In contrast to the LSST figure of merit, the DETF figure of merit INCLUDES as best we can the limita

1

• In contrast to the LSST figure of merit, the DETF
  figure of merit INCLUDES (as best we can) the
  limitations from systematics.  I wouldn't buy
  into any FoM that doesn't.  As SNAP has
  emphasized since the outset it's the
  systematics, stupid.  That not only has guided
  the design of SNAP, it remains SNAP's advantage
  over the ground-based program, as Natalie
  emphasizes in 2 below. Natalie Roe wrote
  Saul and Mike,  Here are a few ideas for
  talking points on your P5 presentation.    
  Natalie 1)  SNAP is a definitive,
  transformational dark energy experiment - not
  just an incremental step forward.  It combines
  the two most powerful techniques and brings both
  of them into a new era of high-precision
  measurement. 2)  This cannot be done from the
  ground! SNe - cannot get to high enough
  redshift, cannot control systematic errors,
  cannot get spectro confirmation Weak lensing -
  cannot control lensing systematics. WL from
  space gives a deeper, more controlled measurement
  less likely to be dominated by systematics -
  complementary to larger,shallower ground surveys
  that will be systematics limited. 3) Figure of
  merit is not etendue.  (Etendue does not equal
  luminosity for accelerators, as LSST proponents
  naively argue.) For SNe, figure of merit is a
  combination of etendue/PSF2   x  duty factor 
  x wavelength coverage x spectroscopic throughput
  For WL, figure of merit is a combination of
  etendue/PSF2   x  duty factor  x wavelength
  coverage x image stability x photometric
  redshift calibration SNAP's small stable PSF,
  coverage out to 1.7 um, 100 duty factor,
  dedicated spectrograph and ability to make
  precise photometric redshift calibration puts it
  in a separate class from any other existing or
  proposed experiment. 4)  SNAP is ready to build
  with all technology proven and ready to go.  
  Show pictures of CCD and NIR sensors that
  already meet all SNAP requirements.   Give
  status of telescope and spacecraft vendor
  studies, launch options, etc etc and convince
  them that this is ready to build now, unlike
  LSST where no suitable detector even exists yet.
  We are completely finished with R and well into
  D.

2
Counter-intuitive Space is the low-risk option.
Sign posts for todays presentation

• Dark Energy / the Accelerating Universe is
  confirmed.
• Dark Energy is at the heart of our HEP science.
• The definitive exploration of Dark Energy
  requires a space-based project.
• SNAP is ready to build.
• How this works within the DOE roadmap.

All of the above is well-reviewed and validated
by national panels.
3
(No Transcript)
4
(No Transcript)
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
Narrowing in on Cosmological Parameters
8
(No Transcript)
9

• Maybe the most fundamentally mysterious thing
  in basic science. Frank Wilczek
• Would be No. 1 on my list of things to figure
  out. Edward Witten
• Basically, people dont have a clue as to how to
  solve this problem. Jeff Harvey
• This is the biggest embarrassment in theoretical
  physics. Michael Turner

10
Dark Energy is at the heart of our HEP science
We cant leave it to others to solve.
11
Dark Energy is at the heart of our HEP science
THEORY
Dark Energy the accelerating universe is
either a new unexplored property
of most of the stuff of the universe or
a change to Einsteins theory of gravity
(GR)and/or a clue to combining
gravity/GR with the other forces/QCD. The
accelerating universe has already completely
shifted the focus of String Theory
12
EXPERIMENTS OBSERVATIONS
Dark Energy is at the heart of our HEP science
Not an accident that Dark
Energy the accelerating universe
was discovered
with techniques developed by scientists with
a strong HEP-background
contingent This is the sort of challenging
ambitious fundamental physics problem that HEP
experimentalists are drawn to. These
projects require large-statistics measurements
with high-precision control of systematics
Hence, these projects call for
Multi-institution collaborations.
Analyses that must be calibrated w/
Monte Carlo techniques.
New instrumentation must be developed for
specific
experiments to reach statistical and
systematic uncertainty
goals Analyses, choice of
data cuts, etc. are now complex
enough that HEPs blind
analyses are needed
13
Dark Energy is at the heart of our HEP science
HISTORY COMMITTEES
DOE has supported the development of the
techniques that led to the initial discovery.
follow-up advances on the ground. the
invention and development of the space-based
dark-energy project. This has been backed up by
the prioritization committees QUOTE
from P5 QUOTE from DOE 20 year plan
QUOTE from Quarks to Cosmos ?
14

