Panel A: High Energy Astrophysics, Particle Astrophysics and Gravitational Waves

1
Panel A High Energy Astrophysics, Particle
Astrophysics and Gravitational Waves

• G. Hasinger, P. Caraveo,
• F. Aharonian, C. Cesarsky,
• Peacock, S. Vitale, R. Warwick,
• R. Wijers

2
Unprecedented panorama

• Space - ESA XMM-Newton, Integral
• - with NASA SWIFT, GLAST
• - national Agile
• - bilateral SRG, SVOM
• Ground - Cerenkov HESS, Magic
• - Cosmic Rays Auger South
• - Neutrinos Amanda, Antares, Icecube
• - Gravity Waves Ligo, Virgo, Geo600

3
(No Transcript)
4
First, a clarification

• We have tried to assess the relative priorities
  between experiments now being proposed/evaluated
  taking into account
• Relevance to the science vision questions
• Technical feasibility
• European involvment
• Impact on (interest of) the community as a whole

5
second, a clarification

• We have done very little on small projects
  because we believe that a long term road map
  should cover relatively big (and long, and
  expensive) projects for which long development
  and international collaborations are mandatory.
• Small (risky?) projects should be done on a
  shorter time scale, possibly at a national or
  bi(tri)lateral basis.

? Some money should be devoted to small projects
6
AGILE small ASI mission dedicated to High
energy astrophysics
For the first time, one instrument provides X and
gamma coverage gamma imager (30 MeV- 30
GeV) BIG FoV (1/5 of the sky) X-ray imager (18-60
keV)
7
AGILEs gamma-ray Sky
8
Cygnus Region EGRET, VP 1-2-3-4
(1991-1996)
Talking about angular resolution..
9
Cygnus Region AGILE
(Nov. 2 Dec. 16, 2007)
10

• from EGRET
• to AGILE
• 2 tons vs. 100 kg
• NASA great Observatory vs. ASI small
  mission

11
keywords

• Technological development
• Interplay between different communities

?Need for a strong programme dedicated to
technological development
12
High priority projects continuation near term S
XMM-Newton Integral 20 M/y ?Both ranked very
high

SWIFT, Agile, GLAST, SRG, SVOM, H.E.S.S., Magic,
Auger, Amanda, Antares, Ligo, Virgo . ?ALL need
support for continuing their (gt2010) operations
BUT they are estimated to be below the 10 M
threshold
However, the overall costs are well above 10 M
13
High priority projects ground based- near term-
M

• CTA 2 Cherenkov Telescope sub-arrays
• 100 TeV 100 GeV tenfold sensitivity increase,
  current technology
• Several 10 GeV 100 TeV challenging new
  technology, new exiting territory
• Two arrays South North
• KM3Net high-energy neutrino detector in
  Mediterrenian sea, extension of Antares. Can
  observe southern sky
• Comment on Auger North and EUSO
• Priority on Southern array 30GeV-100 TeV

14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
High priority projects space based- near term- M

• Simbol X French-Italian collaboration
• (with German contribution)
• formation flying technology
• Breakthrough in hard X-ray astronomy
• Better performance than US and Japanese
  competitors
• Launch date gt2014
• Cost gt350 M

19
Simbol-X
20
High priority projects space based- medium
term- L

• XEUS ESA-led global collaboration
• Formation flying technology
• New mirror technology
• Detectors and cryogenic system
• General facility in X-ray astronomy
  (unprecedented sensitivity)
• Candidate for ESA CV L1 launch slot (gt 2018)
• Cost 1,300 M, global collaboration (ESA, J,
  US?)
• 280M for instruments

21
XEUS was selected in the ESA CV 2015-2025 Process
for an assessment study as one of 3 candidate
L-class missions for the L1 slot
(gt2018) Significant technology development funds
earmarked for XEUS Downselection from 3 to 2 in
2009 Implementation of one L mission in 2011
22
XEUS - Physics of the hot evolving Universe
G. Hasinger (MPE) Astronet Roadmap Meeting,
Liverpool, June 17, 2008
23
Micropore optics
24
XEUS in context _at_ z10
LISA (ESA/NASA)
25
High priority projects space based- medium term
L

• LISA ESA-NASA mission
• formation flying technology
• detectors
• Drag free navigation
• Breakthrough in GW astronomy
• Cost 1,300 M shared between NASA and ESA
• Candidate for ESA CV L1 launch slot (gt 2018)
• (depending on LISA pathfinder)
• LISA is ranked higher than GW ground based
  experiments
• No duplication with ground based instruments

26
(No Transcript)
27
LISA A Universe Full of Strong GW Sources
Cosmic backgrounds, superstring bursts?
27
28
Comment on LISA and XEUS

• Both LISA and XEUS are ranked by Panel A at the
  highest priority among all projects discussed.
  Ideally they should fly in close conjunction to
  each other in order to exploit the important
  synergies between the two projects. The
  implementation sequence will mainly be determined
  by technological readiness and the international
  collaboration context. The energy range of
  Simbol-X and of XEUS are different, and in fact
  it would be useful if these missions have some
  overlap in time too.

29
Comment on LISA and XEUS

• Both LISA and XEUS are not secured, yet.
• Their fate will depend on technological
  assessement as well as international
  collaboration
• What will happen is they will be delayed or
  descoped or whatever?
• Clearly priorities should be revised on a regular
  basis (few years?)

30
Some gaps in the roadmap where developments are
needed

• Improve imaging and spectroscopy in the 0.1-10
  MeV energy range
• Provide instantaneous all sky monitoring
• Leave room for other techniques..

31
si cest possible cest fait, si cest
impossible, cela se fera
0.250 MeV 0.2-10 keV
32
EXISTLegacy of Integral and Swift
33
First Laue Lens prototype
NEW Technology

• Mosaic crystals of Cu(111)
• Tile size 15x15x2 mm3
• Mosaic spread 3-4
• Lens support carbon fibre

ASTRONET Infrastructure Roadmap Symposium
Liverpool, June 16-19, 2007
34
Laue Lens first light
ASTRONET Infrastructure Roadmap Symposium
Liverpool, June 16-19, 2007
35
Measured vs. expected
ASTRONET Infrastructure Roadmap Symposium
Liverpool, June 16-19, 2007
36
Manpower (personpower)

• In parallel to the technological developments,
• we should worry about scientists to develop
• the instruments and exploit the data
• Are we doing enough in this area?
• Is Europe investing on people?