Study of High Energy Astrophysics

1
Study of High Energy Astrophysics

• Pourpose of the meeting
• To review the activity of the second year
• To discuss the activity for the third year.
• AGENDA

2
(No Transcript)
3
Guidelines

• Around 1 M/year for the study of future missions
  that
• must be based on space instrumentation
• are not yet supported by a dedicated contract
• can solve the largest number of hot topics in
  High Energy Astrophysics
• have a significant role played by italians (at
  the level of mission or instrument PI)
• have a reasonable hypothesis on how to arrive to
  fly
• What about recent ASI AOOs?
• missions proposed to the 2007 AOO for Small
  Missions or for Mission of Opportunity should
  not be supported by this contract, unless a
  reasonable hypothesis is there not covered by the
  AOO (please declare)
• missions proposed to the AOO for technologies
  should not overlap

4
Difference with respect to the first two years

• In the first year the selection of major projects
  was based on the outcome of the Study Costa,
  Perola, Puglierin.
• In the second year the selection of the projects
  has followed the same headlines, with updating
  based on new facts plus reviewers.
• In the third year further updating based on
• New discoveries. (SWIFT, AUGER, TeV, PAMELA,
  AGILE, GLAST.) Updating of the hot topics list.
• Updated Strategies of Institutions In Italy
  Long Term Plan of INAF, Road Map of INFN, in
  Europe ASTRONET, ASPERA.
• New landscape of missions SIMBOL-X to B-phase
  (with some descooping of italian role?), CV
  selection, SMEX selection, PAMELA and AGILE in
  measurement routine, GLAST first results. XTE
  close to end of life.
• In USA the Decadal Survey will fix the roadmap
• ASI has a new management and possible reform.
• Reviewers. Two of them (Paul Gorenstein and
  Gottfried Kanbach) are attending the meeting. One
  more (Johannes Knapp) will provide remote review.
• The composition of the Mission Board is not
  changed. .
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

5
Updating the documents
Feasibility study on High Energy Astrophysics
fields of interest and perspectives for the
national community Astrophysical scenarios and
models, hot topics'' and related observation/measu
rement requirements November 2008 Editor F.
Fiore and L. Maraschi Contributions from R.
Bandiera, R. Battiston, A. Bazzano, T. Belloni,
P. Blasi, S. Borgani, G. Brunetti, S. Campana, A.
Comastri, E. Costa, S. Covino, V. DElia, R.
Della Ceca, D. Di Martino, G. Ghibellini, G. L.
Israel, P. Lipari, G. Matt, G. Micela, S.
Molendi, F. Nicastro, I. Pagano, F. Palla, A
Possenti, B. Sacco, S. Sciortino, L. Stella, G
Tagliaferri
Feasibility study on High Energy Astrophysics
fields of interest and perspectives for the
national community STRATEGIES FOR HIGH ENERGY
ASTROPHYSICS THE MISSIONS November 2008
All the new and the old documents you can finf
at http//projects.iasf-roma.inaf.it/aae/
6
The first year

• Disciplinary Lines Direct Output of the 2004
  Study
• UHECR from space ? EUSO/CROSS
• X-Ray Polarimetry ? POLARIX/HXMT/XEUS
• Hard X-Ray Astronomy with ML Optics ?
  HEXIT-SAT/SIMBOL-X
• Cosmology with X-.RaysWFXRI ESTREMO ? EDGE
• Low Energy Gamma Ray Astronomy with Laue Lenses
• Almost an additonal disciplinary line
• Nucleon Composition of CR at the knee
• Various Mission of Opportunity

7
The first year
8
Second year
9
This Year
10
What are you expected to present?

• Science Case which hot topic you expect to
  solve
• The technical solution. Demonstrate that it is
  adequate to science goals. Declared sensitivity
  must be justified.
• The italian role in conceiving, performing and
  exploiting the experiment (Mission PI, Instrument
  PI, CoI with visible responsibility)
• Manpower please single out the Manpower hired
  on this contract.
• Motivated financial requests
• Whether the study has generated proposals at
  AOOs (ASI Small Missions, ASI Mission of
  Opportunity, ESA Cosmic Vision, other Agencies)
• The strategy proposed to arrive to a mission or
  to participate to a mission.

11
What Next

• Debate in this meeting (the total money is an
  invariant so put questions)
• Reviewers present to the meeting
• Proposals and Presentations submitted to
  referees
• Assessment done by Mission Board on the basis
  of the debate and of referee reports. Executive
  Plan for the 3d year
• Updating of the document of HEA for the part
  of future Missions
• Delivery of the result to ASI at a progress
  meeting