• SAGENAP (2000) In summary, the SAGENAP
  discussion indicated enthusiastic agreement by
  the panel that the science goals are on questions
  of great importance to physics and cosmology
• SAGENAP (2000)There was unamity on SAGENAP that
  a substantial RD program is required soon to
  insure a successful SNAP experiment.
• SNAP reviewed by the NRC Committee on the Physics
  of the Universe (Turner panel) as part of their
  Phase II review of projects.
• To fully characterize the expansion history and
  probe the dark energy will require a wide-field
  telescope in space (such as the
  Supernova/Acceleration Probe).
• The Committee further recommends that NASA and
  DOE work together to construct a wide-field
  telescope in space to determine the expansion
  history of the universe and fully probe the
  nature of the dark energy.
• The Lehman review concluded that the need for a
  space based large field of view mission like SNAP
  to elucidate the nature of Dark Energy via the
  study of Type Ia supernovae has been convincingly
  established and that the proposed instruments
  and observing strategy is appropriate and
  sufficient to carry out the scientific objectives
  of the mission.
• Endorsement by HEPAP for development of cost,
  schedule, RD

15
Report from the National Academy of Sciences
Committee on the Physics of the Universe
Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos

• To fully characterize the expansion history and
  probe the dark energy will require a wide-field
  telescope in space (such as the
  Supernova/Acceleration Probe).

16
DOE 20-year facilities
Department of Energy
Come hell or high water, DOE will fund JDEM. --
Dr. Raymond Orbach, Director, Office of
Science, May 2004
17
The definitive exploration of Dark Energy
requires a space-based project.
18
(No Transcript)
19
Expansion History
20
Expansion History of Leonard Parker
21
(No Transcript)
22
Only 3 approaches today look plausibly able to
reach the requisite levels of precision
Supernovae (SNe) Weak Lensing (WL)
Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BA0)
23
Dark Energy Task Force

• Findings from preliminary report highlighted four
  techniques
• Baryon Acoustic Oscillations only recently
  established. Less affected by astrophysical
  uncertainties than other techniques.
• Galaxy Clusters least developed. Eventual
  accuracy very difficult to predict.
• Type Ia Supernovae presently most powerful and
  best proven technique.
• Weak Lensing also emerging technique If the
  systematic errors are at or below the level
  proposed by the proponents, it is likely to be
  the most powerful individual technique and also
  the most powerful component in a multi-technique
  program.

Add quote here The study of dark energy will
require more than one of these approaches.
24
Only 3 approaches today look plausibly able to
reach the requisite levels of precision
Supernovae (SNe) Weak Lensing (WL)
Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BA0)
25
Systematics Sequence
26
Demographics
27
(No Transcript)
28
CAT-scan of SN
The Time Series of Spectra is a CAT Scan of the
Supernova
29
Data Sheets for Each Supernova
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
Understanding Dark Energy
(based on Weller, Albrecht 2001)
34
(No Transcript)
35
Advantages of Space
High-redshifts require space-based observations
36
Atmosphere Spectra
8-m
37
Edge-on Galaxy Dust
38
Knop et al Lightcurves
Knop et al (ApJ, 2003)
39
Knop before/after extinction correction
Before Extinction Correction
After Extinction Correction
40
Advantages of Space
Measurement of evolving dust requires space-based
observation.
SNAP
20-m Ground w/ NIR Camera
41
Systematics Sequence
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
Bacon, Ellis, Refregier (2000)
45
Weak Lensing Systematic Errors

• Ellipticity errors
• The shear map will require the ellipticity of the
  image to be corrected to 0.01.
• Current ground-based ellipticities have been
  corrected to 0.1. The PSF changes on time
  scales of seconds.
• Hubble PSF is measured stable over orbital time
  (90 min).
• SNAP thermal model indicates optical stability of
  PSF (from telescope creep) of 0.03 over a 24
  hour period. We believe this can be corrected by
  image analysis to the required 0.01

46
and this high-resolution provides many more
effective galaxies
47
Weak Lensing Systematic Errors

• Ellipticity errors
• Photo-z errors
• Best ground-based so far are from CFHTLS,
  achieving 5 on redshift with 10 outliers.
• Adding a limited NIR survey (only can set limit
  on NIR amplitude) can reduce the photo-z errors
  to 3.5 and 2 outliers.
• With 9 filters into the NIR with actual NIR
  measurements (vs. limits) our simulation
  indicates that the redshift error can be reduced
  to 1.2 with 0.3 outliers.
• Photo-z Bias
• We have a goal of achieving 0.1 bias. This
  requires small photo-z errors to begin with, plus
  a spectroscopic training set of minimum 18,000
  galaxies.

