The History of Milagro - University Of Marylandumdgrb.umd.edu/hawc/documents/JAG_Milagro_History.pdfThe History of Milagro Jordan A. Goodman ... Data taking begins Feb ... – We had

Jordan GoodmanNSF July 2007

Milagro

The History of Milagro

Jordan A. GoodmanUniversity of Maryland


Milagro

• Milagro was proposed in 1990– Before EGRET and the Compton

Observatory– Before BATSE– Whipple – 10m

• Only one confirmed source and no spectrum• Lot’s of spurious observations


Milagro

State of the Field

• Measurementsof the Crab


Milagro

Milagro History• 1990 Proposal Submitted to NSF for a $2.7M Detector• 1994 Funding begins toward a $2.7M Project (80%NSF

20%DoE)• 1995 Site Preparation - New liner & cover - PUB -

Counting House - PMT structure installed• 1995 -1996 Milagrisimo run - 38 tubes on pond bottom• 1996-1997 Milagrito installed - Data taking begins Feb

1997• 1997 Lightning protection system• 1998 Milagro tubes installed, modifications to

electronics, cover, water system completed (based on Milagrito experience)

• Winter 1999 Begin data taking with Pond only (NSF contribution $2.3M)

• Outrigger funding began in FY02 – finished FY04


Milagro

Why we need Outriggers (Slide Circa 10/98)

• What are outriggers?– An array of water tanks outside the pond– We have built & operated a prototype– Outriggers were part of the original Milagro proposal

• Outriggers are essential for locating core position– Need counters outside the pond to tell if cores are inside or

outside• Energy Determination needs core position

– Need core to determine shower size and lateral distribution -This is vital for AGNs and GRBs

• Angular Resolution– Curvature correction needs core position

• Proton/Gamma Discrimination– Proton showers trigger further from the pond– Gammas trigger more often on the pond


Milagro

Original Milagro Design (from proposal)

outriggers


Milagro

Angular Resolution

Pre-outriggerAng res = 0.70°

Post-outriggerAng res = 0.41°

From Proposal


Milagro

Milagro Sensitivity (from proposal)

Current Performance on the Crab (median E~12TeV)

~12σ/yr with γ/h separation and weighting

~4σ/yr without γ/h separation and weighting


Milagro

Original Cost Estimate Starting in FY 91 (October 1990)


Milagro

Construction Funding Profile

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

FY

Fund

s in

Tho

usan

ds

NSFDoE

Initial Pond Construction

Outriggers

Total Cost of Construction $2.8M (NSF) $0.6M DoE = $3.4M

Plus significant lab contributions (Pond, Trailers, Lightning Protection (UCDRD))


Milagro

Had Milagro Been Fully Funded in 1991

• Construction would have been finished in 1995 instead of 2003

• We would have had this data set in 1999– We would have had full overlap with CGRO

• We would have been driving the field– Way ahead of HESS, MAGIC and VERITAS– At a cost of only $3M

• HAWC can do the same, if funded in a timely fashion


Milagro

Problems with the Previous HAWC Review• Three mail-in reviews

– All had misunderstandings about Milagro, the HAWC proposal and even GLAST.

• Milagro saw no new sources…• Large investment in Milagro did not pay off• Milagro required additional funding to get outriggers in order to

reach design sensitivity• HAWC has a larger pond and many more PMTs than Milagro• GLAST will be able to directly measure the prompt emission

from the brightest bursts in the 30 MeV -300 GeV range… short time-scale variability of AGN is a very important science question - However, this is something that will be addressed by GLAST (up to energies of ~ 300 GeV)

• Engineering runs will not start until the third quarter of 2011• However, in order to achieve reasonable background rejection,

there will be some cost to angular resolution of the detector (compared to Milagro).


Milagro

– Two reviews showed significant bias• I have never been a great fan of the use of high altitude water

Cerenkov air shower arrays… [Zenith angle dependence] is fundamental problem with the technique. It is the reason Milagro should never have been built.

– MGRO 1908+06 never gets higher than 30o

• Since IceCube is another one of those experiments that NSF will spend lots of money on without significant science return, there won't be much that the two can do together. zero x epsilon = zero.

– IceCube is already the world’s largest neutrino detector & has produced dozens of papers even while being finished. It also is using Milagro data to look at potential ν targets.

• IACTs will be covering a lot of the parameter space in complement to GLAST. Given the limited resources of funding agencies, I would think it makes more sense to support the healthy ongoing projects at this time and add resources to them to maximize the scientific output.

– Wide field is critical and IACTs are working hard to do it.


Milagro

– Those PA panel members with a good understanding of the technique likely recused themselves and were not available to pass judgment on the proposal.

– Milagro/HAWC are unique as no one else does water-Cherenkov. Misunderstandings are natural.

