Instrumental limits to our knowledge in X-ray Astronomy Matteo Guainazzi (ASTRO-H ESA Science Operations Centre) Calibration (as any truly scientific endeavors)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
WORK PLAN FOR THE EPIC CALIBRATION TEAM (AND BEYOND)
Advertisements

Clusters as calibration tools S. Molendi (IASF-MI)
Comparison of XMM-Newton EPIC, Chandra ACIS-S3, ASCA SIS and GIS, and ROSAT PSPC results for G , 1ES , and MS A “Man on the street”
X-ray Astronomy with High Spectral Resolution: Astro-E2 / ISAS Y. Tanaka.
XMM EPIC Andy Read IACHEC 2013 Leicestershire, UK, 25-28/03/13 XMM-Newton EPIC Cross- Calibration Andy Read With contributions from Matteo.
Possible contributions of the Groupe d’Astrophysique des Hautes Energies (GAPHE) to the GAIA data processing Eric Gosset, Gregor Rauw, Yaël Nazé & Hugues.
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal April ACIS Calibration: Recent Updates, Planned Updates, & Future Issues 2.E0102: Joint.
S.Mereghetti - Simbol-X: The hard X-ray Universe in focus - Bologna -15/5/20071 Studying the Galactic Ridge Emission with SIMBOL-X Sandro Mereghetti IASF.
Vicky Kaspi McGill University Lorne Trottier Chair in Astrophysics and Cosmology.
24-28 October 2005 Elena Belsole University of Bristol Distant clusters of Galaxies Ringberg Workshop X-ray constraints on cluster-scale emission around.
Chandra Calibration Status ACIS 1.Gain correction files for epochs 30, 31 and 32 were released in CALDB (Sept 2007), (Dec. 2007) and
Chandra Calibration Status ACIS 1.Gain corrections for epochs 28 and 29 (Nov – April 2007) were released in CALDB 3.4 on May 16, Gain corrections.
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky CUC September Overall Status of the Instrument 2.Update on Controlling the FP Temperature ACIS Ops.
Chandra Calibration Status ACIS 1.Gain correction files for epochs 33 and 34 were released in CALDB (June 2008) and (Sep. 2008). HETG 1. An.
Chandra Calibration Status Calibration Updates Since Last CUC Meeting ACIS 1. New tgain files were released for epochs 23 and 24 (May 2005 – Nov 2005)
XMM-Newton/ Chandra Cross Calibration with Clusters of Galaxies CXC Calibration Workshop October L. David, J. Nevalainen, M. Bonamente, D. Jerius,
Chandra Calibration Status  Gain correction files for epochs 35 (Aug. – Oct. 2008) and 36 (Nov Jan.2009) were released in CALDB versions
XMM-Newton 1 M.Stuhlinger, March 2010 Status of XMM-Newton cross-calibration using SASv10.0 Madrid, 24. March 2010.
Chandra Calibration Status Summary 1.The gratings and mirrors are very well calibrated at this time and there are no time-dependent effects as far as we.
Chandra Calibration Status  Recent releases  Current Calibration projects  Cross-Calibration between Chandra and other X-ray telescopes  Revisions.
Prospects and Problems of Using Galaxy Clusters for Precision Cosmology Jack Burns Center for Astrophysics and Space Astronomy University of Colorado,
Growth of Structure Measurement from a Large Cluster Survey using Chandra and XMM-Newton John R. Peterson (Purdue), J. Garrett Jernigan (SSL, Berkeley),
Chandra Calibration Status Calibration Updates Since Last CUC Meeting ACIS 1. A full set of calibration products for S0, S4 and S5 at T=-120 C, including.
Chandra Calibration Status Calibration Updates Since Last CUC Meeting ACIS 2. New products were released in CALDB on Dec. 15, 2006 to properly handle.
Chandra Calibration Status  Highlights of the IACHEC Meeting  Updates to the LETG/HRC-S calibration  Continuous Clocking (CC) mode calibration.
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal Nov ACIS Calibration: Planned Updates & Future Issues 2.ACIS Operations: Controlling the.
Chandra Calibration Status CUC Meeting Oct. 13, 2011.
Chandra Calibration Status  Highlights from the Chandra Calibration Review  New results on the HRMA effective area  Updates to the ACIS contamination.
Martin Stuhlinger Mallorca, European Space Astronomy Centre Page 1 XMM-Newton ESAC Status of XMM-Newton cross-calibration with SASv7.1 CAL Meeting.
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky February A Comparison of Spectral Fit Results of E0102 from the Chandra and XMM CCDs Paul Plucinsky.
Physics 133: Extragalactic Astronomy and Cosmology Lecture 11; February
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal October Comparison of RGS Model for 1E to the HETG data 2.BI CCD CTI Correction.
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC ACIS Ops team October 17, ACIS Changes Starting in Cycle 8 1) Selection of Optional CCDs 2) Revised Energy-to-PH conversion.