48
Current Ground-based Photo-z Errors
s4.7 outliers9.7
s3.5 outliers2.1
CFHTLS (Ilbert, etal. 2006)
49
Photo-z errors in space Simulation based on
current HST results.
s1.2 outliers0.3
Mobasher (2005)
50
Need extremely low photo-z bias
51
Systematics, systematics, systematics!
52
?
Need to follow primary SN spectral
emission to high redshift (z 1.7) Need
uniformly well-calibrated spectroscopy for
every SN.
Wide field optical and IR detectors in
space.
Dust SN evolution Redshifts
SNe
Optical and IR spectrograph in space.
53
SNAP is ready to build.
54
SNAP is ready to build
TECHNICAL
Design by SNAP team is based on now proven,
available technology The detectors have now been
developed by the SNAP team to the point that
flight chips are now about to be ordered. The
entire project has been reviewed several times by
external technical committees of experts (in
space-sciences, detectors, science, management,
etc.) and deemed ready to build.
COLLABORATION
The collaboration is deeply embedded in the HEP
community, both universities and laboratories. It
is also well-integrated with the space-sciences /
NASA communities. And there are several major
aerospace industry partners.
All aspects of the program -- science,
technology, integration/testing, operations --
are covered, each with scientists, engineers, and
managers.
55
From Science Goalsto Project Design
Science

• Measure ?M and ?
• Measure w and w (z)

Systematics Requirements
Statistical Requirements

• Identified and proposed systematics
• Measurements to eliminate / bound each one to
  /0.02 mag

• Sufficient (2000) numbers of SNe Ia
• distributed in redshift
• out to z lt 1.7

Data Set Requirements

• Discoveries 3.8 mag before max
• Spectroscopy with l/dl75
• Near-IR spectroscopy to 1.7 ?m

Satellite / Instrumentation Requirements

• 2-meter mirror Derived requirements
• 1-degree imager High Earth orbit
• Low resolution spectrograph 150 Mb/sec
  bandwidth (0.4 ?m to 1.7 ?m)

56
Requirements Development

• Science Objectives
• Measure w, w(z), and ?DE, with complementary
  methods
• Accuracy to distinguish time-varying models
• Accuracy to distinguish new law of gravity

• SNe Luminosity vs. Redshift
• 2000 SNe Ia to 0.3 lt z lt 1.7
• Spectral identification classification
• Redshift distance error sz ? 0.01(1z)
• Magnitude brightness error ? 0.15 mag
• Color photometry to 0.02 mag

• WL Shear Map vs. Redshift
• 1000 deg2 survey
• 100 galaxies/arcmin2
• Resolve galaxies with stable PSF
• Ellipticity Corrected to lt 0.01
• Bias on photometric redshift ? 0.003

• Data Set Requirements
• Survey sizeduration gt 13 deg2years
• Spectral resolution (?/??) R 70
• Lightcurve 10 days before to 20 days after peak
• Dust stretch corrected brightness error ? 0.15
  mag
• A 2 measurement of peak (fit) brightness
• Three bands from 310 nm 630nm restframe
• SiII (610nm) line velocity error ? 200km/s
• Low galactic dust region with continuous viewing

• Data Set Requirements
• Galaxy S/N 10 with 26 magAB
• PSFFWHM ? 0.15 arcsec
• Pixel scale of ? 0.12 arcsec in visible
• Photometric redshift bias ? 0.003(1z)
• 400 nm to 1600nm response
• Overlapping filters, filter width Rgt4
• Photometric redshift training set
• Optics Thermally stabilized to DTlt1K

• Instrument Parameters
• 0.7 deg2 imager
• 1.8 meter aperture
• ltDetector Quantum Efficiencygt 80
• Detector noise lt zodical background
• IFU Spectrograph (Rgt70 NIR, Rgt100 visible)
• 400nm to 1700 nm response
• 8 or more filters overlapping, log spaced
• Cross filter color calibration error lt 0.9
• PSFFWHM ? 0.15 arcsec in I-band

• Survey Parameters
• Three year mission lifetime
• 22 month SN survey, 12 month WL survey
• SN survey 4 day cadence, 7.5 deg2
• SN peak lightcurve S/N gt 30 at (z1.7) 25 magAB
• SN spectral peak S/N gt 20 at R70 (z1.7)
• SN survey field RA245o, Dec55o
• 300s exposures, repeated with 2x2 dither pattern
• 20,000 galaxy spectra

