Next Generation Adaptive Optics (NGAO) System Design Phase Update Peter Wizinowich, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max Science Case Presenters: Brian Cameron,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
NGAO Systems Engineering Status Team Meeting #3 (Video) R. Dekany 13 December 2006.
Advertisements

Strategic Planning for Adaptive Optics at Keck Claire Max and Mike Liu on behalf of Keck AO Working Group Antonin Bouchez (Caltech), Rich Dekany (Caltech),
Science Group: Status, Plans, and Issues Claire Max Liz McGrath August 19, 2008.
Extragalactic AO Science James Larkin AOWG Strategic Planning Meeting September 19, 2004.
Trade Study Report: Fixed vs. Variable LGS Asterism V. Velur Caltech Optical Observatories Pasadena, CA V. Velur Caltech Optical Observatories Pasadena,
W. M. Keck Observatory Keck Next Generation AO Next Generation Adaptive Optics Irvine Meeting September 14, 2006 P. Wizinowich for NGAO Executive Committee.
Planets around Low-Mass Stars and Brown Dwarfs Michael Liu Bruce Macintosh NGAO Workshop, Sept 2006.
NGAO Companion Sensitivity Performance Budget (WBS ) Rich Dekany, Ralf Flicker, Mike Liu, Chris Neyman, Bruce Macintosh NGAO meeting #6, 4/25/2007.
W. M. Keck Observatory’s Next Generation Adaptive Optics Preliminary Design & Path Forward Peter Wizinowich, Sean Adkins, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire.
Keck NGAO Science Requirements Claire Max UC Santa Cruz Caltech NGAO Meeting November 14, 2006.
NGAO System Design Review Response Peter Wizinowich, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max for NGAO Team SSC Meeting June 18, 2008.
NGAO System Design Phase Update Peter Wizinowich, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max, Sean Adkins for NGAO Team SSC Meeting February 20, 2008.
Science Team Management Claire Max Sept 14, 2006 NGAO Team Meeting.
Extragalactic Science Case 1.People who worked on this study 2.Example science cases: – Low redshifts: black hole masses in nearby galaxies – Intermediate.
Low order wavefront sensor trade study Richard Clare NGAO meeting #4 January
The Need for Contiguous Fields NGAO Team Meeting, Waimea January 22, 2007 Claire Max.
1 NGAO Instrumentation Studies Overview By Sean Adkins November 14, 2006.
WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics: Build to Cost Concept Review Peter Wizinowich et al. ~ March 20, 2009 February 5, 2009 DRAFT.
NGAO Science Instrument Reuse Part 2: Update and required feedback NGAO IWG Anna Moore, Sean Adkins NGAO Team Meeting January 22, 2007.
Keck NGAO Science Case Requirements Claire Max and Liz McGrath NGAO Team Meeting 13 January 25, 2008.
1 The Scientific Context for NGAO Mark Morris, representing the NGAO Scientific Advisory Team (NSAT): Tommaso Treu, Laird Close, Michael Liu, & Keith Matthews.
NGAO Astrometric Science and Performance Astrometric Performance Budget Team: Brian Cameron, Jessica Lu, Matthew Britton, Andrea Ghez, Rich Dekany, Claire.
NGAO System Design Phase Update Peter Wizinowich, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max for NGAO Team SSC Meeting April 3, 2007.
California Association for Research in Astronomy W. M. Keck Observatory KPAO Keck Precision Adaptive Optics Keck Precision AO (KPAO) SSC Presentation January.
The Path to NGAO Core Science Requirements Claire Max and Liz McGrath NGAO Team Meeting September 11-12, 2008.
NGAO Meeting #3 Introduction NGAO Meeting #3 Peter Wizinowich December 13, 2006.
WFS Preliminary design phase report I V. Velur, J. Bell, A. Moore, C. Neyman Design Meeting (Team meeting #10) Sept 17 th, 2007.
The Next-Generation Adaptive Optics System at Keck Observatory Introduction & Overview Michael Liu & Claire Max on behalf of the NGAO study group.
NGAO Science Instruments Build to Cost Status February 5, 2009 Sean Adkins.
NGAO Management Update Peter Wizinowich NGAO Meeting #11 November 5, 2007.
Galactic Science: Star and Planet Formation
WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics Science Advisory Team: Introductions & NSAT Charge Taft Armandroff, Mike Bolte, Shri Kulkarni, Hilton Lewis June 11,
LGS-AO Performance Characterization Plan AOWG meeting Dec. 5, 2003 A. Bouchez, D. Le Mignant, M. van Dam for the Keck AO team.