Vadim Burwitz EPIC Cal., Nov 6, 2007 Update on the Low Energy Isolated Neutron Star and White Dwarf Cross-Calibration Standards Vadim Burwitz EPIC Calibration.
Martin Stuhlinger X-Ray Universe 2005, Sep.26-30, 2005 European Space Astronomy Centre Page 1 XMM-Newton ESAC Status of XMM-Newton cross-calibration with.
Science Operations Status Maria Santos-Lleo EPIC cal & ops meeting, Madrid March, 2010.
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky EPIC Cal Update on ACIS Calibration 1) Update to the ACIS contamination model 2) Temperature-dependent.
Shu Zhang (on behalf of the HXMT team) Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Science The current status of HXMT and its calibrations.
P olarized R adiation I maging and S pectroscopy M ission Probing cosmic structures and radiation with the ultimate polarimetric spectro-imaging of the.
Matteo Guainazzi (European Space Astronomy Centre) WHY CAN’T WE?
Harvey Tananbaum Director Chandra X-ray Center Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 13th HEAD Meeting April 8, 2013 Building International Space.
OCRA-p science projects Marcin Gawroński Bonn 14.III.2011.
The IACHEC Matteo Guainazzi XMM-Newton Science Operations Centre ESAC-ESA.
SYSTEMATICS ON CHANDRA X-RAY MASS ESTIMATES Elena Rasia Dipartimento di Astronomia, Padova,Italy Lauro Moscardini Giuseppe Tormen Stefano.
Monitor of all-sky X-ray Image (MAXI) was designed to be capable of monitoring variability of a medium-sized sample of active galactic nuclei. As of November.
Aug , 2006 KJYAM 慶州 1 Suzaku Observation of Nearby Seyfert 2 Galaxy NGC 4945 Naoki Isobe (RIKEN, Japan) and Suzaku NGC 4945 team.
X-ray Astronomy School 2005 An Introduction to X-ray Astronomy Keith Arnaud NASA Goddard University of Maryland.
Main-Cluster XIS0XIS1XIS3 Weighted mean Chandra Figure 2 : XIS spectra of the main-cluster XIS keV Main-Cluster Sub-Cluster Search for Bulk Motion.
Toward the Senior Review Rob Petre. Senior Review proposal details Due March 12, 2008 Competing against: XMM, INTEGRAL, RXTE, Swift, Galex, WMAP, Spitzer.
Chandra X-Ray Observatory CXC Paul Plucinsky IACHEC March Thermal SNR Working Group: Summary Report Paul Plucinsky on behalf of the IACHEC Thermal.
XMM slew survey Richard Saxton 1, Andy Read 2, Pili Esquej 3, Michael Freyberg 3, Bruno Altieri 1 1. ESAC 2. University of Leicester 3. MPE XMM slew survey.
1 John Nousek & David Burrows (Penn State University) Alberto Moretti (Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera) X-Ray Telescope (XRT): Performance after Five.
25s detection of the Sy1 galaxy NGC3516 The Palermo BAT survey project Application to a sample of SDSS LINERs V. La Parola, A.Segreto, G. Cusumano, V.
Venezia - June 5, 2006S.Mereghetti - Swift and GRBs Conference1 Dust scattering X-ray expanding rings around GRBs Sandro Mereghetti Andrea Tiengo Giacomo.
High energy Astrophysics Mat Page Mullard Space Science Lab, UCL 1. Overview.
Hiroyasu Tajima Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology October 26, 2006 GLAST lunch Particle Acceleration.
Paola Rebusco (MIT ) Galaxy Clusters in the Swift/BAT era by Paola Rebusco Marco Ajello (SLAC), Nico Cappelluti (MPE), Olaf Reimer (Stanford), Hans Boehringer.
Cosmic Microwave Background Carlo Baccigalupi, SISSA CMB lectures at TRR33, see the complete program at darkuniverse.uni-hd.de/view/Main/WinterSchoolLecture5.
“VERITAS Science Highlights” VERITAS: TeV Astroparticle Physics Array of four 12-m Cherenkov telescopes Unprecedented sensitivity: ~100 GeV to ~30 TeV.
Science Operations & Data Systems Division Research & Scientific Support Department Page 1 XMM-Newton Feedback between circumnuclear gas and AGN: implications.
CMB & LSS Virtual Research Community Marcos López-Caniego Enrique Martínez Isabel Campos Jesús Marco Instituto de Física de Cantabria (CSIC-UC) EGI Community.
Why is the BAT survey for AGN Important? All previous AGN surveys were biased- –Most AGN are ‘obscured’ in the UV/optical –IR properties show wide scatter.
Galaxy Clusters & NHXM Galaxy Clusters & NHXM Silvano Molendi (IASF-Milano/INAF)
Cosmological constraints from tSZ-X cross-correlation
Cross-Cal paper Kristin Kruse Madsen.
M. Ajello (MPE-Garching)
Physics Seminar Measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background anisotropies and polarization with Planck Assoc. Prof. Guillaume Patanchon Astroparticle.
Chandra Calibration Status
XMM v Chandra - Cluster Analysis
Kristin K Madsen, IACHEC 2017
Presentation transcript:

