1. Title Here Experimental Probe of Inflationary Cosmology (EPIC) Jamie Bock JPL / 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 Consortium Caltech/IPAC Charles Beichman Sunil Golwala Marc Kamionkowski Andrew Lange Tim Pearson Anthony Readhead Jonas Zmuidzinas UC Berkeley/LBNL Adrian Lee Carl Heiles Bill Holzapfel Paul Richards Helmut Spieler Huan Tran Martin White Cardiff Walter Gear Carnegie Mellon Jeff Peterson 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 Tomotake Matsumura Michael Milligan NIST Kent Irwin UC San Diego Brian Keating Tom Renbarger Stanford Sarah Church Swales Aerospace Dustin Crumb TC Technology Terry Cafferty USC Aluizio Prata

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

3. Title Here Two Mission Scenarios for CMBPOL Gravitational-Wave BB Polarization Clear Justification for Space Mission - Large angular scales required Modest Mission Parameters - Enough sensitivity to hit lensing limit - Angular resolution to probe ℓ = 100 - Broad frequency coverage High-ℓ Science Lensing BB signal - How deeply can we remove lensing? - Will foregrounds limit us first? - How much more science do we get? - Do we need to go to space for this? EE power spectrum to cosmic variance - Much will be done from the ground T E B B Scalars IGWs r = 0.01 Dust Synch r = 0.3 Cosmic Shear

4. Title Here FUTUREPLANNED ACTIVE EPIC is a Scan-Imaging Polarimeter Scan detectors across sky to build CMB map Simple technique. Established history in CMB. Scaling to higher sensitivity → Only need better arrays Adapt this technique for precision polarimetry Two mission concepts* Low Cost: High-TRL, low-resolution, sufficient capability Comprehensive Science: Larger aperture, new arrays *See Weiss Committee TFCR Report: astro-ph 0604101 Planck Boomerang BICEP QUaD Polarbear Maxipol PAST EBEXSpider

5. Title Here Spin Axis (~1 rpm) Sun-Spacecraft Axis (~1 rph) Optical Axis Sun Earth Moon SE L2 45° 55° Orbit Why Space? - All-Sky Coverage - High Sensitivity - Systematic Error Control - Broad Frequency Coverage

6. Title Here

7. Scan Strategy Sun-Spacecraft Axis 45˚ Downlink To Earth Precession (~1 rph) 55˚ 1 minute 3 minutes 1 hour Scan Coverage

8. Title Here Scan Strategy Sun-Spacecraft Axis 45˚ Downlink To Earth Precession (~1 rph) 55˚ 1 Day Maps Spatial Coverage Angular Uniformity More than half the sky in a single day!

9. Title Here Redundant & Uniform Scan Coverage Planck WMAP EPIC N-hits (1-day)Angular Uniformity* (6-months) * 2 + 2 0 1

10. Title Here Deployed Sunshield Solar Panels Liquid Helium Cryostat (450 ℓ) Six 30 cm Telescopes Commercial Spacecraft Toroidal-Beam Antenna Half-Wave Plate Absorbing Forebaffle 2 K Refracting Optics 100 mK Focal Plane Array 3-Stage V-Groove Radiator 8 m Delta 2925H 3-m EPIC Low Cost Mission Architecture 155 K 100 K 40 K 295 K 30/40 GHz 60 GHz 2 x 90 GHz 135 GHz 200/300 GHz

11. Title Here Low-Cost Sunshield Deployment Sequence

12. Title Here Low-Cost Sunshield Deployment Sequence

13. Title Here Low-Cost Sunshield Deployment Sequence

14. Title Here Low-Cost Sunshield Deployment Sequence

15. Title Here Low-Cost Sunshield Deployment Sequence

16. Title Here Low-Cost Sunshield Deployment Sequence

17. Title Here Comprehensive Science Mission Architecture Atlas V 551 LHe Dewar or Cryocooler 3-Stage Sunshield Wrap-Rib Deployment 3-Axis S/C 3-Stage V-Groove Passively Cooled Mirrors 40 K 293 K 155 K 85 K Gimballed Antenna Solar Panels 20 m 2.8 m Receiver & Lenses

18. Title Here Sensitivity with Existing Detector Arrays Absorbing Baffle (40 K) Half-Wave Plate (2 K) Polyethylene Lenses (2 K) Telecentric Focus Aperture Stop (2 K) Focal Plane Bolometer Array (100 mK) Freq [GHz] FWHM [arcmin] NTD Ge BolometersPlanck # [det’s] NET/det* [  K  s] NET* [  K  s] NET/det † [  K  s] 3015586924.5 4011654608.2 6077128494.4 9052256422.6102 13534256382.483 2002364415.1134 30016649511.8404 Total8301.5 *Design Sensitivity † Goal Sensitivity InstrumentTechnology NET [  K  s] Value HFI 100 – 850 GHz NTD Ge Bolometer 20.3Design Goal < 16.7Measured LFI 30 – 70 GHz HEMT68.9Req’t EPIC Projected Bands and Sensitivities Planck Projected Sensitivities Note modest detector improvement over Planck due to relaxed time constant specification & 2 K optics 30 cm

19. Title Here NTD Bolometers for Planck & Herschel SPIRE Low-power JFETs 143 GHz Spider-web Bolometer Herschel/SPIRE Bolometer Array NTD Germanium Planck/HFI focal plane (52 bolometers)

20. Title Here 8 mm Antenna-Coupled Bolometers for EPIC Single Pixel – Dual Pol at 150 GHz (JPL/CIT) Advantages Small active volume..30 – 300 GHz operation Beam collimation…...Eliminates discrete feeds Reduced focal plane mass Intrinsic filters……....No discrete components Y-polarizationX-polarization High Optical Efficiency! Measured Spectral Response Kuo et al. SPIE 2006 Measured Beam Patterns

21. Title Here New technologies bring enhanced capabilities… Antenna-Coupled TES / MKID detectorsHigher sensitivity, less mass & power Continuously rotating waveplateBetter beam control Continuous ADRLess mass, no interruptions …but we have the technology to do this mission today Low-Cost Mission: High Technology Readiness TechnologyTRLHeritage Focal Plane Arrays (NTD Ge bolometers) NTD thermistors and readouts Antennas 8484 Planck & Herschel Wide-Field Refractor6BICEP Waveplate (stepped every 24 hours) Optical configuration Cryogenic stepper drive 6969 SCUBA, HERTZ, etc. Spitzer LHe Cryostat9Spitzer, ISO, Herschel Sub-K Cooler: Single-shot ADR9ASTRO-E2 (single-shot) Deployable Sunshield4-5TRL=9 components Toroidal-Beam Downlink Antenna4-5TRL=9 components

22. Title Here TES Bolometer Arrays Freq. Domain (UCB/LBNL)Time Domain (NIST) SQUID Multiplexing Antenna-Coupled TES Bolometers (UCB/LBNL)SCUBA2 Focal Plane (10,000 TES Bolometers) Advantages Multiplexing…….Larger array formats Higher sensitivity Fewer wires to 100 mK Low cryogenic power disp. Faster response...Useful for larger aperture

23. Title Here Low-Cost Mission Focal Plane Options TES Bolometer Option Freq [GHz]  FWHM [′] Nbol 3 [#] Required Sensitivity 1 Design Sensitivity 2 NET 4 [  K  s]  T-  5 [  K ′]  Tpix 6 [nK] NET 4 [  K  s]  T-  5 [  K ′]  Tpix 6 [nK] boloband boloband 3015588730.866.7560622233.4280 40116547710.422.7190547.411.395 6077128665.812.7107474.16.353 9052512592.65.647411.82.824 13534512592.65.748421.92.824 20023576723.06.555512.13.227 300165761456.013.01101004.26.555 Total 7 23661.53.2271.01.613 NTD Bolometer Option Freq [GHz]  FWHM [′] Nbol 3 [#] Required Sensitivity 1 Design Sensitivity 2 NET 4 [  K  s]  T-  5 [  K ′]  Tpix 6 [nK] NET 4 [  K  s]  T-  5 [  K ′]  Tpix 6 [nK] bolobandboloband 3015589834.61066306924.553.1315 40116548511.535.4210608.217.7105 6077128706.218.9110494.49.556 9052256593.711.367422.65.634 13534256533.310.261382.45.130 2002364587.222.1130415.111.066 300166413516.751.43109511.825.7150 Total 7 8302.16.5391.53.319 1 Sensitivity with  2 noise margin in a 1-year mission 2 Calculated sensitivity in 2-year design life 3 Two bolometers per focal plane pixel 4 Sensitivity of one bolometer in a focal plane pixel 5 Sensitiivity  T in a pixel  FWHM x  FWHM times  FWHM 6 Sensitivity  T in a 120′ x 120′ pixel 7 Combining all bands together Input Assumptions Fractional bandwidth  / = 30 %Optical efficiency  = 40 % Focal plane temperature = 100 mKOptics temperature = 2 K, with 10 % coupling Waveplate temperature = 20 K, with 2 % couplingBaffle at 40 K with 0.3 % coupling (measured) P sat /Q = 5 for TES bolometersG 0 = 10 Q / T 0 for NTD bolometers

24. Title Here Instrument Design GoalInstrument Requirement Suppress raw systematic effect below statistical noise level Suppress systematic errors below r = 0.01 after correction Systematic EffectDesign GoalMitigationsHeritage Main Beam Effects  Beamsize 1e-4 Refracting telescope Waveplate before telescope Scan crossings & CMB dipole BICEP † SPIDER ‡ ---  Gain 8e-5  Beam Offset 5e-5  Ellipticity 1e-3 Pol. Beam Rot’n3e-4 Polarized Sidelobes1 nKrms Refractor + baffleBICEP * 1/f Noise16 mHz Drift-scanned NTD bolometers Or TES + modulator Scan crossings BOOMERANG * EBEX/SPIDER/ POLARBEAR ‡ --- Scan-Synch Signals1 nKrms Scan redundancy--- Optics Temp. Stability 10  Krms s/s 300  K/  Hz Dual analyzers Temperature monitoring & control of all critical stages Planck * Focal Plane Temp. Stability 3 nKrms s/s 150 nK/  Hz * = Already demonstrated to EPIC requirement † = Proof of operation but needs improvement ‡ = Planned demonstration to EPIC requirement Systematic Error Mitigation Strategy

25. Title Here BICEP Wide-Field Refracting Optics Wide unaberrated FOV Excellent main beams Telecentric focus Waveplate = first optic Ultra-low sidelobes Field tested in BICEP

26. Title Here Wide-Field Refracting Optics Freq Band [GHz] FWHM [arcmin] FOV* [deg] 30 / 40155 / 11628 607725 905222 1353419 200 / 30023 / 1617 *Strehl ratio > 0.95 BICEP

27. Title Here Polarization Systematics: Main Beams Differential FWHM Differential Beam OffsetDifferential Ellipticity Differential Gain, Rotation Main Beam Instrumental Polarization Effects Calculation - Difference PSB beam pairs - Parameterize main beam effects - Convolve w/ scan pattern - Calculate resulting power spectrum Caveats - Calculation is conservative → single pixel - We can always apply post facto correction - Waveplate eliminates these effects

28. Title Here Main Beam Systematic Errors - Requirement

29. Title Here Main Beam Systematic Errors - Goal

30. Title Here Main Beam Properties at 135 GHz PSF SystematicGoal*Req’t * Calc † Meas ‡  Gain (g 1 -g 2 )/g 8e-53e-42e-4< 5e-3  Beam Size(  1 -  2 )/  1e-43e-41e-4< 2e-3  Beam Offset  /2  5e-52e-44e-66e-3  Ellipticity (e 1 -e 2 )/2 1e-33e-31e-4< 1e-3 Pol. Rotation  3e-41e-35e-68e-4 *Goal: Suppress effect without correction below noise **Req’t: Suppress effect with correction below r = 0.01 † Calc: Worst performance over the FOV at 135 GHz ‡ Meas: Median value measured in BICEP receiver Difference Beam PSFDifference Beam Performance at FOV Center Performance at FOV Edge

31. Title Here Measured  Beam Offsets in BICEP

32. Title Here 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  K 10 100 1e3 1e4 1e5 Sidelobe Map at 100 GHz

33. Title Here Foregrounds - What We Know Today 75% of sky 2% patch 3. Results Removal gives a modest sensitivity loss Better sensitivity → better subtraction (model is linear) 4. Conclusion: FGs Look Manageable! Preliminary. We might find a new component tomorrow We don’t know where a linear model fails Sensitivity per 14′ Pixel EPIC WMAP-8 Planck CaseRequired Sens.Design Sens. No foregrounds3512  s and  d fixed 5017  s and  d fitted in 30˚ patches 5518  s and  d fitted in 30˚ patches 7022 Component Spectrum (I   ) Amplitude (Stokes I) Pol. fraction CMB  =070  K 1% Synchrotron  =-3.040  K @ 23GHz 10% Free-free  =-2.1520  K @ 23GHz 1% Thermal Dust FDS model 8 (  ~+1.7) 10  K @ 94GHz 5% Spinning DustDL98 (WNM) 50  K @ 23GHz 2% nK CMB in 2˚ pixels 2. Multi-band Removal Fit only synch & thermal dust Fit components spectrally Let indicies float spatially Eriksen et al. 2006 Input Sky Model Resulting Sensitivity After Subtraction 1. Input Sky Model All components we know about today

34. Title Here Conclusions Exciting CMB science in the post-Planck era § Clear role for gravitational-wave polarization science in space § High-ℓ science compelling but need for space is less robust Imaging polarimeter approach § Technically and scientifically feasible § Simple technique, established history. § Simple scaling to higher sensitivity: improve the focal plane. § Design in extensive control of systematics from the beginning § Low-Cost option → meets Weiss Committee guidelines for GW science § Comprehensive Science option → more capable, more science, more $ Foregrounds § What we know today about polarized foreground shows they can be subtracted below r = 0.01 Technologies § We can build a very capable mission today with existing technology § New technologies will improve the mission & reduce technical risk