objective

Measurement Criteria Instrument Criteria

EPIC

COMPREHENSIVE

EPIC

LC

Inflationary Gravity Waves

Detect BB to r=001 after removal of

foregrounds

bull Wp-12 lt 6 μKarcmin

bull 30 ndash 300 GHz bandsbull Control systematics to negligible levelsbull All sky coveragebull Resolution lt 1 degree

Positively detect both ℓ=5 ℓ=100 peaks

Reionization

Cosm Parameters

EE to cosmic variance limit

Same as above + Moderate angular

resolution (~5rsquo)

Neutrino mass dark energy

map lensing shear

BB to cosmic variance limit

Galactic magnetic fields

Dust + Synchrotron polarization

Science Drivers

Recommended by Weiss Committee

EPIC is a Scan-Imaging Polarimeter

Scan Modulated Polarimeters Simple technique strong established history (maxipol boomerang bicep quad) EBEX Planck-HFI Clover Polarbearhellip

Background Limited Sensitivity in a Single Technology 30 ndash 300 GHz (or more) with bolometers

High Sensitivity ~x10 better than Planck Requires large focal plane arrays High throughput optical designs Control of Systematics Goal raw effects are x10 lower than statistical noise Requirement characterize effects such as to remove below r=001

Design Approach

EPIC = Study of Two Implementations

EPIC Low Cost (LC) EPIC Comprehensive Science (CS)

Delta II Mass 13 tons

L2 orbit

Atlas VMass 35 tons

L2 orbit

~35 m

LC CS

6 x 30 cm Telescopes Single 28 meter telescope

Frequencies 30 ndash 300 GHz 30 ndash 500 GHz

Resolution 09˚ at 90 GHz 46rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 2366 Bolometers 1520 Bolometers

Lifetime 2 years 4 years

Cost $660M No assessment done

~16 m

450 ℓ Liquid

Helium

8 m

EPIC Low-Cost Mission Architecture

155 K

100 K

40 K

295 K

EPIC - LC

Half-WavePlate (2 K)

PolyethyleneLenses (2 K)

Focal Plane Bolometer Array

30 cm

Six 30 cm Telescopes at 2 K

Telescope

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]e

1 3040 155116 854 370

2 60 77 128 69

3 90 52 512 30

4 90 52 512 30

5 135 34 512 28

6 200300 2316 576576 29

01 K bolometersNET = 12 μKradicsec

Weight-1 = 25 μKarcminΔTpix=16 nK

radic2 noise margin

Passively Cooled Mirrors

28 m

Receiver amp Lenses

20 m

EPIC - CS

155 K85 K

293 K

bull 01 K bolometersbull NET = 18 μKradicsecbull Weight-1 = 28 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=16 nK

bull radic2 noise margin

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]30 155 20 170

45 103 80 73

70 66 220 38100 46 320 29

150 31 380 28

220 21 280 47

340 14 120 220

500 09 100 1900

70 GHz65 of sky

EPIC-LC2 year

Δℓℓ=03

Planck12 yearΔℓℓ=03

WMAP8 year

Δℓℓ=03

No foreground subtraction No systematic uncertainties

EPIC-CS4 year

Δℓℓ=03

Comparison of Raw Sensitivity

Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

EPIC Bolometer Sensitivity already Achieved

Courtesy of Jonas Zmuidzinas

EPIC GoalDetector Sensitivity

SCUBA2 Focal Plane (10000 TES Bolometers)

BICEP-II (512 TEPS Bolometers)Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

One SPT Wafer (~1000 TES Bolometers)

BackACT one of 3 32x32 arrays

Redundant amp Uniform Scan CoverageEPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureForeground Removal for EPIC-LC

bull Only dust + synchrotron

bull ℓ space subtraction

(Amblard et al 2007)

bull Dust + synch correlations from simulations

bull Polarization amplitude = 5 of dust intensity (model 8) or from synch

bull Polarization orientation = synchrotron traces B field

Can reach r=0003 (99 binned 2ltℓlt100)

Systematic Error Study

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Main beam Effects ndash Instrumental Polarization

Δ Beam Size FWHMEneFWHMH lt4 x 10-5

HWP in frontRefractor

Scan crossings

Δ gain GEneGH lt10-4

Δ Beam Offset PointEnePointH lt014rdquo

Δ Ellipticity eEneeH lt6 x 10-6

Sat Pointing Q U Offset lt012rdquo Gyro + tracker

Main beam Effects ndash Cross Polarization

Δ Rotation E H not orthogonal lt4rsquo HWP in frontMeasure and

SubtractPixel rotation EH rotated lt24rsquo

Opt Cross Pol Birefringence lt10-4

Scan Synchronous Signals

Sidelobes Diffraction Scattering

lt1 nK

Refractor + Baffle

Thermal drift Sun viewing angle Thermal design

Magnetic Pickup TES SQUID susceptibility ShieldingAchieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 2: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

EPIC (Jamie Bock JPL)

Coherent Receiver Concept(Mike Seifert JPL)

NASA Mission Concept Studies 2004

bull CMBPol (Gary Hinshaw Goddard)

bull EPIC (Experimental Probe of Inflationary Cosmology Jamie Bock JPL)

(Astro-ph08054207)

bull EPIC (Einstein Polarization Interferometer for Cosmology Peter Timbie Wisconsin)

NASA Mission Concept Study 2008

Two Example Missions

bull BEPAC Reviews Concept Studies bull PPPDT (~82007) leads CMB community to a unified response to NASA Solicitation

Title Here

Experimental Probe of Inflationary Cosmology (EPIC)

Jamie BockJPL Caltech

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

The EPIC ConsortiumCaltechIPAC Charles Beichman Sunil Golwala Marc Kamionkowski Andrew Lange Tim Pearson Anthony Readhead Jonas Zmuidzinas

UC BerkeleyLBNL Adrian Lee Carl Heiles Bill Holzapfel Paul Richards Helmut Spieler Huan Tran Martin White

Cardiff Walter Gear

Carnegie Mellon Jeff Peterson

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

UC Irvine Alex Amblard Asantha Cooray Manoj Kaplinghat

U Minnesota Shaul Hanany Michael Milligan Tomotake Matsumura

NIST Kent Irwin

UC San Diego Brian Keating Tom Renbarger

Stanford Sarah Church

Swales Aerospace Dustin CrumbTC Technology Terry CaffertyUSC Aluizio Prata

(Astro-ph08054207)