Instrumental limits to our knowledge in X-ray Astronomy Matteo Guainazzi (ASTRO-H ESA Science Operations Centre) Calibration (as any truly scientific endeavors) is a collective effort Discussions with and contributions by A.Beardmore (Leicester University), C,Grant (SAO), L.David (SAO), K.Madsen (CALTECH), R.Mushotzky (Un. Maryland), J.Nevalainen (Tartu University), G.Schnellenberger (Bonn University), and S.Sembay (Leicester University) are acknowledged

Matteo Guainazzi, “Instrumental limits to X-ray astronomy knowledge, HEAD 2014, 20 h August 2014 Outline As good as the quality of the instrument calibration! Questions I wish to address in this talk: 1. How good is our science? 2. Why is our science as good as it is? 3. What are we doing to make our science even better? How good is our science? observational ∨

Matteo Guainazzi, “Instrumental limits to X-ray astronomy knowledge, HEAD 2014, 20 h August 2014 A textbook example: the XRB (Courtesy A.Comastri, Un. Bologna) ≅ 20% flux difference between focusing and non-focusing instruments  factor ≅ 3 difference in the fraction of Compton-thick AGN

Matteo Guainazzi, “Instrumental limits to X-ray astronomy knowledge, HEAD 2014, 20 h August 2014 Not always so hard... Timing (Martin-Carrillo et al., 2012, A&A, 545, 126 – continuous updates available in the EPIC Calibration Status Document) understood instrumental anomaly not understood Absolute phase with respect to the Crab pulsar radio period

Matteo Guainazzi, “Instrumental limits to X-ray astronomy knowledge, HEAD 2014, 20 h August 2014 Not always so bad... Energy scale (XIS: Tamura et al., 2007, PASJ, 57, 23) Instrument Energy scale accuracy LETG 4 (15) mÅ for λ ) 20 Å HETG 6 (3) mÅ MEG(HEG) RGS 6 (5) mÅ 1 st (2 nd ) order ACIS-I0.2-1% (Fe/O) EPIC-MOS5 eV * EPIC-pn12 eV ** ( Fast : 20) XIS0.5% XRT20 eV * 10 eV during eclipses ** only for single events and before 2012 Spectrum of the XIS calibration line RGS spectrum of Capella

Matteo Guainazzi, “Instrumental limits to X-ray astronomy knowledge, HEAD 2014, 20 h August 2014 The difficult bit is the area (Nevalainen at el, in prep.; for a similar analysis above 10 keV: Tsujimoto et al., A&A, 2011, 525, 25) Sample of Galaxy Cluster >2 keV: ±4%, energy-indepedent <2 keV: ±8% energy-dependent NuSTAR GC NuSTAR point-like

Matteo Guainazzi, “Instrumental limits to X-ray astronomy knowledge, HEAD 2014, 20 h August 2014 Why so difficult?  Theory: full ground-calibration  complete instrument physical model  Practice: there is hardly enough time for full ground-based calibrations, and to properly maintain know-how and data  Reality: instrument on-flight performances change  X-ray astronomy cannot rely on standard candles strictu sensu Astrophysics Calibration Calibration of X-ray instruments is always “with respect to...”