– We had no opportunity to explain or rebut any of these misunderstandings

• We need a dedicated committee to look at HAWC


Milagro

Questions for Discussion1. What will be the procedure for a panel review?

a) Timing of the reviewb) What will be the scope?

2. How do we assure that we can be fairly reviewed by both the panel and mail-in reviews?a) What about conflicts of interest?b) What about European experts?

3. How do we deal with the uncertainty in the Mexican proposal (DoE)?


Milagro

Questions for Discussion (continued)

4. What type of MOU will we need?5. What should we do about an MRI proposal?

a) What are the rules about asking for the support in both a regular proposal and an MRI?

b) Who should be involved in the MRI (one institution or many)?

c) What will the timing be of the review wrt the MRI?

6. How many pages can our proposal be?a) What may included as an appendixb) Mou’s, Mexican studies, Engineering studies, etc


Milagro

University Grant Program Report(approved by HEPAP)

• The SAGs should regularize their role in reviewing projects– Each SAG should actively monitor and prioritize the experiments

and R&D in its area. It should evaluate both physics goals and technical design.

– The SAGs should report to P5, timing their reports so that they are available to P5 when needed.

– The SAGs should review all experiments with expected construction costs above $5M, along with smaller ones seeking review. This includes both experiments that are affiliated with a U.S. laboratory and those that are not. Additional SAGs should be created as needed to cover all areas (taking care to avoid proliferation).

– HEPAP should establish mechanisms for prioritizing experiments whose cost is above $5M but below the P5 threshold. The prioritization process should take advantage of input from the SAGs

and should reflect the breadth of the field.


Milagro

UGPS (cont)

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.


Milagro

HAWC US Collaborators• Los Alamos

– B. Dingus, P. Huentemeyer, G. Sinnis, G. Walker (Milagro, HIRES) • University of Maryland

– Aous Abdo, D. Berley, R. Ellsworth, J. Goodman, A. Smith, Vlasios Vasileiou (Milagro, IceCube)

• U.C. Irvine– G. Yodh (Milagro)

• Michigan State University– J. Linnemann (Milagro, D0)

• Penn State University– T. DeYoung (Milagro, IceCube)

• University of Utah– D. Kieda, M. Mustafa (VERITAS, Auger)

• U. New Hampshire– J. Ryan (Milagro, Solar Physics)

• University of New Mexico– J. Mathews (Auger)

• U.C. Santa Cruz– M. Schneider (Milagro)

• NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center– J. McEnery (GLAST)


Milagro

Mexican Collaborators

Institution Dependent on Location Areas Relation to HAWC

Instituto Nacional de Astrof’sica, īptic a y Electr—nica (INAOE)

CONACYT Tonantzintla, Puebla

Astrophysics, optics, electronics , computing science

LMT project, RT5, site development + management

Instituto de Astronom’a

UNAM Mexico DF Astronomy and astrophysics

RT5, OAN

Facultad de Ciencias F’sico Matem‡ticas

BUAP Puebla High energy particle physics

Cosmic ray array

Instituto de F’sica UNAM Mˇxico DF High energy physics

Particle detectors

Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares

UNAM Mˇxico DF Nuclear and particle physics

Auger, theory

Instituto de Geof’sica UNAM Mˇxico DF Solar physics TNS, RT5 Instituto de F’sica Universidad de

Guanajuato Le—n, Guanajuato

High energy physics, neutrinos

CINVESTAV IPN Mˇxico DF High energy physics

Auger

Instituto de F’sica Universidad Michoacana de San Nicol‡s de Hidalgo

Morelia, Michoac‡n

High energy physics and instrumentation

Auger

Dipartimento di Fisica Generale

Universit‡ di Torino

Torino, Italia High energy cosmic rays

Chacaltaya

Centro de Geociencias UNAM Querˇtaro Geophysics Geology, hydrology

Departamento de F’sica

UAM Iztapalapa DF

Hydrogeology Hydrogeology


Milagro

MX HAWC collaborators

Individual Institution Research areas /

other projects Contribution to

HAWC Dedication

Alberto Carrami–ana INAOE High energy astrophysics / LMT / head of astrophysics

Group organization, science

Main project, core group, high

Eduardo Mendoza INAOE Solar physics / RT5

Site studies, solar research

High involvement, combined with RT5, high

Janina Nava INAOE Environment / LMT

Environmental oversight

Consultant, helper, medium

Lil’ V‡zquez INAOE, UAEM

Geoscientist Hired for proposal

Out of group

Guillermo Tenorio Tagle

INAOE ISM expert Astrophysical interpretation

Science discussion, low

Luis Carrasco INAOE ISM expert and extragalactic

Astrophysical interpretation


Sergey Silich INAOE ISM expert Astrophysical interpretation


Eduardo de la Fuente INAOE General astrophysics

Dedicated 1 year postdoc

Up to full time for one year, high

Manuel Rodr’guez INAOE Blazars Student Main project, high Magdalena Gonz‡lez IAUNAM Gamma-ray

astronomy MILAGRO member

Main project, core group, high

Dany Page IAUNAM Neutron star models

Supporter Theoretical interpretation (Compact objects), low

William Lee IAUNAM Gamma ray bursts

Supporter Theoretical interpretation (GRB), low to medium

Deborah Dultzin IAUNAM AGN expert Blazar research, multiwavelength work during EGRET

