PACS Spectrometer Spatial Calibration plan in PV phase A.Contursi D. Lutz and U. Klaas.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Crash Course in Radio Astronomy and Interferometry: 4
Advertisements

Echelle Spectroscopy Dr Ray Stathakis, AAO. What is it? n Echelle spectroscopy is used to observe single objects at high spectral detail. n The spectrum.
PACS SVR 38/9 Nov 2007 Wavelength Calibration1 FM ILT Spectrometer Wavelength Calibration Status Report H. Feuchtgruber, R. Vavrek.
The PACS Status Herschel PV Mid-Term Review ESAC, September 1, Herschel Performance Verification Mid-Term Review PACS Status: Overview Markus Nielbock.
Bruno Altieri Jan # 1 Pointing calibration plan Bruno Altieri (HSC) PACS PV phase.
FMOS Observations and Data 14 January 2004 FMOS Science Workshop.
PACS CoP & PV Review 21/22 Jan 2009 PVSpecWave1 Spectrometer Wavelength Calibration XHSPOT Proposal: PVSpecWave H. Feuchtgruber.
P olarized R adiation I maging and S pectroscopy M ission Probing cosmic structures and radiation with the ultimate polarimetric spectro-imaging of the.
- page 1 July NHSC Mini-workshop PACS NASA Herschel Science Center PACS Photometer AORs How to Prepare an Observation with HSpot: 2 Science Use.
FM-ILT Results of the PACS FM1 Chopper Markus Nielbock Ulrich Klaas Jeroen Bouwman Helmut Dannerbauer Jürgen Schreiber Ulrich Grözinger.
MG 1/10/01 1 PCS SMOV-3B Review Objectives Overview Activity Descriptions Requirements.
PACS NHSC SPIRE Point Source Spectroscopy Webinar 21 March 2012 David Shupe, Bernhard Schulz, Kevin Xu on behalf of the SPIRE ICC Extracting Photometry.
PACS Page 1 NHSC Data Processing Workshop – Pasadena Sept 10-14, 2012 SPIRE Spectrometer Data Reduction: Mapping Observations Nanyao Lu NHSC/IPAC (On behalf.
PACS FM-ILT SPECTROMETER SPATIAL CALIBRATION A. Contursi (H. Feuchtgruber) PACS Science Verification Review – 8/9 November 2007 MPE-Garching.
PACS NHSC Data Processing Workshop – Pasadena 26 th - 30 th Aug 2013 Photometer Extended Source Photometry Bernhard Schulz NHSC/IPAC on behalf of the SPIRE.
FM-ILT Results: Mechanisms FM1 Chopper and Calibration Sources Markus Nielbock (MPIA) Babar Ali (IPAC) Jeroen Bouwman (MPIA) Helmut Dannerbauer (MPIA)
6/11/2012 Building on NEAT concept - M. Gai - INAF-OATo 1 Building on NEAT concept M. Gai – INAF-OATo (a) Extension of science case (b) Payload implementation.
PACS SVR 2 18 Jan 2007 FM ILT: Mechanisms1 FM ILT Results: Mechanisms H. Feuchtgruber, H. Dannerbauer, N. Geis, C. Hartinger, U. Klaas, P. Royer.
PACS SVR 22/23 June 2006 PACS FPU Subunits1 FM FPU Subunits A. Poglitsch.
Consortium Meeting La Palma October PV-Phase & Calibration Plans Sarah Leeks 1 SPIRE Consortium Meeting La Palma, Oct. 1 – PV Phase and.
PACS SVR-II 18 January 2007 FM ILT overview1 The PACS FM ILT Phase I overview on actual test execution and analysis Eckhard Sturm MPE.
PACS Hitchhiker’s Guide to Herschel Archive Workshop – Pasadena 6 th - 10 th Oct 2014 The SPIRE Photometer and its Observing Modes Bernhard Schulz (NHSC/IPAC)
18 May 2006 Slide 1 of 10 STScI TAGFLASH Ground System Development Current ground system could support immediate COS launch Current ground system could.
A look at XMM slew data Richard Saxton, Andrew Read, Michael Freyberg, