CMB Decadal Study: What We Did Activities funded by NASA proposal: PI Steve Meyer + entire CMB community Workshops: The Path to CMBPOL: Upcoming Measurement of CMB Polarization, Chicago July 1-3, 2009 Technology Development for a CMB Probe of Inflation, Boulder, August 2008 Mitigating Systematic Errors, Annapolis, July 2008 CMB Component Separation and the Physics of Foregrounds, Pasadena, July 2008 Theory and Foregrounds, Fermilab, June 2008 Workshop Reports: Probing Inflation with CMB Polarization, Baumann et al. 2008, ArXiv Gravitational Lensing, Smith et al. 2008, ArXiv Reionization Science with the CMB, Zaldarriaga et al. 2008, ArXiv Prospects for Polarized Foreground Removal, Dunkley et al. 2008, ArXiv Foreground Science Knowledge and Prospects, Fraisse et al. 2008, ArXiv The EPIC Intermediate Mission, Bock et al. 2009, ArXiv Decadal White Papers: 1) The Origin of the Universe as Revealed Through the Polarization of the CMB (science) 2) Observing the Evolution of the Universe (science) 3) A Program of Technology Development and of Sub-Orbital Observations of CMB Polarization Leading to and Including a Satellite Mission (programmatic) See for a full summaryhttp://cmbpol.uchicago.edu/

CMB Decadal Study: What We Asked For 1.Technology and Detector Development $40M for detector centers $10M for university-based efforts 2.Suborbital Observations $100M for ground based experiments $50M for balloons ($10M augmentation) 3.Theory and Data Analysis $20M for this activity 4.Satellite Mission Planning $15M for planning ramping up 5.Mid-Decade Review to Assess Case for Satellite Mission

Transitioning from Sub-Orbital Program to Space Phase A Start Call for Proposals Evaluation for Satellite Program Office Mission Planning - Space systems design - Set technology needs Technology Development - Center funding for arrays - $1M/yr University directed Theory - Lensing, foregrounds, models Balloon Experiments - Technology implementation - Systems development - ‘Science-market’ driven Ground-Based Experiments - Technology implementation - Systems development - ‘Science-market’ driven Satellite Technology Satellite funding wedge not shown These cost profiles are notional and have not been negotiated with or agreed to by NASA HQ, the NSF, or the NIST June 2009 EOS presentation

4 Evaluation for Start of Satellite Program in 2015 Scientific - Lensing BB signal detected - Either Inflationary B-modes detected, Case for satellite start very compelling in Or upper limit to r < 0.05 Reassess role for satellite in 2015 Foregrounds - Measured in deep regions from ground & balloons - Measured over entire sky by Planck - Subtraction tested both deep and shallow Technology readiness - Focal plane arrays to TRL = 6 Systematic error control - Polarization effects, E → B conversion, etc. We recommend: 1) Funding the program proposed in white paper through ) External evaluation in 2015 of case for satellite start Field will be ready to transition to a satellite experiment mid-decade, fully armed with scientific case and demonstrated technology Expected State of CMB Polarization in 2015 We are not recommending a fixed metric for a satellite start. We are recommending a 2015 evaluation for a satellite start. June 2009 EOS presentation

CMB Recommendations in Astro2010 ProgramAgencySizeRanking Inflation Probe TechnologyNASA$60-200M#2 Medium “CMB/inflation technology development and preparation for a possible mission beyond 2020” “A successful detection of B-modes from inflation could trigger a mid-decade shift in focus... However, the level of late-decade investment required is uncertain, and the appropriate level should be studied by a decadal survey independent advice committee review. It could range between… $60M and $200M” Intermediate TechnologyNASA~$100Munranked Mid-Scale Innovations ProgramNSF$93-200M#2 Large CMB Measurements“medium”1 of 8 examples

How NASA is Responding to Astro2010

Conclusions The Good News -Astro2010 recommendations closely reflect the community requests -NASA has responded with a IP technology line and planned augmentations to the theory and sub-orbital programs Concerns = Areas for Input to PhysPAG 1) Technology program - needs strong support to initiate and sustain (note amount << $60M in notional budget) - how this money is allocated is not specified - use of NASA technology on ground-based CMB experiments 2) Mid-decadal review - need to continue advocacy for this plan - large change in CMB planning could result from a successful outcome - formulation of such a review is not clear: DSIAC, NRC? NSF participation? 3) Advocating for opportunities in the next 5 years - sub-orbital and theory augmentations: usually competed - NASA may start large sub-orbital MO program in FY12 - will mid-scale ground-based initiative at NSF be started? 4) Mission planning - No clear planned implementation for this request - IXO/LISA offices are being phased out - useful for coordination with e.g. ESA and JAXA - definition of requirements for space - systematics, foregrounds, etc