Science Objective

Measurement Criteria Instrument Criteria

EPIC

COMPREHENSIVE

EPIC

LC

Inflationary Gravity Waves

Detect BB to r=001 after removal of

foregrounds

bull Wp-12 lt 6 μKarcmin

bull 30 ndash 300 GHz bandsbull Control systematics to negligible levelsbull All sky coveragebull Resolution lt 1 degree

Positively detect both ℓ=5 ℓ=100 peaks

Reionization

Cosm Parameters

EE to cosmic variance limit

Same as above + Moderate angular

resolution (~5rsquo)

Neutrino mass dark energy

map lensing shear

BB to cosmic variance limit

Galactic magnetic fields

Dust + Synchrotron polarization

Science Drivers

Recommended by Weiss Committee

EPIC is a Scan-Imaging Polarimeter

Scan Modulated Polarimeters Simple technique strong established history (maxipol boomerang bicep quad) EBEX Planck-HFI Clover Polarbearhellip

Background Limited Sensitivity in a Single Technology 30 ndash 300 GHz (or more) with bolometers

High Sensitivity ~x10 better than Planck Requires large focal plane arrays High throughput optical designs Control of Systematics Goal raw effects are x10 lower than statistical noise Requirement characterize effects such as to remove below r=001

Design Approach

EPIC = Study of Two Implementations

EPIC Low Cost (LC) EPIC Comprehensive Science (CS)

Delta II Mass 13 tons

L2 orbit

Atlas VMass 35 tons

L2 orbit

~35 m

LC CS

6 x 30 cm Telescopes Single 28 meter telescope

Frequencies 30 ndash 300 GHz 30 ndash 500 GHz

Resolution 09˚ at 90 GHz 46rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 2366 Bolometers 1520 Bolometers

Lifetime 2 years 4 years

Cost $660M No assessment done

~16 m

450 ℓ Liquid

Helium

8 m

EPIC Low-Cost Mission Architecture

155 K

100 K

40 K

295 K

EPIC - LC

Half-WavePlate (2 K)

PolyethyleneLenses (2 K)

Focal Plane Bolometer Array

30 cm

Six 30 cm Telescopes at 2 K

Telescope

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]e

1 3040 155116 854 370

2 60 77 128 69

3 90 52 512 30

4 90 52 512 30

5 135 34 512 28

6 200300 2316 576576 29

01 K bolometersNET = 12 μKradicsec

Weight-1 = 25 μKarcminΔTpix=16 nK

radic2 noise margin

Passively Cooled Mirrors

28 m

Receiver amp Lenses

20 m

EPIC - CS

155 K85 K

293 K

bull 01 K bolometersbull NET = 18 μKradicsecbull Weight-1 = 28 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=16 nK

bull radic2 noise margin

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]30 155 20 170

45 103 80 73

70 66 220 38100 46 320 29

150 31 380 28

220 21 280 47

340 14 120 220

500 09 100 1900

70 GHz65 of sky

EPIC-LC2 year

Δℓℓ=03

Planck12 yearΔℓℓ=03

WMAP8 year

Δℓℓ=03

No foreground subtraction No systematic uncertainties

EPIC-CS4 year

Δℓℓ=03

Comparison of Raw Sensitivity

Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

EPIC Bolometer Sensitivity already Achieved

Courtesy of Jonas Zmuidzinas

EPIC GoalDetector Sensitivity

SCUBA2 Focal Plane (10000 TES Bolometers)

BICEP-II (512 TEPS Bolometers)Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

One SPT Wafer (~1000 TES Bolometers)

BackACT one of 3 32x32 arrays

Redundant amp Uniform Scan CoverageEPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureForeground Removal for EPIC-LC

bull Only dust + synchrotron

bull ℓ space subtraction

(Amblard et al 2007)

bull Dust + synch correlations from simulations

bull Polarization amplitude = 5 of dust intensity (model 8) or from synch

bull Polarization orientation = synchrotron traces B field

Can reach r=0003 (99 binned 2ltℓlt100)

Systematic Error Study

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Main beam Effects ndash Instrumental Polarization

Δ Beam Size FWHMEneFWHMH lt4 x 10-5

HWP in frontRefractor

Scan crossings

Δ gain GEneGH lt10-4

Δ Beam Offset PointEnePointH lt014rdquo

Δ Ellipticity eEneeH lt6 x 10-6

Sat Pointing Q U Offset lt012rdquo Gyro + tracker

Main beam Effects ndash Cross Polarization

Δ Rotation E H not orthogonal lt4rsquo HWP in frontMeasure and

SubtractPixel rotation EH rotated lt24rsquo

Opt Cross Pol Birefringence lt10-4

Scan Synchronous Signals

Sidelobes Diffraction Scattering

lt1 nK

Refractor + Baffle

Thermal drift Sun viewing angle Thermal design

Magnetic Pickup TES SQUID susceptibility ShieldingAchieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 3: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Title Here

Experimental Probe of Inflationary Cosmology (EPIC)

Jamie BockJPL Caltech

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

The EPIC ConsortiumCaltechIPAC Charles Beichman Sunil Golwala Marc Kamionkowski Andrew Lange Tim Pearson Anthony Readhead Jonas Zmuidzinas

UC BerkeleyLBNL Adrian Lee Carl Heiles Bill Holzapfel Paul Richards Helmut Spieler Huan Tran Martin White

Cardiff Walter Gear

Carnegie Mellon Jeff Peterson

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

UC Irvine Alex Amblard Asantha Cooray Manoj Kaplinghat

U Minnesota Shaul Hanany Michael Milligan Tomotake Matsumura

NIST Kent Irwin

UC San Diego Brian Keating Tom Renbarger

Stanford Sarah Church

Swales Aerospace Dustin CrumbTC Technology Terry CaffertyUSC Aluizio Prata

(Astro-ph08054207)

Science Objective

Measurement Criteria Instrument Criteria

EPIC

COMPREHENSIVE

EPIC

LC

Inflationary Gravity Waves

Detect BB to r=001 after removal of

foregrounds

bull Wp-12 lt 6 μKarcmin

bull 30 ndash 300 GHz bandsbull Control systematics to negligible levelsbull All sky coveragebull Resolution lt 1 degree

Positively detect both ℓ=5 ℓ=100 peaks

Reionization

Cosm Parameters

EE to cosmic variance limit

Same as above + Moderate angular

resolution (~5rsquo)

Neutrino mass dark energy

map lensing shear

BB to cosmic variance limit

Galactic magnetic fields

Dust + Synchrotron polarization

Science Drivers

Recommended by Weiss Committee

EPIC is a Scan-Imaging Polarimeter

Scan Modulated Polarimeters Simple technique strong established history (maxipol boomerang bicep quad) EBEX Planck-HFI Clover Polarbearhellip

Background Limited Sensitivity in a Single Technology 30 ndash 300 GHz (or more) with bolometers

High Sensitivity ~x10 better than Planck Requires large focal plane arrays High throughput optical designs Control of Systematics Goal raw effects are x10 lower than statistical noise Requirement characterize effects such as to remove below r=001

Design Approach

EPIC = Study of Two Implementations

EPIC Low Cost (LC) EPIC Comprehensive Science (CS)

Delta II Mass 13 tons

L2 orbit

Atlas VMass 35 tons

L2 orbit

~35 m

LC CS

6 x 30 cm Telescopes Single 28 meter telescope

Frequencies 30 ndash 300 GHz 30 ndash 500 GHz

Resolution 09˚ at 90 GHz 46rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 2366 Bolometers 1520 Bolometers

Lifetime 2 years 4 years

Cost $660M No assessment done

~16 m

450 ℓ Liquid

Helium

8 m

EPIC Low-Cost Mission Architecture

155 K

100 K

40 K

295 K

EPIC - LC

Half-WavePlate (2 K)

PolyethyleneLenses (2 K)

Focal Plane Bolometer Array

30 cm

Six 30 cm Telescopes at 2 K

Telescope

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]e

1 3040 155116 854 370

2 60 77 128 69

3 90 52 512 30

4 90 52 512 30

5 135 34 512 28

6 200300 2316 576576 29

01 K bolometersNET = 12 μKradicsec

Weight-1 = 25 μKarcminΔTpix=16 nK

radic2 noise margin

Passively Cooled Mirrors

28 m

Receiver amp Lenses

20 m

EPIC - CS

155 K85 K

293 K

bull 01 K bolometersbull NET = 18 μKradicsecbull Weight-1 = 28 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=16 nK

bull radic2 noise margin

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]30 155 20 170

45 103 80 73

70 66 220 38100 46 320 29

150 31 380 28

220 21 280 47

340 14 120 220

500 09 100 1900

70 GHz65 of sky

EPIC-LC2 year

Δℓℓ=03

Planck12 yearΔℓℓ=03

WMAP8 year

Δℓℓ=03

No foreground subtraction No systematic uncertainties

EPIC-CS4 year

Δℓℓ=03

Comparison of Raw Sensitivity

Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

EPIC Bolometer Sensitivity already Achieved

Courtesy of Jonas Zmuidzinas

EPIC GoalDetector Sensitivity

SCUBA2 Focal Plane (10000 TES Bolometers)

BICEP-II (512 TEPS Bolometers)Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

One SPT Wafer (~1000 TES Bolometers)

BackACT one of 3 32x32 arrays

Redundant amp Uniform Scan CoverageEPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureForeground Removal for EPIC-LC

bull Only dust + synchrotron

bull ℓ space subtraction

(Amblard et al 2007)

bull Dust + synch correlations from simulations

bull Polarization amplitude = 5 of dust intensity (model 8) or from synch

bull Polarization orientation = synchrotron traces B field

Can reach r=0003 (99 binned 2ltℓlt100)

Systematic Error Study

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Main beam Effects ndash Instrumental Polarization

Δ Beam Size FWHMEneFWHMH lt4 x 10-5

HWP in frontRefractor

Scan crossings

Δ gain GEneGH lt10-4

Δ Beam Offset PointEnePointH lt014rdquo

Δ Ellipticity eEneeH lt6 x 10-6

Sat Pointing Q U Offset lt012rdquo Gyro + tracker

Main beam Effects ndash Cross Polarization

Δ Rotation E H not orthogonal lt4rsquo HWP in frontMeasure and

SubtractPixel rotation EH rotated lt24rsquo

Opt Cross Pol Birefringence lt10-4

Scan Synchronous Signals

Sidelobes Diffraction Scattering

lt1 nK

Refractor + Baffle

Thermal drift Sun viewing angle Thermal design

Magnetic Pickup TES SQUID susceptibility ShieldingAchieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 4: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Science Objective

Measurement Criteria Instrument Criteria

EPIC

COMPREHENSIVE

EPIC

LC

Inflationary Gravity Waves

Detect BB to r=001 after removal of

foregrounds

bull Wp-12 lt 6 μKarcmin

bull 30 ndash 300 GHz bandsbull Control systematics to negligible levelsbull All sky coveragebull Resolution lt 1 degree

Positively detect both ℓ=5 ℓ=100 peaks

Reionization

Cosm Parameters

EE to cosmic variance limit

Same as above + Moderate angular

resolution (~5rsquo)

Neutrino mass dark energy

map lensing shear

BB to cosmic variance limit

Galactic magnetic fields

Dust + Synchrotron polarization

Science Drivers

Recommended by Weiss Committee

EPIC is a Scan-Imaging Polarimeter

Scan Modulated Polarimeters Simple technique strong established history (maxipol boomerang bicep quad) EBEX Planck-HFI Clover Polarbearhellip

Background Limited Sensitivity in a Single Technology 30 ndash 300 GHz (or more) with bolometers

High Sensitivity ~x10 better than Planck Requires large focal plane arrays High throughput optical designs Control of Systematics Goal raw effects are x10 lower than statistical noise Requirement characterize effects such as to remove below r=001

Design Approach

EPIC = Study of Two Implementations

EPIC Low Cost (LC) EPIC Comprehensive Science (CS)

Delta II Mass 13 tons

L2 orbit

Atlas VMass 35 tons

L2 orbit

~35 m

LC CS

6 x 30 cm Telescopes Single 28 meter telescope

Frequencies 30 ndash 300 GHz 30 ndash 500 GHz

Resolution 09˚ at 90 GHz 46rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 2366 Bolometers 1520 Bolometers

Lifetime 2 years 4 years

Cost $660M No assessment done

~16 m

450 ℓ Liquid

Helium

8 m

EPIC Low-Cost Mission Architecture

155 K

100 K

40 K

295 K

EPIC - LC

Half-WavePlate (2 K)

PolyethyleneLenses (2 K)

