The SPICA Coronagraph Project A BE 1 /E NYA 2 /T ANAKA 2 /N AKAGAWA 2 /M URAKAMI 1 N ISHIKAWA 1 /T AMURA 1 /F UJITA 3 /I TOH 3 /K ATAZA 2 /G UYON 4 AND THE SPICA W ORKING G ROUP 1 National Astronomical Observatory, Mitaka, Japan 2 Institute of Space and Astronautical Sciences, Sagamihara, Japan 3 Kobe University, Japan 4 Subaru telescope/NAOJ, Hilo, Hawaii TPF Workshop, Pasadena, Sept. 28 th -29 th to:

ABE Lyu, NAOJ, TPF-WS, September 28 th The SPICA Mission in Brief SPICA Coronagraph Requirements Laboratory Demonstration

3 S PICA M ISSION  mIR to submm astrophysics  Complementary to >15mic  Coronagraphic mode (proposed by Tamura et al.)  Direct observation of outer self- luminous planets (20~100+ UA orbits)  Goal contrast >10 -6 within the exploration area  Benefit from monolithic pupil SP ace I nfrared telescope for C osmology and A strophysics  Succes of Akari (Astro-F) launch on Feb. 22nd 2006

4 T HE S PICA T ELESCOPE Telescope diameter Launch date Orbit Wavelength coverage Cryogenic active cooling (warm launch) Pointing accuracy Tip-tilt jitter control Wavefront control 3.5 m (SiC) ~2015 (HIIA rocket) Lagrange L µm 4.5K 0.3” 30mas TBD (corona. related) SPICA telescope concept

5 S PICA C ORONAGRAPH R EQUIREMENTS  The mIR wavelengths constrains very high angular regions  need for smallest possible IWA coronagraphs  SPICA tip-tilt jitter is important (  vibrations of cryo-coolers  coronagraph poorly sensitive to TT  SPICA telescope pupil geometry (15~25% central obscuration)  Candidate coronagraphs  Binary pupil masks (Kasdin/Vanderbei) – baseline Checkerboard  PIAA (Guyon)  (Multi-stage) apodized pupil Lyot coronagraph (Aime & Soummer)

6  Checkerboard Masks Pros/Cons  High IWA (>5 /D, because of CO)  Low throughput  Discovery space  Low temperature (need 4.5K)  Optical environment complexity  Sensitivity to Tip-tilt  Chromaticity  Aberrations (can be made standalone ) C HECKERBOARD M ASKS: A T RADEOFF  Tradeoff between complexity/performance Good baseline/backup solution for SPICA

Asymmetrical checkerboard mask (Tanaka et al.) 7 C HECKERBOARD M ASKS: A T RADEOFF  Study of asymmetrical configurations (Tanaka et al. PASJ, 58, 627, 2006)  lower IWA, extended search area close to axes  Study of OWA vs spatial frequency AO correction range Tanaka et al. 2006, submitted

8 L ABORATORY E XPERIMENT (Enya et al., to appear in A&A)  Conducted in ISAS  Environment  Dark room  Air flow (on/off)  No temperature regulation  Setup  Off-the-shelf optics ~ PtV, AR coating  No AO system  Beam diameter: 2mm (masks side 1.41mm) / F# ~ 600  BITRAN cooled CCD camera (2048×2048) (10  m diameter) Enya et al. astro-ph/

9 M ANUFACTURING  Manufactured at the Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (AIST, Japan)  Electron beam patterning and lift-off process (100nm aluminium)  BK7 substrates  1.41 mm side square (2mm diameter pupil)

10 40µm M ANUFACTURING Designed mask  Mask1: IWA=7 / OWA=16 / Design Cont.=10 -7 Checkerboard Mask Prototype  Fabrication process  Performance Modeling Manufactured by AIST company (Japan – Release date sept. 27 th 2005)

11 M ANUFACTURING Mask2 Mask defects  No central obstruction design  IWA=3 / OWA=30 / Design Cont.=10 -7

12 P ERFORMANCE (I)  Mask1: IWA= 7 / OWA= 16 / Design Cont.= / Throughput= 16% 10 /D with “ photon blocker ”

13 P ERFORMANCE (II)  Mask2: IWA= 3 / OWA= 30 / Design Cont.= / Throughput= 24% 10 /D

14 P ERFORMANCE (III) (Profiles along the diagonal direction) Average contrast  level (speckles) Average contrast  level (speckles)

15 A NALYSIS Theoretical pattern From optical aberrations (from beam line, not from mask) 10 /D Enya et al. astro-ph/

16  Checkerboard Masks  Submitted paper on WF correction requirements (Tanaka et al.)  Next planned mask design  Limit of optics  Cryogenic AO tests  6×6 channels prototype BMC mirror (modified substrate)  Other investigations  Two-Mirror Apodization (collaboration with O. Guyon)  PIAAC  APLC designs O NGOING & F UTURE PLANS