57
Mission Design
SNAPSuperNovaAcceleration Probe
58
Mission Design
59
Mission Design
60
(No Transcript)
61
SNAP Surveys
Survey Area(sq.deg) Depth(AB mag)
ngal(arcmin-2) Ngal Deep/SNe 15
30.3 250
107 Wide 1000 28.0
100
108.5 Panoramic 7000-10000 26.7
40-50 109
Hubble Deep Field
Base SNAP survey 15 square degrees near ecliptic
poles 9,000 ? as large as Hubble Deep Field,
same resolution but deeper (and in nine visible
and NIR bands)
GOODS Survey area
62
SNAP Surveys
Survey Area(sq.deg) Depth(AB mag)
ngal(arcmin-2) Ngal Deep/SNe 15
30.3 250
107 Wide 1000 28.0
100
108.5 Panoramic 7000-10000 26.7
40-50 109

• Synergy of Supernovae Wide Surveys
• Comprehensive no external priors required!
• Independent test of flatness to 1-2
• Complementary SNe Wide Survey (WL) only
• conservative w0 to 0.05, variation
  w? to 0.12 (with systematics) L model w0 to
  0.03 variation w? to 0.06 (with systematics)
  SUGRA model
• Adding panoramic survey and better
  systematics w0 to 0.03, variation w? to
  0.06 (with systematics) L model w0 to 0.015
  variation w? to 0.03 (with systematics) SUGRA
  model

63
(No Transcript)
64
(No Transcript)
65
SuperNova/Acceleration Probe (SNAP) Collaboration
Team
SNAP co-leaders Perlmutter Levi
66
SNAP Collaboration
67
A national effort
68
(No Transcript)
69
LBNL CCD technology gives enhanced red-wavelength
sensitivity and radiation tolerance (for space
environment).
Technology recently licensed by
Medical imaging application by
DALSA processed wafer with four SNAP V2 CCDs
(3.5k x 3.5k, 10.5 µm pixels).
70
Visible Detector Roadmap
FY04
FY06
Primary Source (CCD)
2.8k x 2.8k 10mm pixels
3.5k x 3.5k 10mm pixels
3.5k x 3.5k 10 mm pixels
DALSA Frontside LBNL Finish
LBNL Technology
3.5k x 3.5k 10mm pixels
2k x 4k 15mm pixels
3.5k x 3.5k 10 mm pixels
Secondary Source (CCD) LBNL 4 Line
Source Selection
Technology Study (SiPIN)
2k x 2k 18mm pixels
2k x 2k 9 mm pixels
4k x 4k 9 mm pixels
Silicon Hybrid
Rockwell Science Center
71
(No Transcript)
72

• DOEs SNAP RD program

• at SNAP specs.

Rockwell Near Infrared Detectors

• near SNAP specs.

NEWS
Raytheon Near Infrared Detectors started as dark
horse vendor
This was the last RD hurdle.
73
Infrared Detector Roadmap
FY04
FY06
2k x 2k Science Grade
2k x 2k Engineering Grade
2k x 2k Engineering Grade
Dual Source (HgCdTe) Rockwell Science Center
Source Selection
2k x 2k Science Grade
1k x 1k Engineering Grade
2k x 2k Engineering Grade
Dual Source (HgCdTe) Raytheon Vision Systems
2k x 2k Science Grade
1k x 1k Engineering Grade
1k x 1k Engineering Grade
Technology Study (InGaAs) Sensors
Unlimited/Rockwell
74
Quantum Efficiency
Read Noise
75
(No Transcript)
76
Detailed manufacturing studies
77
Telescope/Optics Roadmap
FY04
FY06
Zerodur ULE Study
Design Review
Lightweighted Blank Investigation
Technology Mirror Lightweighted ULE or Zerodur
Vendor Study
Metering Structure Composites
Draft OTA Concept Test Plan
Vendor Study
Telescope Concept Industrial Partner
Source Selection
78
Launch Vehicles
Delta IV
Soyuz-ST/Fregat (2-1B)
79
(No Transcript)
80
How this works within the DOE roadmap.
81
Focal plane effort
82
Full end-to-end simulation
Simulated light curves for high redshift (z
1.7) SN
83
Ready to launch in 2012
(6 years from selection to launch)
84
Technically Driven Schedule
CD-1
CD-2
CD-3
CD-0
Launch
85
Estimated Cost