Focal Plane Bolometer Array

30 cm

Six 30 cm Telescopes at 2 K

Telescope

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]e

1 3040 155116 854 370

2 60 77 128 69

3 90 52 512 30

4 90 52 512 30

5 135 34 512 28

6 200300 2316 576576 29

01 K bolometersNET = 12 μKradicsec

Weight-1 = 25 μKarcminΔTpix=16 nK

radic2 noise margin

Passively Cooled Mirrors

28 m

Receiver amp Lenses

20 m

EPIC - CS

155 K85 K

293 K

bull 01 K bolometersbull NET = 18 μKradicsecbull Weight-1 = 28 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=16 nK

bull radic2 noise margin

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]30 155 20 170

45 103 80 73

70 66 220 38100 46 320 29

150 31 380 28

220 21 280 47

340 14 120 220

500 09 100 1900

70 GHz65 of sky

EPIC-LC2 year

Δℓℓ=03

Planck12 yearΔℓℓ=03

WMAP8 year

Δℓℓ=03

No foreground subtraction No systematic uncertainties

EPIC-CS4 year

Δℓℓ=03

Comparison of Raw Sensitivity

Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

EPIC Bolometer Sensitivity already Achieved

Courtesy of Jonas Zmuidzinas

EPIC GoalDetector Sensitivity

SCUBA2 Focal Plane (10000 TES Bolometers)

BICEP-II (512 TEPS Bolometers)Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

One SPT Wafer (~1000 TES Bolometers)

BackACT one of 3 32x32 arrays

Redundant amp Uniform Scan CoverageEPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureForeground Removal for EPIC-LC

bull Only dust + synchrotron

bull ℓ space subtraction

(Amblard et al 2007)

bull Dust + synch correlations from simulations

bull Polarization amplitude = 5 of dust intensity (model 8) or from synch

bull Polarization orientation = synchrotron traces B field

Can reach r=0003 (99 binned 2ltℓlt100)

Systematic Error Study

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Main beam Effects ndash Instrumental Polarization

Δ Beam Size FWHMEneFWHMH lt4 x 10-5

HWP in frontRefractor

Scan crossings

Δ gain GEneGH lt10-4

Δ Beam Offset PointEnePointH lt014rdquo

Δ Ellipticity eEneeH lt6 x 10-6

Sat Pointing Q U Offset lt012rdquo Gyro + tracker

Main beam Effects ndash Cross Polarization

Δ Rotation E H not orthogonal lt4rsquo HWP in frontMeasure and

SubtractPixel rotation EH rotated lt24rsquo

Opt Cross Pol Birefringence lt10-4

Scan Synchronous Signals

Sidelobes Diffraction Scattering

lt1 nK

Refractor + Baffle

Thermal drift Sun viewing angle Thermal design

Magnetic Pickup TES SQUID susceptibility ShieldingAchieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 5: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

EPIC is a Scan-Imaging Polarimeter

Scan Modulated Polarimeters Simple technique strong established history (maxipol boomerang bicep quad) EBEX Planck-HFI Clover Polarbearhellip

Background Limited Sensitivity in a Single Technology 30 ndash 300 GHz (or more) with bolometers

High Sensitivity ~x10 better than Planck Requires large focal plane arrays High throughput optical designs Control of Systematics Goal raw effects are x10 lower than statistical noise Requirement characterize effects such as to remove below r=001

Design Approach

EPIC = Study of Two Implementations

EPIC Low Cost (LC) EPIC Comprehensive Science (CS)

Delta II Mass 13 tons

L2 orbit

Atlas VMass 35 tons

L2 orbit

~35 m

LC CS

6 x 30 cm Telescopes Single 28 meter telescope

Frequencies 30 ndash 300 GHz 30 ndash 500 GHz

Resolution 09˚ at 90 GHz 46rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 2366 Bolometers 1520 Bolometers

Lifetime 2 years 4 years

Cost $660M No assessment done

~16 m

450 ℓ Liquid

Helium

8 m

EPIC Low-Cost Mission Architecture

155 K

100 K

40 K

295 K

EPIC - LC

Half-WavePlate (2 K)

PolyethyleneLenses (2 K)

Focal Plane Bolometer Array

30 cm

Six 30 cm Telescopes at 2 K

Telescope

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]e

1 3040 155116 854 370

2 60 77 128 69

3 90 52 512 30

4 90 52 512 30

5 135 34 512 28

6 200300 2316 576576 29

01 K bolometersNET = 12 μKradicsec

Weight-1 = 25 μKarcminΔTpix=16 nK

radic2 noise margin

Passively Cooled Mirrors

28 m

Receiver amp Lenses

20 m

EPIC - CS

155 K85 K

293 K

bull 01 K bolometersbull NET = 18 μKradicsecbull Weight-1 = 28 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=16 nK

bull radic2 noise margin

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]30 155 20 170

45 103 80 73

70 66 220 38100 46 320 29

150 31 380 28

220 21 280 47

340 14 120 220

500 09 100 1900

70 GHz65 of sky

EPIC-LC2 year

Δℓℓ=03

Planck12 yearΔℓℓ=03

WMAP8 year

Δℓℓ=03

No foreground subtraction No systematic uncertainties

EPIC-CS4 year

Δℓℓ=03

Comparison of Raw Sensitivity

Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

EPIC Bolometer Sensitivity already Achieved

Courtesy of Jonas Zmuidzinas

EPIC GoalDetector Sensitivity

SCUBA2 Focal Plane (10000 TES Bolometers)

BICEP-II (512 TEPS Bolometers)Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

One SPT Wafer (~1000 TES Bolometers)

BackACT one of 3 32x32 arrays

Redundant amp Uniform Scan CoverageEPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureForeground Removal for EPIC-LC

bull Only dust + synchrotron

bull ℓ space subtraction

(Amblard et al 2007)

bull Dust + synch correlations from simulations

bull Polarization amplitude = 5 of dust intensity (model 8) or from synch

bull Polarization orientation = synchrotron traces B field

Can reach r=0003 (99 binned 2ltℓlt100)

Systematic Error Study

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Main beam Effects ndash Instrumental Polarization

Δ Beam Size FWHMEneFWHMH lt4 x 10-5

HWP in frontRefractor

Scan crossings

Δ gain GEneGH lt10-4

Δ Beam Offset PointEnePointH lt014rdquo

Δ Ellipticity eEneeH lt6 x 10-6

Sat Pointing Q U Offset lt012rdquo Gyro + tracker

Main beam Effects ndash Cross Polarization

Δ Rotation E H not orthogonal lt4rsquo HWP in frontMeasure and

SubtractPixel rotation EH rotated lt24rsquo

Opt Cross Pol Birefringence lt10-4

Scan Synchronous Signals

Sidelobes Diffraction Scattering

lt1 nK

Refractor + Baffle

Thermal drift Sun viewing angle Thermal design

Magnetic Pickup TES SQUID susceptibility ShieldingAchieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 6: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