Multiwavelength observations, theoretical discussion oversight (blazars), low to medium

Miriam Carrillo IAUNAM GRBs Student Ph Thesis, high Erika Ben’tez IAUNAM AGNs, blazars Blazar research,

multiwavelength work during EGRET

Multiwavelength observations, theoretical discussion oversight (blazars), low to medium

Vladimir ēv ila IAUNAM Cosmology Dark matter search

Theoretical discussion, low to medium

Sergio Mendoza IAUNAM Relativistic jets Blazars and GRBs

Theoretical interpretation, low

Marco Martos IAUNAM ISM expert Astrophysical interpretation


Individual Institution Research areas / other projects

Contribution to HAWC Dedication

Hector Hern‡ndez Toledo

IAUNAM AGN Multiwavelength work

Optical observations (blazars and general), outreach, medium

Octavio Valenzuela IAUNAM Cosmology Dark matter search Theoretical discussion, medium

Gustavo Medina Tanco

ICN-UNAM Highest energy cosmic rays

Auger, CR research

Interpretation, discussion, core group, high

Lukas Nellen ICN-UNAM High energy astrophysics

Auger Theory, computing resources, high

Juan Carlos DÕOlivo ICN-UNAM High energy physics

Auger General discussion, low

Rubˇn Alfaro IFUNAM High energy physics and instrumentation

CR detectors (Teotihuac‡n experiment)

Instrumentation, core group, high

Arturo Menchaca IFUNAM High energy physics and instrumention / IFUNAM director


Instrumentation, medium

Ernesto Belmont IFUNAM High energy physics and instrumentation


Instrumentation, low

Andrˇs Sandov al IFUNAM High energy physics and instrumentation


Instrumentation, Citlaltepetl tomography, medium to high

Arnulfo Mart’nez IFUNAM High energy physics and instrumentation


Instrumentation, ?

Varlen Grabski IFUNAM High energy physics and instrumentation


Instrumentation, ?

Humberto Salazar BUAP High energy physics, astrophsyics

Cosmic ray array Instrumentation, core group, high

Oscar Mart’nez BUAP High energy physics, astrophysics

Cosmic ray array Instrumentation, core group, high

Arturo Fern‡ndez BUAP High energy physics

ALICE General discussion, low

Cˇsar ē lvarez BUAP High energy physics, astrophysics

Cosmic ray array Main project, high

Lorenzo D’az BUAP High energy physics

Cosmic ray array General discussion, low

Alfonso Rosado BUAP High energy physics

Cosmic ray array Student?

Cupatitzio Ramirez BUAP High energy physics

Head of department

Institutional support, low


Milagro

MX HAWC collaborators II

Individual Institution Research areas / other projects

Contribution to HAWC Dedication

Josˇ Valdˇs Galicia Geof’sica UNAM

Solar physics, cosmic rays, / Solar neutron telescope (TNS)

Geof’sica Director General discussion, solar research, institutional support, Medium

Alejandro Lara Geof’sica UNAM

Solar physics / RT5

Instrumentation Solar research, medium

Rogelio Caballero Geof’sica UNAM

Solar physics, cosmic rays (TNS?)

Instrumentation Solar research, medium to high

Arnulfo Zepeda CINVESTAV High energy particle physics

Auger General support, medium to high

Gerardo Herrera CINVESTAV

High energy physics

Former department director

Low?

David Delepine IF-UGTO High energy physics

Neutrinos Medium

Gerardo Moreno IF-UGTO High energy physics

? Low

Mauro Napsuciale IF-UGTO High energy physics

? Low

Luis Ure–a IF-UGTO High energy physics

? Low

Marco Reyes IF-UGTO High energy physics

? Medium

Victor Migˇnes IF-UGTO Astronomy ? Low Luis Villase–or UMSNH High energy

physics Auger Instrumentation,

high Oscar Saavedra Torino High energy

cosmic rays Chacaltaya Low

Alejandro Carrillo Geociencias UNAM

Geology, hydrology

Geological and water research at Citlaltepetl

Consultant

Gerardo Carrasco Geociencias UNAM

Geology Geological research at Citlaltepetl, experience with dam structures?

Consultant

Carlos Vargas UAM Iztapalapa

Hydrogeology Hydrogeology Consultant


Milagro

Documents

The History of Milagro - University Of Marylandumdgrb.umd.edu/hawc/documents/JAG_Milagro_History.pdfThe History of Milagro Jordan A. Goodman ... Data taking begins Feb ... – We had