NGAO System Design Phase Management Report - Replan NGAO Meeting #6 Peter Wizinowich April 25, 2007.
NGAO Status R. Dekany January 31, Next Generation AO at Keck Nearing completion of 18 months System Design phase –Science requirements and initial.
NGAO System Design Phase Update Peter Wizinowich, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max for NGAO Team (with input from Sean Adkins, Matthew Britton, Ralf.
The Future of AO at Keck Sept 2004 Mike Brown, for the AOWG and Keck AO team.
1 Keck NGAO Project Replan: Science Cases and Requirements Claire Max NGAO Team Meeting 6 April 25, 2007.
NGAO System Design Phase System & Functional Requirements Documents NGAO Meeting #6 Peter Wizinowich April 25, 2007.
NGAO Build to Cost Summary Peter Wizinowich, Sean Adkins, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max & the NGAO Team SSC Meeting April 14, 2009.
NGAO System Design Phase Update Peter Wizinowich, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max for NGAO Team SSC Meeting January 24, 2007.
Science Requirements Impacting AO Architecture Claire Max Architecture Meeting July
High Redshift Galaxies: Encircled energy performance budget and IFU spectroscopy Claire Max Sept 14, 2006 NGAO Team Meeting.
NGAO Meeting #5 Introduction NGAO Meeting #5 Peter Wizinowich March 7, 2007.
WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics: Build to Cost Concept Review Peter Wizinowich et al. December 2, 2008 DRAFT.
W. M. Keck Observatory’s Next Generation Adaptive Optics (NGAO) Facility Peter Wizinowich, Sean Adkins, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max for NGAO Team:
Black Holes in Nearby Galaxies Claire Max NGAO Team Meeting March 7, 2007.
Plan to develop system requirements through science cases Claire Max Sept 14, 2006 NGAO Team Meeting.
Trade Study Report: NGAO versus Keck AO Upgrade NGAO Meeting #5 Peter Wizinowich March 7, 2007.
NGAO System Design Phase Update Peter Wizinowich, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max, Sean Adkins for NGAO Team SSC Meeting November 6, 2007.
What Requirements Drive NGAO Cost? Richard Dekany NGAO Team Meeting September 11-12, 2008.
W. M. Keck Observatory Subaru Users’ Meeting
AO4ELT - Paris Giant Magellan Telescope Project Science Drivers & AO Requirements Patrick McCarthy - GMT Director Phil Hinz & Michael Hart - GMT.
GMTIFS – An AO-Corrected Integral-Field Spectrograph and Imager for GMT Peter McGregor The Australian National University 1 IFUs in the Era of JWST - October.
Early scientific goals for the MMT’s multi-laser-guided adaptive optics Michael Lloyd-Hart, Thomas Stalcup, Christoph Baranec, N. Mark Milton, Matt Rademacher,
Future Giant Telescopes: Evolution in Ground-Space Synergy Richard Ellis Caltech Astrophysics 2020: STScI, November
CELT Science Case. CELT Science Justification Process Put together a Science Working Group –Bolte, Chuck Steidel, Andrea Ghez, Mike Brown, Judy Cohen,
Keck Observatory in the TMT Era Keck Strategic Planning meeting September 18, 2009.
Mega Telescopes of the 21 st Century Evolution in the Ground-Space Synergy Dr. Marc Postman (STScI) & Richard Ellis (Caltech) James Webb Space Telescope.
Keck Observatory Overview Peter Wizinowich W. M. Keck Observatory AOSC May 31, 2004.
Keck Next Generation AO Next Generation Adaptive Optics Meeting #2 Caltech November 14, 2006 P. Wizinowich for NGAO Executive Committee.
FIRST LIGHT A selection of future facilities relevant to the formation and evolution of galaxies Wavelength Sensitivity Spatial resolution.
Keck Precision Adaptive Optics Authors: Christopher Neyman 1, Richard Dekany 2, Mitchell Troy 3 and Peter Wizinowich 1. 1 W.M. Keck Observatory, 2 California.
Theme 2 AO for Extremely Large Telescopes Center for Adaptive Optics.
1 W. M. Keck Observatory Update Randy Campbell Photo Credit: Subaru Telescope 28 May 2005 UT.
Introduction of RAVEN Subaru Future Instrument Workshop Shin Oya (Subaru Telescope) Mitaka Adaptive Optics Lab Subaru Telescope Astronomical.
Science Priorities and Implications of Potential Cost Savings Ideas
NGAO System Design Project Plans and Schedule
Trade Study Report: Fixed vs. Variable LGS Asterism
NGAO Trade Study GLAO for non-NGAO instruments
Presentation transcript:

Next Generation Adaptive Optics (NGAO) System Design Phase Update Peter Wizinowich, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max Science Case Presenters: Brian Cameron, David Law, Jessica Lu, Phil Marshall, Chuck Steidel, Tommaso Treu Technical Team: Sean Adkins, Brian Bauman, Jim Bell, Antonin Bouchez, Matthew Britton, Jason Chin, Ralf Flicker, Erik Johansson, David Le Mignant, Chris Lockwood, Liz McGrath, Anna Moore, Chris Neyman, Viswa Velur Keck Strategic Planning Meeting September 20, 2007

2 Presentation Sequence 1:00 pm WMKO Strategic Plan & NGAO (Wizinowich) 1:10 pm NGAO System Design Phase Status 1:15 pm Science Cases & Requirements –Overview (Max) –Precision astrometry at the Galactic Center & in sparse fields (Cameron & Lu) –High redshift galaxies with multiple IFU’s (Steidel & Law) –Gravitationally lensed galaxies with single IFU’s (Marshall & Treu) 2:20 pm System Architecture (Dekany) 2:30 pm Discussion –Potential Topics 3:00 pm Done

WMKO Strategic Plan & NGAO

4 Keck Strategic Plan: Twenty-year strategic goals Leadership in high angular resolution astronomy Leadership in state of the art instrumentation Highly efficient observing Complementarity with ELTs NGAO supports all of these!

5 Keck AO Strategic Plan: NGAO AO strategic plan established by Keck AO Working Group in Nov/02 & reaffirmed in Sept/04: “AOWG vision is that high Strehl, single-object, AO will be the most important competitive point for Keck AO in the next decade.” Sept/05: New AOWG tasked by Observatory & SSC to develop science case for Keck NGAO. Jun/06. NGAO proposal approved. Multi-object also emphasized

6 Keck AO Science Productivity Substellar binaries 126 NGS & 30 LGS

7 Key new capabilities for NGAO 1.Dramatically improved near-IR performance Significantly higher Strehls (  80% at K)  improved sensitivity Lower backgrounds  improved sensitivity Improved PSF stability & knowledge  improved photometry, astrometry & companion sensitivity 2.Increased sky coverage & Multiplexing Improved tip/tilt correction  improved sky coverageImproved tip/tilt correction  improved sky coverage Multiplexing  dramatic efficiency improvementsMultiplexing  dramatic efficiency improvements  Much broader range of science programs 3.AO correction at red wavelengths Strehl of % at 750 nm  highest angular resolution of any existing filled aperture telescope 4.Instrumentation to facilitate the range of science programs

8 Key performance metrics: Strehl vs. observing wavelength Current NGS Current LGS NGAO HH Ca Triplet

9 System Architecture Tomography to measure wavefronts & overcome cone effect AO-corrected, IR tip-tilt stars for broad sky coverage Closed-loop AO for 1 st relay Open-loop AO for deployable IFUs & 2 nd relay

NGAO System Design Phase Status

11 NGAO System Design Phase System Design Phase. Oct/07 to Apr/08. Executive Committee established to manage this phase: –Wizinowich (WMKO, chair), Dekany (Caltech), Gavel (UCSC), Max (UCSC, project scientist) Deliverables: –Science & Observatory requirements & flow down to system requirements –Performance budgets, functional requirements, system & subsystem architectures –Management plan for remaining NGAO phases

12 System Design Milestones #MILESTONEDATESTATUS 1SD SEMP Approved10/9/06Complete 2SD phase contracts in place10/27/06Complete 3Science Requirements Summary v1.0 Release 10/27/06Complete 4System Requirements Document (SRD) v1.0 Release 12/8/06Complete 5Performance Budgets Summary v1.0 Release 6/15/07Complete 6SRD v2.0 Release5/22/07Nearly complete 7Trade Studies Complete6/22/07Complete 8SRD v3.0 Release 9/7/07Not started 9System Design Manual (SDM) v1.0 Release 9/21/07Complete 10Technical Risk Analysis V1.0 Release 9/21/07Nearly complete 11Cost Review Complete12/7/07Some work as part of system architecture 12SDM v2.0 Release 2/12/08 13System Design Review Package Distributed 3/4/08 14 System Design Review3/31/08 15SDR Report & Project Planning Presentation at SSC meeting 4/14/08 Requirements  Performance Budgets + Trade Studies  System Architecture + Functional Requirements  Subsystem Design + Functional Requirements  Management Plan

13 System Design Products All products maintained at NGAO TWiki site (just Google NGAO) including: –Requirements documents (Science case, System & Functional) –Performance budget reports (wavefront error & encircled energy, astrometry, photometry, companion sensitivity & throughput/emissivity) –Model assumption & validation reports (total of 14) –Trade study reports (total of 23) –Management plans & reports Goal of NGAO shared-risk science in 2013

Science Cases & Requirements

15 Outline What is complementary and scientifically unique about Keck NGAO?What is complementary and scientifically unique about Keck NGAO? –JWST, ALMA, TMT –Other ground-based observatories “Science Cases” for NGAO: what are “science requirements” that will guide the design?“Science Cases” for NGAO: what are “science requirements” that will guide the design?