EPIC = Study of Two Implementations

EPIC Low Cost (LC) EPIC Comprehensive Science (CS)

Delta II Mass 13 tons

L2 orbit

Atlas VMass 35 tons

L2 orbit

~35 m

LC CS

6 x 30 cm Telescopes Single 28 meter telescope

Frequencies 30 ndash 300 GHz 30 ndash 500 GHz

Resolution 09˚ at 90 GHz 46rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 2366 Bolometers 1520 Bolometers

Lifetime 2 years 4 years

Cost $660M No assessment done

~16 m

450 ℓ Liquid

Helium

8 m

EPIC Low-Cost Mission Architecture

155 K

100 K

40 K

295 K

EPIC - LC

Half-WavePlate (2 K)

PolyethyleneLenses (2 K)

Focal Plane Bolometer Array

30 cm

Six 30 cm Telescopes at 2 K

Telescope

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]e

1 3040 155116 854 370

2 60 77 128 69

3 90 52 512 30

4 90 52 512 30

5 135 34 512 28

6 200300 2316 576576 29

01 K bolometersNET = 12 μKradicsec

Weight-1 = 25 μKarcminΔTpix=16 nK

radic2 noise margin

Passively Cooled Mirrors

28 m

Receiver amp Lenses

20 m

EPIC - CS

155 K85 K

293 K

bull 01 K bolometersbull NET = 18 μKradicsecbull Weight-1 = 28 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=16 nK

bull radic2 noise margin

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]30 155 20 170

45 103 80 73

70 66 220 38100 46 320 29

150 31 380 28

220 21 280 47

340 14 120 220

500 09 100 1900

70 GHz65 of sky

EPIC-LC2 year

Δℓℓ=03

Planck12 yearΔℓℓ=03

WMAP8 year

Δℓℓ=03

No foreground subtraction No systematic uncertainties

EPIC-CS4 year

Δℓℓ=03

Comparison of Raw Sensitivity

Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

EPIC Bolometer Sensitivity already Achieved

Courtesy of Jonas Zmuidzinas

EPIC GoalDetector Sensitivity

SCUBA2 Focal Plane (10000 TES Bolometers)

BICEP-II (512 TEPS Bolometers)Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

One SPT Wafer (~1000 TES Bolometers)

BackACT one of 3 32x32 arrays

Redundant amp Uniform Scan CoverageEPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureForeground Removal for EPIC-LC

bull Only dust + synchrotron

bull ℓ space subtraction

(Amblard et al 2007)

bull Dust + synch correlations from simulations

bull Polarization amplitude = 5 of dust intensity (model 8) or from synch

bull Polarization orientation = synchrotron traces B field

Can reach r=0003 (99 binned 2ltℓlt100)

Systematic Error Study

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Main beam Effects ndash Instrumental Polarization

Δ Beam Size FWHMEneFWHMH lt4 x 10-5

HWP in frontRefractor

Scan crossings

Δ gain GEneGH lt10-4

Δ Beam Offset PointEnePointH lt014rdquo

Δ Ellipticity eEneeH lt6 x 10-6

Sat Pointing Q U Offset lt012rdquo Gyro + tracker

Main beam Effects ndash Cross Polarization

Δ Rotation E H not orthogonal lt4rsquo HWP in frontMeasure and

SubtractPixel rotation EH rotated lt24rsquo

Opt Cross Pol Birefringence lt10-4

Scan Synchronous Signals

Sidelobes Diffraction Scattering

lt1 nK

Refractor + Baffle

Thermal drift Sun viewing angle Thermal design

Magnetic Pickup TES SQUID susceptibility ShieldingAchieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 7: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

450 ℓ Liquid

Helium

8 m

EPIC Low-Cost Mission Architecture

155 K

100 K

40 K

295 K

EPIC - LC

Half-WavePlate (2 K)

PolyethyleneLenses (2 K)

Focal Plane Bolometer Array

30 cm

Six 30 cm Telescopes at 2 K

Telescope

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]e

1 3040 155116 854 370

2 60 77 128 69

3 90 52 512 30

4 90 52 512 30

5 135 34 512 28

6 200300 2316 576576 29

01 K bolometersNET = 12 μKradicsec

Weight-1 = 25 μKarcminΔTpix=16 nK

radic2 noise margin

Passively Cooled Mirrors

28 m

Receiver amp Lenses

20 m

EPIC - CS

155 K85 K

293 K

bull 01 K bolometersbull NET = 18 μKradicsecbull Weight-1 = 28 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=16 nK

bull radic2 noise margin

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]30 155 20 170

45 103 80 73

70 66 220 38100 46 320 29

150 31 380 28

220 21 280 47

340 14 120 220

500 09 100 1900

70 GHz65 of sky

EPIC-LC2 year

Δℓℓ=03

Planck12 yearΔℓℓ=03

WMAP8 year

Δℓℓ=03

No foreground subtraction No systematic uncertainties

EPIC-CS4 year

Δℓℓ=03

Comparison of Raw Sensitivity

Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

EPIC Bolometer Sensitivity already Achieved

Courtesy of Jonas Zmuidzinas

EPIC GoalDetector Sensitivity

SCUBA2 Focal Plane (10000 TES Bolometers)

BICEP-II (512 TEPS Bolometers)Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

One SPT Wafer (~1000 TES Bolometers)

BackACT one of 3 32x32 arrays

Redundant amp Uniform Scan CoverageEPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureForeground Removal for EPIC-LC

bull Only dust + synchrotron

bull ℓ space subtraction

(Amblard et al 2007)

bull Dust + synch correlations from simulations

bull Polarization amplitude = 5 of dust intensity (model 8) or from synch

bull Polarization orientation = synchrotron traces B field

Can reach r=0003 (99 binned 2ltℓlt100)

Systematic Error Study

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Main beam Effects ndash Instrumental Polarization

Δ Beam Size FWHMEneFWHMH lt4 x 10-5

HWP in frontRefractor

Scan crossings

Δ gain GEneGH lt10-4

Δ Beam Offset PointEnePointH lt014rdquo

Δ Ellipticity eEneeH lt6 x 10-6

Sat Pointing Q U Offset lt012rdquo Gyro + tracker

Main beam Effects ndash Cross Polarization

Δ Rotation E H not orthogonal lt4rsquo HWP in frontMeasure and

SubtractPixel rotation EH rotated lt24rsquo

Opt Cross Pol Birefringence lt10-4

Scan Synchronous Signals

Sidelobes Diffraction Scattering

lt1 nK

Refractor + Baffle

Thermal drift Sun viewing angle Thermal design

Magnetic Pickup TES SQUID susceptibility ShieldingAchieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 8: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Passively Cooled Mirrors