• JDEM Mission as defined by agencies, was two
  missions in one. A three year dark energy
  survey, followed by a general purpose mission.
  The second phase required substantial support for
  community access. NASA/HQ was pushing for this
  second phase.
• Problems with this initial concept. First, not
  clear if the dark energy science could be
  accomplished fully in the three year period.
  Second, Satellite would have to be able to
  service a more complex observation scheme. Third,
  community access, scheduling, proposal
  management, and especially the associated grants
  program, were all costly.
• The second mission phase was eliminated in the
  most recent JDEM proposal call from NASA.
•  

86
Total Estimated Cost

• Initial Lockheed Study in 2001 arrived at an
  estimate of 516M (excludes operations, RD).
• NASA/JPL study in 2002, using previous NASA
  missions of similar size and complexity arrived
  at was 592M, including contingency and LV
  (excludes operations, RD).
• NASA defined a 600M cost cap in the last
  proposal round (with operations and launch).
• Current estimate of cost (TEC FY06 dollars, ie.
  no operations, no RD) is 567M. Assumes U.S.
  launch vehicle and no foreign contribution.
• With a foreign launcher (but paid for by US) and
  provision of the spectrograph from France the US
  portion of the TEC is 488M.
•  

87
Total Estimated Cost
Foreign Launch Vehicle and French Spectrograph
subtracts 79M Operations cost 9M/yr
88
SNAP Reviews/Studies/Milestones
Evolution of JDEM Reviews/Studies/Milestones
Nov 1999 Original SNAP proposal submitted to DOE
Mar 2000 DOE/NSF SAGENAP committee recommends
SNAP RD Sep 2000 NASA Structure and Evolution of
the Universe (SEU) Dec 2000 National Academy of
Sciences Committee on Astro. Astrophysics Jan
2001 DOE-HEP Review RD (SNAP is uniquely
able) Mar 2001 DOE High Energy Physics Advisory
Panel (HEPAP) Jun 2001 NASA Integrated Mission
Design Center (determines feasibility) July
2001 National Academy of Sciences, Committee on
Physics of the Universe Dec 2001 NASA/SEU
Strategic Planning Panel Dec 2001 NASA Instrument
Synthesis Analysis Lab Jan 2002 DOE subpanel
report High Energy Physics Long Range
Planning Mar 2002 DOE/NSF SAGENAP committee
update Apr 2002 National Academy of Sciences
Physics of the Universe report July 2002 DOE
Office of Science RD Review (Lehman) Dec
2002 JPL Team-X Study (studies potential NASA
cost) Jan 2003 NASA releases SEU roadmap Beyond
Einstein Feb 2003 DOE High Energy Physics
Facilities Prioritization Panel Feb 2003 SNAP
RD in the DOE budget Mar 2003 DOE High Energy
Physics panel releases Facilities 20 Year
Roadmap Nov 2003 JDEM Announcement from DOE
NASA Nov 2003 Secretary of Energys 20-year
Facilities Plan Nov 2003 Technical Review of
SNAP (could be launched 2011) May 2004 OSTP
Strategic Plan (JDEM top recommendation) Feb
2005 Natl Academy Sciences Cmt. on
Astro.Astrophys. reaffirms priorities.
1998 Discovery of the acceleration of the
universe and dark energy using supernovae.
2000 Confirmation of dark energy using cosmic
microwave background measured from balloons.
2003 Confirmation of dark energy using cosmic
microwave background measured from space (WMAP).
89
(No Transcript)
90
Counter-intuitive Space is the low-risk option.
Sign posts for todays presentation

• Dark Energy / the Accelerating Universe is
  confirmed.
• Dark Energy is at the heart of our HEP science.
• The definitive exploration of Dark Energy
  requires a space-based project.
• SNAP is ready to build.
• How this works within the DOE roadmap.

All of the above is well-reviewed and validated
by national panels.
91
Sign posts for todays presentation

• Dark Energy / the Accelerating Universe is
  confirmed.
• Dark Energy is at the heart of our HEP science.
• The definitive exploration of Dark Energy
  requires a space-based project..
• SNAP is ready to build.
• All of the above is well-reviewed and validated
  by national panels.
• How this works within the DOE roadmap.

92
WMAP
Tegmark, Oliveira-Costa, Hamilton (2003)
93
SDSS
SDSS
94
Knop w constraints
95
SDSS
96
Expansion History
Supernovae
Weak Lensing
Baryon Osc.
97
(No Transcript)
98
Only 3 approaches today look plausibly able to
reach the requisite levels of precision
Supernovae (SNe) Weak Lensing (WL)
Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BA0)