Matteo Guainazzi, “Instrumental limits to X-ray astronomy knowledge, HEAD 2014, 20 h August 2014 Impact on cosmology with clusters Comparison between cluster temperatures (0.5-7 keV) measured by EPIC and ACIS Why? - Effective area? (S14) - PSF? (D14) - Background? (M14) Hydrostatic 500 ACIS/EPIC [f=1-(M X /M WL )] M13: 0.88/1.00 M14: 0.94/0.93 D14: 0.78/0.56 [Figure from D14. The spatial trend is opposite in M14] Cosmology (S14) Δσ 8 ≤0.05 ΔΩ M ≤0.05 (less than the difference between Planck CMB and SZ) (Mahdavi et al., 2013, ApJ, 767, 116; Schellenberger et al., arXiv: ; Donahue et al., 2014, arXiv: ; Martino et al., 2014, MNRAS, 443, 2342)

Matteo Guainazzi, “Instrumental limits to X-ray astronomy knowledge, HEAD 2014, 20 h August 2014 Impact on SMBH science (Guainazzi et al., in preparation; see Reynolds 2013, SSRV, 81 for a discussion on the astrophysical systematics) Systematic area calibration uncertainties can be comparable to astrophysical uncertainties

Matteo Guainazzi, “Instrumental limits to X-ray astronomy knowledge, HEAD 2014, 20 h August 2014 IACHEC IACHEC = International Consortium for High-Energy Calibration IACHEC duties: Define standards for calibration planning and data analysis Publish the cross-calibration status (preferentially on refereed journals) Improve the cross-calibration status (e.g.: Poster# by Plucinsky et al.) Offer expertise to missions in preparation “In-Flight Calibration Plans for ASTRO-H”: Poster# by Brenneman et al. ( ) 9 th IACHEC Meeting picture, May 2014, Airlie Center (Virginia) (Most of) These astronomers spend (most of their) time to enable your science!

Matteo Guainazzi, “Instrumental limits to X-ray astronomy knowledge, HEAD 2014, 20 h August 2014 Synopsis of recent/ongoing calibration activities  Chandra: ACIS BI gain, CTI temperature-dependence, filter contamination, HETG 0th order efficiency; HRC-S QE; HRMA thermal gradient; LETG 1st order efficiency  NuSTAR: aspect solution (the whole calibration is “recent”, evidently)  Suzaku: XIS contamination; HXD effective area, NXB, timing  Swift: BAT gain; XRT gain/CTI/trap mapping, RMF  XMM-Newton: EMOS-MOS contamination; EPIC-pn CTI, gain, Fast Modes energy scale, PSF, timing, RGS contamination, gain/CTI, λ -scale; telescopes’ effective area ( ) Caveat: most expected changes at the few percent level only Intrinsic differences in the absolute effective area calibration at the ±5% level are likely to remain – do not ignore them! How to deal with them? CIAO: pyBLoCXS : Lee et al., 2011, ApJ, 731, 126 SASv14: applymirroradjustement in arfgen (fall 2014; Guainazzi et al. in prep.)

Matteo Guainazzi, “Instrumental limits to X-ray astronomy knowledge, HEAD 2014, 20 h August Golden Rules of high-energy calibration 1. Think of a mission as a single instrument [credit: S.Sembay] 2. Ground calibration is never sufficient one might end-up needing recalibrate everything 4. Integrate calibration data in “CALDB” as early as possible 5. Integrate calibration procedures in science analysis s/w 6. Establish before launch a cross-calibration working team 7. Facilitate communication among Instrument Teams since T 0,ops 8. Allow ITs access to all data 9. Do not neglect the potential help of the community 10. Do not hesitate to rely on colleagues from the IACHEC 11. There is no golden rule, of course