28 m

Receiver amp Lenses

20 m

EPIC - CS

155 K85 K

293 K

bull 01 K bolometersbull NET = 18 μKradicsecbull Weight-1 = 28 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=16 nK

bull radic2 noise margin

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]δTpix

[nK]30 155 20 170

45 103 80 73

70 66 220 38100 46 320 29

150 31 380 28

220 21 280 47

340 14 120 220

500 09 100 1900

70 GHz65 of sky

EPIC-LC2 year

Δℓℓ=03

Planck12 yearΔℓℓ=03

WMAP8 year

Δℓℓ=03

No foreground subtraction No systematic uncertainties

EPIC-CS4 year

Δℓℓ=03

Comparison of Raw Sensitivity

Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

EPIC Bolometer Sensitivity already Achieved

Courtesy of Jonas Zmuidzinas

EPIC GoalDetector Sensitivity

SCUBA2 Focal Plane (10000 TES Bolometers)

BICEP-II (512 TEPS Bolometers)Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

One SPT Wafer (~1000 TES Bolometers)

BackACT one of 3 32x32 arrays

Redundant amp Uniform Scan CoverageEPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureForeground Removal for EPIC-LC

bull Only dust + synchrotron

bull ℓ space subtraction

(Amblard et al 2007)

bull Dust + synch correlations from simulations

bull Polarization amplitude = 5 of dust intensity (model 8) or from synch

bull Polarization orientation = synchrotron traces B field

Can reach r=0003 (99 binned 2ltℓlt100)

Systematic Error Study

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Main beam Effects ndash Instrumental Polarization

Δ Beam Size FWHMEneFWHMH lt4 x 10-5

HWP in frontRefractor

Scan crossings

Δ gain GEneGH lt10-4

Δ Beam Offset PointEnePointH lt014rdquo

Δ Ellipticity eEneeH lt6 x 10-6

Sat Pointing Q U Offset lt012rdquo Gyro + tracker

Main beam Effects ndash Cross Polarization

Δ Rotation E H not orthogonal lt4rsquo HWP in frontMeasure and

SubtractPixel rotation EH rotated lt24rsquo

Opt Cross Pol Birefringence lt10-4

Scan Synchronous Signals

Sidelobes Diffraction Scattering

lt1 nK

Refractor + Baffle

Thermal drift Sun viewing angle Thermal design

Magnetic Pickup TES SQUID susceptibility ShieldingAchieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 9: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

70 GHz65 of sky

EPIC-LC2 year

Δℓℓ=03

Planck12 yearΔℓℓ=03

WMAP8 year

Δℓℓ=03

No foreground subtraction No systematic uncertainties

EPIC-CS4 year

Δℓℓ=03

Comparison of Raw Sensitivity

Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

EPIC Bolometer Sensitivity already Achieved

Courtesy of Jonas Zmuidzinas

EPIC GoalDetector Sensitivity

SCUBA2 Focal Plane (10000 TES Bolometers)

BICEP-II (512 TEPS Bolometers)Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

One SPT Wafer (~1000 TES Bolometers)

BackACT one of 3 32x32 arrays

Redundant amp Uniform Scan CoverageEPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureForeground Removal for EPIC-LC

bull Only dust + synchrotron

bull ℓ space subtraction

(Amblard et al 2007)

bull Dust + synch correlations from simulations

bull Polarization amplitude = 5 of dust intensity (model 8) or from synch

bull Polarization orientation = synchrotron traces B field

Can reach r=0003 (99 binned 2ltℓlt100)

Systematic Error Study

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Main beam Effects ndash Instrumental Polarization

Δ Beam Size FWHMEneFWHMH lt4 x 10-5

HWP in frontRefractor

Scan crossings

Δ gain GEneGH lt10-4

Δ Beam Offset PointEnePointH lt014rdquo

Δ Ellipticity eEneeH lt6 x 10-6

Sat Pointing Q U Offset lt012rdquo Gyro + tracker

Main beam Effects ndash Cross Polarization

Δ Rotation E H not orthogonal lt4rsquo HWP in frontMeasure and

SubtractPixel rotation EH rotated lt24rsquo

Opt Cross Pol Birefringence lt10-4

Scan Synchronous Signals

Sidelobes Diffraction Scattering

lt1 nK

Refractor + Baffle

Thermal drift Sun viewing angle Thermal design

Magnetic Pickup TES SQUID susceptibility ShieldingAchieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 10: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

EPIC Bolometer Sensitivity already Achieved

Courtesy of Jonas Zmuidzinas

EPIC GoalDetector Sensitivity

SCUBA2 Focal Plane (10000 TES Bolometers)

BICEP-II (512 TEPS Bolometers)Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

One SPT Wafer (~1000 TES Bolometers)

BackACT one of 3 32x32 arrays

Redundant amp Uniform Scan CoverageEPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureForeground Removal for EPIC-LC

bull Only dust + synchrotron

bull ℓ space subtraction

(Amblard et al 2007)

bull Dust + synch correlations from simulations

bull Polarization amplitude = 5 of dust intensity (model 8) or from synch

bull Polarization orientation = synchrotron traces B field

Can reach r=0003 (99 binned 2ltℓlt100)

Systematic Error Study

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Main beam Effects ndash Instrumental Polarization

Δ Beam Size FWHMEneFWHMH lt4 x 10-5

HWP in frontRefractor

Scan crossings

Δ gain GEneGH lt10-4

Δ Beam Offset PointEnePointH lt014rdquo

Δ Ellipticity eEneeH lt6 x 10-6

Sat Pointing Q U Offset lt012rdquo Gyro + tracker

Main beam Effects ndash Cross Polarization

Δ Rotation E H not orthogonal lt4rsquo HWP in frontMeasure and

SubtractPixel rotation EH rotated lt24rsquo

Opt Cross Pol Birefringence lt10-4

Scan Synchronous Signals

Sidelobes Diffraction Scattering

lt1 nK

Refractor + Baffle

Thermal drift Sun viewing angle Thermal design

Magnetic Pickup TES SQUID susceptibility ShieldingAchieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 11: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

SCUBA2 Focal Plane (10000 TES Bolometers)

BICEP-II (512 TEPS Bolometers)Two EBEX Wafers (~1500 TES Bolometers )

One SPT Wafer (~1000 TES Bolometers)

