January 18, 2011

Report on Japanese- and Korean-led instruments of SPICA
This report describes the purpose, procedure, and result of the review for theJapanese- and Korean-led instruments of SPICA.

1. Review Process
The review committee for the Japanese- and Korean-led instruments of SPICA,
which consists of SPICA pre-project team and SPICA Task Force from GOPIRA,
released the call for proposals of the SPICA instruments on 14th Dec. 2009 (1*). The
first instrument proposals were delivered in the end of April 2010. After interviewing theinstrument teams on 12th July, the review panel (*3) examined the feasibility of theinstruments in July-Sep. The most important criterion for the FPI screening is to identify
the essential instruments or functions requisite for achieving the goals in line with thescientific major objectives of SPICA in MDR, e.g., “the drama of galaxy formation” and“the recipe for planetary systems”. Maturity of the conceptual design study must beaddressed. The technical feasibility and the consistency with the stringent limit of thesystem resources are also the points to judge the design.
The interim report of the review result was given to the Japanese and Korean
communities on 2nd Sep (*2). Then the instrument teams revised the proposal inaccordance with the recommendations of the panel. In the course of revising, three
original MIR instruments were merged into a single instrument. The SCI team was
asked to clarify its outstanding uniqueness or advantages compared to other
instruments onboard JWST.
The second instrument proposals have been delivered on 30th Sep. These
instruments are:
MCS (Mid-infrared Camera and Spectrograph) (PI. H. Kataza)
SCI (SPICA Coronagraph Instrument) (PI. K. Enya)FPC-S(Focal Plane Camera – Science) (PI. Dae-Hee Lee)

2. Expected FPIs and Options
In the process of selecting the expected FPIs and their options, we should keep ourattention to the advantageous coverage in long wavelengths with unprecedented

sensitivity thanks to the cold telescope SPICA with a large aperture. The focal plane
instruments must make full and best use of the advantage. After the launch of JWST,
which will give answers to many unsolved problems in astronomy, SPICA is a uniquespace observatory which will shed light on the dusty universe. As such, a higher priority
is given in longer wavelengths as a matter of principle.
Because of the life time limit for SPICA, as more functions are available, lesstelescope time will be allocated to each function and eventually consumed for many
miscellaneous targets, which would not always fully utilize the unique capabilities ofSPICA. It should be also noted that the larger field of view or longer slits of SPICA
instruments than those of JWST are regarded as minor advantages over JWST in its
wavelength coverage
MCS
The MCS is the main instrument of SPICA and should be given the highest priority.
The main functions in the proposal are:
WFC-S (Wide Field Camera in Short wavelengths)
WFC-L (Wide field Camera in Long wavelengths)
LRS-S (Low Resolution Spectrograph in Short wavelengths)
LRS-L (Low Resolution Spectrograph in Long Wavelengths)
MR-S (Medium Resolution Spectrograph in Short wavelengths)
MRS-L (Medium Resolution Spectrograph in Long Wavelengths)
HRS-S (High Resolution Spectrograph in Short wavelengths)
HRS-L (High Resolution Spectrograph in Long Wavelengths)
The current MCS has too many functions and too complicated design for any space
instruments. It is mandatory to reduce the complexity. The feasibility is concerned also
in view of the human resources which would be allocated to the development of eachfunction. As in the interim report, WFC-L and WFC-S are the functions indispensable forthe success of SPICA. Although the wavelength coverage of WFC-S has an overlap
with that of JWST, it has a much wider FOV.
A spectrograph in long wavelengths is also essential for SPICA. From the scientificmerits and to avoid the redundancy of functions, only one of LRS and MRS is
recommended to be installed. Although it is difficult to select one of MRS-L and LRS-L
because the choice strongly depends on what science objectives in MRD are preferred,
the committee recommends MRS-L as a mandatory function on the whole.

Other functions are judged to be the options in the priority order of LRS-L, MRS-S.
Although HRS-L and HRS-S are expected to be very prospective from its uniquenesswith strong scientific feasibility as noted in the interim report, the main concern would be
the team structure, which is well not defined yet. Technical risks to achieve highdispersion are also concerned.
In summary, the mandatory functions should be
WFC-L、WFC-S、MRS-L.
The options are reckoned in the priority order of
LRS-L、MRS-S、HRS-L、LRS-S、HRS-S.
The “option” does not mean that any functions are adopted if the resources areavailable. The review panel strongly recommends a minimum number of functions sothat those with highest priority are more powerful and productive. In addition, the panel
encourages the team to look into a possibility to extend wavelength coverage of MCS aslong as to ~50 m , and to have a discussion with a SAFARI team on which instrument ofSAFARI or MCS with extended wavelength coverage, will cover the pioneering
wavelength range of 40 to 50 m.
SCI
SCI does not demand as a cold telescope as SPICA. Therefore its unique capability for
extra-solar planet science from the space is a key point of the verification. However, theconcept design as well as the specifications of SCI is not well defined yet in this final
stage of reviewing. The instrument is discussed based on the baseline design. If thebase line of SCI is the contrast of 10-4 at best, SCI does not deserve to be onboard inspite of its unique spectroscopic capability because the scientific merits of SCI with 10-4
are not well clarified yet. The technical propositions to achieve much higher contrast, e.g.,
10-5~10-6 without DM are immature yet, or the way to prove the maturity is not clearly
described. The instrument team should find out scientific superiorities over JWST withfeasible technology. Otherwise SCI would be hardly given a higher priority than MCS andits options. It is another concern that the scientific team is not well organized.
FPC-S
FPC-S is a Korean-led instrument and it should be discussed within a framework of
the international collaboration. Nevertheless, the committee highly recommends FPC-S

to be onboard SPICA from the prospective view of international collaboration between
Japan and Korea, provided that the instrument does not demand any extra burden or
cost to the telescope and other instruments. Parallel or coordinated observations withother instruments, including those after the life time of cryocooler, will reinforce scientificachievements made by the main instruments.
In conclusion, it is recommended to implement FPC-S under the conditions that it wellkeeps the FPC-G functions, including redundancy, and that additional resources are as
small as in the current proposal. If the image quality is found in due course to be not as
good as expected for the current science objectives, the specifications and scientificgoals should be reviewed.

Review Committee
Takashi Ichikawa (Chair)
SPICA Task ForceSPICA Pre-project Team(*1)
http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/gopira/stf/Announcement_SPICA_FPI.pdf (in Japanese)(*2)
http://www.ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/gopira/stf/STF_SPICA_FPI_review_result.pdf (inJapanese)(*3) Review Panel members
Chair: Takashi Ichikawa (Tohoku Univ.)
SPICA task force for Group of Optical and Infrared Astronomers (GOPIRA): Takashi
Ichikawa (Tohoku Univ.), Hideyuki Izumiura, Masatoshi Imanishi, Motohide Tamura,Takuya Yamashita, Jun-ichi Watanabe (NAOJ), Kimiaki Kawara, Kotaro Kohno, Tomoki
Saito (Univ. Tokyo), Michihiro Takami (ASIAA),
Other members:
Hiroshi Shibai (Osaka Univ.), Takashi Onaka, Masahiko Hayashi, Satoshi Yamamoto(Univ. Tokyo), Toru Yamada (Tohoku Univ.), Shigeru Ida (Titech), Takao Nakagawa,Hiroshi Murakami (ISAS, JAXA)