16 Key new capabilities for NGAO 1.Dramatically improved near-IR performance 2.Increased sky coverage & Multiplexing 3.AO correction at red wavelengths 4.Instrumentation to facilitate the range of science programs

17 Complementary to JWST, ALMA JWST: 2013JWST: 2013 –Much higher sensitivity longward of K band  NGAO emphasizing wavelengths > K band –JWST: “Expect same resolution as HST below 2  m”  NGAO has clear resolution advantage –No multi-object IFU capability ALMA: 2012ALMA: 2012 –Spatial resolution as low as 0.01 to 0.1 arc sec (!) –Complementary data on dust & cold gas Our goal is to position NGAO to build on, and complement, JWST & ALMA discoveries

18 Complementary to TMT TMT IRMS: AO multi-slit, based on MOSFIRE –Slits: 0.12” and 0.16”, Field of regard: 2 arc min –Lower backgrounds: 10% of sky + telescope NGAO with multiplexed deployable IFU’s –Multi-object AO  better spatial resolution (0.07”) over full field –Backgrounds:  30% of sky + telescope Pros for TMT: lower backgrounds, higher sensitivity Pros for NGAO: higher spatial resolution, 2D information, better wide field performance Pros for TMT: lower backgrounds, higher sensitivity Pros for NGAO: higher spatial resolution, 2D information, better wide field performance

19 Complementary with other ground-based observatories Other ground-based observatories are largely focusing on wide fields with modest performance, or on very high contrast AOOther ground-based observatories are largely focusing on wide fields with modest performance, or on very high contrast AO “Wide” field (by AO standards):“Wide” field (by AO standards): –Gemini South: Multi-conjugate AO –VLT: Ground layer AO High Contrast:High Contrast: –Gemini Planet Imager –VLT SPHERE

20 Scale of new VLT AO projects is really big Hawk-I: 2012 with AOHawk-I: 2012 with AO –K-band imager, 7.5’ x 7.5’ field MUSE visible multi-IFU: 2012MUSE visible multi-IFU: 2012 –1' field, x 2 seeing improvement MUSE visible narrow field IFU: 2012MUSE visible narrow field IFU: 2012 –7.5” field, ~5% Strehl at 750 nm NGAO must strike balance between scale/cost, risk, and science return. Lesson from these VLT projects: have courage, but be realistic too NGAO must strike balance between scale/cost, risk, and science return. Lesson from these VLT projects: have courage, but be realistic too

21 Outline What is complementary and scientifically unique about Keck NGAO?What is complementary and scientifically unique about Keck NGAO? –JWST, ALMA, TMT –Other ground-based observatories “Science Cases” for NGAO: what are “science requirements” that will guide the design?“Science Cases” for NGAO: what are “science requirements” that will guide the design?

22 Categorize science cases into 2 classes 1.Key Science Drivers: –These push the limits of AO system, instrument, and telescope performance. Determine the most difficult performance requirements. 2.Science Drivers: –These are less technically demanding but still place important requirements on available observing modes, instruments, and PSF knowledge.

23 Key Science Drivers (in order of distance) 1.Minor planets as remnants of early Solar System 2.Planets around low-mass stars 3.General Relativity at the Galactic Center 4.Black hole masses in nearby AGNs 5.High-redshift galaxies

24 1.Minor planets as remnants of early Solar System I-band AO; high contrast; astrometry 2.Planets around low-mass stars High contrast at J, H bands 3.General Relativity at the Galactic Center Precision astrometry and radial velocities 4.Black hole masses in nearby AGNs Spatially resolved spectra at Ca triplet (8500 Å) 5.High-redshift galaxies Multi-IFU spectroscopy; low backgrounds; high sky coverage Key Science Drivers (in order of distance)

25 Some Science Requirements from Key Science Drivers (physical) Wavelength0.7 to 1.0 µmGalactic & Solar System science, nearby AGNs 0.9 to 2.45 µmAll Wavefront error≤ 170 nmAll Solar System, planets around low-mass stars, debris disks, nearby AGNs, QSO hosts, lensed galaxies Tip tilt error≤ 15 mas over ≥ 30% of sky ≤ 3 masGalactic Center 50% ensquared energy within 70 mas over ≥ 30% of sky High z galaxies, Galactic Center radial vel’s IFU field of view≤ 3"High-z field galaxies Imaging field of view ≥10"Galactic Center 30"Reference field of view for design study

26 Some Science Requirements from Key Science Drivers (performance) Background≤ 30% over unattenuated sky+telescope background. Goal: ≤ 20% High-redshift science Astrometric precision100 µasGalactic Center 500 µasExo-planet primary mass Sky coverage fraction≥ 30% (areal average over all sky) Extragalactic science, TNOs,...

27 Instrument Priorities from Key Science Drivers 1.Near-IR imager 2.Visible imager 3.Near-IR IFU (OSIRIS?) 4.Visible IFU 1. Deployable near- IR multi-object IFU Narrow field: Multi-object:

28 Some Science Cases have specific observing requirements Efficient surveys: (e.g. asteroid companions and planets around low-mass stars)Efficient surveys: (e.g. asteroid companions and planets around low-mass stars) Optimizing overall science output of the ObservatoryOptimizing overall science output of the Observatory –“Seeing” and AO correction are variable –Requirements on ability to switch to NGS, and to other instruments –What kinds of “flexible observing” might be appropriate?

29 Science Requirements from Science Drivers (short summary) An “eye test” here, but printed out on your handout sheets. Please send us your input!

30 1.Asteroid size, shape, composition 2.Giant Planets and their moons 3.Debris disks and Young Stellar Objects 4.Astrometry in sparse fields 5.Resolved stellar populations in crowded fields 6.QSO host galaxies 7.Gravitationally lensed galaxies Requirements based on these Science Drivers are still under discussion - we need your input! Science Drivers (in order of distance)

31 NGAO will allow us to tackle important, high-impact science 1.Near diffraction-limited in near-IR (Strehl >80%) Direct detection of planets around low-mass stars Astrometric tests of general relativity in the Galactic Center Structure & kinematics of subcomponents in high redshift galaxies 2.Vastly increased sky coverage and multiplexing Multi-object IFU surveys of distant galaxies 3.AO correction at red wavelengths (  m) Scattered-light studies of debris disks and their planets Masses and composition of asteroids and Kuiper Belt objects Mass determinations for supermassive black holes

32 Science Case Presentations today Precision astrometry at Galactic Center & in sparse fieldsPrecision astrometry at Galactic Center & in sparse fields –Brian Cameron and Jessica Lu Spectroscopy of high-redshift galaxiesSpectroscopy of high-redshift galaxies –Chuck Steidel and David Law Gravitationally lensed galaxiesGravitationally lensed galaxies –Tommaso Treu and Phil Marshall Intended to illustrate NGAO science requirements development process

NGAO System Design: System Architecture

34 System Architecture

35 NGAO Fields of Regard 5 LGS variable radius asterism 3 tip/tilt stars 202" LGS patrol range 180" FoR for tip- tilt star selection Central LGS Roving LGS Multi-object deployable IFU FoV 5 LGS on 11” radius 3 tip/tilt stars 1 st Relay / DNIRI Field of Regard 2 nd Relay / Precision AO Field of Regard 120 arcsec 30 arcsec

36 System Design Progressing Visible imager Near-IR imager Near-IR IFU (OSIRIS) Telescope elevation bearing Keck I or II right Nasmyth platform LGS OSM LGS wavefront sensors on focus stages Woofer DM 589 nm Light f/45 narrow field AO relay Narrow field selection mirror IFU and tip-tilt OSM 2 channel IFU spectrograph (1 of 3) Tip-tilt sensor (1 of 3) K ‑ mirror image de-rotator f/15 AO Relay OMU Bench

37 Conclusion: NGAO Capabilities 1.Dramatically improved near-IR performance Significantly higher Strehls (  80% at K)  improved sensitivity Lower backgrounds  improved sensitivity Improved PSF stability & knowledge  improved photometry, astrometry & companion sensitivity 2.Increased sky coverage & Multiplexing Improved tip/tilt correction  improved sky coverageImproved tip/tilt correction  improved sky coverage Multiplexing  dramatic efficiency improvementsMultiplexing  dramatic efficiency improvements  Much broader range of science programs 3.AO correction at red wavelengths Strehl of % at 750 nm  highest angular resolution of any existing filled aperture telescope 4.Instrumentation to facilitate the range of science programs Enables wide variety of new science within interests of Keck Community