BackACT one of 3 32x32 arrays

Redundant amp Uniform Scan CoverageEPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureForeground Removal for EPIC-LC

bull Only dust + synchrotron

bull ℓ space subtraction

(Amblard et al 2007)

bull Dust + synch correlations from simulations

bull Polarization amplitude = 5 of dust intensity (model 8) or from synch

bull Polarization orientation = synchrotron traces B field

Can reach r=0003 (99 binned 2ltℓlt100)

Systematic Error Study

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Main beam Effects ndash Instrumental Polarization

Δ Beam Size FWHMEneFWHMH lt4 x 10-5

HWP in frontRefractor

Scan crossings

Δ gain GEneGH lt10-4

Δ Beam Offset PointEnePointH lt014rdquo

Δ Ellipticity eEneeH lt6 x 10-6

Sat Pointing Q U Offset lt012rdquo Gyro + tracker

Main beam Effects ndash Cross Polarization

Δ Rotation E H not orthogonal lt4rsquo HWP in frontMeasure and

SubtractPixel rotation EH rotated lt24rsquo

Opt Cross Pol Birefringence lt10-4

Scan Synchronous Signals

Sidelobes Diffraction Scattering

lt1 nK

Refractor + Baffle

Thermal drift Sun viewing angle Thermal design

Magnetic Pickup TES SQUID susceptibility ShieldingAchieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 12: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Redundant amp Uniform Scan CoverageEPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureForeground Removal for EPIC-LC

bull Only dust + synchrotron

bull ℓ space subtraction

(Amblard et al 2007)

bull Dust + synch correlations from simulations

bull Polarization amplitude = 5 of dust intensity (model 8) or from synch

bull Polarization orientation = synchrotron traces B field

Can reach r=0003 (99 binned 2ltℓlt100)

Systematic Error Study

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Main beam Effects ndash Instrumental Polarization

Δ Beam Size FWHMEneFWHMH lt4 x 10-5

HWP in frontRefractor

Scan crossings

Δ gain GEneGH lt10-4

Δ Beam Offset PointEnePointH lt014rdquo

Δ Ellipticity eEneeH lt6 x 10-6

Sat Pointing Q U Offset lt012rdquo Gyro + tracker

Main beam Effects ndash Cross Polarization

Δ Rotation E H not orthogonal lt4rsquo HWP in frontMeasure and

SubtractPixel rotation EH rotated lt24rsquo

Opt Cross Pol Birefringence lt10-4

Scan Synchronous Signals

Sidelobes Diffraction Scattering

lt1 nK

Refractor + Baffle

Thermal drift Sun viewing angle Thermal design

Magnetic Pickup TES SQUID susceptibility ShieldingAchieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 13: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Systematic Error Study

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Main beam Effects ndash Instrumental Polarization

Δ Beam Size FWHMEneFWHMH lt4 x 10-5

HWP in frontRefractor

Scan crossings

Δ gain GEneGH lt10-4

Δ Beam Offset PointEnePointH lt014rdquo

Δ Ellipticity eEneeH lt6 x 10-6

Sat Pointing Q U Offset lt012rdquo Gyro + tracker

Main beam Effects ndash Cross Polarization

Δ Rotation E H not orthogonal lt4rsquo HWP in frontMeasure and

SubtractPixel rotation EH rotated lt24rsquo

Opt Cross Pol Birefringence lt10-4

Scan Synchronous Signals

Sidelobes Diffraction Scattering

lt1 nK

Refractor + Baffle

Thermal drift Sun viewing angle Thermal design

Magnetic Pickup TES SQUID susceptibility ShieldingAchieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 14: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Main beam Effects ndash Instrumental Polarization

Δ Beam Size FWHMEneFWHMH lt4 x 10-5

HWP in frontRefractor

Scan crossings

Δ gain GEneGH lt10-4

Δ Beam Offset PointEnePointH lt014rdquo

Δ Ellipticity eEneeH lt6 x 10-6

Sat Pointing Q U Offset lt012rdquo Gyro + tracker

Main beam Effects ndash Cross Polarization

Δ Rotation E H not orthogonal lt4rsquo HWP in frontMeasure and

SubtractPixel rotation EH rotated lt24rsquo

Opt Cross Pol Birefringence lt10-4

Scan Synchronous Signals

Sidelobes Diffraction Scattering

lt1 nK

Refractor + Baffle

Thermal drift Sun viewing angle Thermal design

Magnetic Pickup TES SQUID susceptibility ShieldingAchieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 15: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

EPIC-LC Systematic Error Mitigation

Systematic Description Goal Mitigation

Thermal Stability

40 K Baffle

Varying power from thermal emission

5 mKradicHz

5 μK ss

Temperature Control2 K Optics 500 μKradicHz

1 μK ss

01 K Focal Plane Thermal signal induced in detectors

200 nKradicHz 05 nK ss

Other

1f Noise Detector + readout gain drift

0016 Hz Demonstrate or faster scan or

modulate HWP

Passband Mismatch Variation in Filters Δνcνclt10-4 Measure to required

level

Gain Error Relative responsivity uncertainty

Δνcνclt10-4 Orbit-modulated dipole

Achieved Requires spaceTested by sub-orbital experiments

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 16: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~03 rph)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Sun Earth

Moon

SE L2

45deg55deg

Orbit

Why Space

- All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 17: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 m

inu

te3

min

ute

s1

ho

ur

Scan Coverage

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 18: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Scan Strategy

Sun-Spacecraft Axis

45˚

DownlinkTo Earth

Spin A

xis

(~1

rpm

)

Op

tica

l Axi

s

Precession(~1 rph)

55˚

1 Day Maps

Spatial Coverage

Angular Uniformity

More than half the sky in a single day

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 19: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Redundant amp Uniform Scan Coverage

Planck

WMAP

EPIC

N-hits (1-day) Angular Uniformity (6-months)

ltcos 2βgt2 + ltsin 2βgt2 0 1

EPIC Low-Cost Mission ArchitectureScan Strategy

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 20: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

BICEP Measurements Sky at 100 GHz

Levels below 3 nK for most of the sky

Far-Sidelobe Performance

~ 20 polarized

3nK

10

100

30

1 microK

10

100

1e3

1e4

1e5

Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

BICEP Sidelobe Performance

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 21: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

EPIC Polarization Modulators

bull EPIC-LC ndash 6 single-band stepped HWPsndash 45˚ Steps every 24 hours

ndash Upscope continuous HWP

bull EPIC-C ndash Focal Plane Modulators

90 GHz Band

200300 GHz Band

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 22: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

EPIC Systematics Survey

bull Brian Keating Meir Shimon Nicolas Ponthieu Eric Hivon amp Jamie Bock

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 23: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

bull EPIC SystematicsMission Concept Study

Bock et al -- astro-ph 08054207)bull Simulated both 5rsquo ldquoLow Costrdquo and 60rsquo ldquoCSrdquo missions

bull Largely based on Shimon Keating Ponthieu amp Hivon 2008 (PRD v77)

bull Found excellent agreement with map-domain approach (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

bull Have adapted EPIC pipeline for effects on secondary science as well as primary B modes (Miller Shimon amp Keating astro-ph08063096)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 24: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Systematic effects in real space

differential FWHM (monopole effect)

differential beam offset (dipole IP effect)

differential ellipticity (quadrupole effect)

differential gain (monopole effect)

Irreducible

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 25: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Definitions

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 26: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Scaling Laws

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 27: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Spin Classification of Systematics

bull The various spin characteristics and the mismatch with the required quadrupole allude to the role of scanning strategy

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 28: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Irreducible Beam SystematicDifferential Ellipticity

Diff ellipticity

For an unpolarized point source

-

=

T1 T2

Intrinsic on the sky

-

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 29: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Ellipticity (Inst Polarization)

e

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 30: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

B-Mode Polarization (1deg) Differential Rotation (Cross Polarization)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 31: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Reducible Beam SystematicDifferential Pointing (Instrumental Polarization)

Diff pointing

For an unpolarized point source

=

T1 T2

-

NB Both Differential ellipticity and pointing have an orientation angle which determines what fraction is converted to E or B

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 32: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

EPIC Pipeline Comparison

Map-domain (Ponthieu amp Hivon)

Frequency Domain(Shimon Keating Miller)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 33: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Requirements and Goals - LC Results

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 34: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

37 37

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 35: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Uniformity of Scan Strategy

K Gorski Ponthieu Hivon

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 36: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Systematic Error Mitigation

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 37: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Post-scanning Idealization

bull Differential gain beamwidth couple to the quadrupole of the scanning strategy

bull Differential pointing couples to the dipolebull Experiments with reasonable scanning

can benefit from throwing out the dipole and quadrupole from the data

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 38: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

ideal

Scan Strategy Issues amp EPIC Work TBD

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 39: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

ideal

Removing the dipole

ldquoRemoving the dipole refers to the multipoles of the scanning strategy NOT to be confused with the dipolersquorsquo and ldquoquadrupolerdquo beam systematic effect

Removing the dipole of the scanning strategy eliminates the first order pointing error

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 40: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

ideal

Removing the

quadrupole

bullRemoving the quadrupole asymmetry from the scanning strategy eliminates the differential gain and differential beamwidth effects

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 41: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

ldquoMediumrdquo Scale Mission

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 42: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

EPIC Challenges

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 43: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

In Search of an Optimum

EPIC ndash LC(30 cm aperture)

EPIC ndash CS(~3 meter aperture)

CostScientific Scope

Beam Effects Scan Speed vs Stability

Multichroic Refracting optics

How to Broaden Scientific Scope with

Minimal Cost Increase

What is the Optimal Angular

Resolution

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 44: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

A 2 meter Mission Concept

bull 01 K TEPS bolometersbull NET = 16 μKradicsecbull Weight = 25 μKarcminbull ΔTpix=15 nK

bull radic2 noise marginbull No Waveplate =gt focal

plane modulators

Single ~2 meter aperture

Frequencies 30 ndash 850 GHz

Resolution 8rsquo at 100 GHz

Detectors 1620 Bolometers

Lifetime 4 years

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]

30 26 20

45 17 80

70 11 220

100 8 320

150 5 380

220 35 280

340 23 120

500 15 100

850 09 100 Galactic Science Band

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 45: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Freq[GHz]

θFWHM

[arcmin]

Nbol

[]AΩband

[cm2 sr]a

AΩmaxband

[cm2 sr]b

NET [microKradics] wp-12

[microK-arcmin]

δTpix

[nK]bolo band

30 26 20 80 2000 78 18 27 160

45 17 80 150 960 66 73 11 66

70 11 220 170 480 55 37 57 34

100 8 320 120 310 49 27 42 25

150 5 380 60 140 47 24 37 22

220 35 280 20 70 51 31 47 28

340 23 120 4 15 82 75 12 68

500 15 100 15 5 220 22 34 (02)f 200

850 09 100 05 08 4500 450 690 (004)f 4000

Total 1620 610 14 21 12

Focal plane temperature T0 01 K Optical efficiency ηopt 40

Lens temperature Tlens 4 K Fractional bandwidth Δνν 30

Mirror temperature Topt 4 K Noise margin 1414

Mirror emissivity at 1 mm ε 10 Mission lifetime Tlife 4 years

Bolometer pitch dfλ 325 TES safety factor PsatQ 5

Sensitivity Numbers for Science Workshop 2 m

aFocal plane is nested with highest frequency bands in center lowest frequency bands at edge bTotal unabberated throughput if entire telescope uses one band onlycSensitivity of one bolometer (TCMB) in combined band using 2 bolometers per pixeldwp

-12 = [8π NETbolo2(Tmis Nbol)]12 (10800π)

eSensitivity δTCMB in a 2˚ x 2˚ pixel (1σ)fPoint source sensitivity in mJy (1σ) per beam without confusion

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 46: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Summary

bull EPIC ndash two ( three) realizations of a CMB inflation probe

bull Need input on ndash Optimization of angular resolution vs science deliverables

bull Neutrino mass limit vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Dark energy constraints vs angular resolution (or weight)bull Ancillary science vs angular resolution frequency coveragebull hellip

ndash Sensitivitybull How much is good enough Do we need more

ndash Frequency Coveragebull Is a 300 GHz band necessary bull Is a 30 GHz band necessary

ndash Is a very precise temperature measurement important bull eg Non-gaussianity

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations

Page 47: The EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probecmbpol.uchicago.edu/workshops/systematic2008/depot/epic.pdfThe EPIC Concept for the Inflation Probe Shaul Hanany ... Peter Timbie, Wisconsin)

Systematic Error Conclusionsbull Some experimental approaches are generically good modulate

polarization wout modulating beam shape low 1f noise low polarization rotation through optics low sidelobes

bull In reality different instrument designs trade-off between different sources of systematic errors

bull many sources are instrument + scan strategy specific and they Interact in a complicated way with overall design

bull Not clear that the issue of systematic errors gives preference for one design over another

bull All designs will require careful analysis of calibration and systematic error mitigation

bull To date no CMB experiment has fallen short of expectations because of systematic limitations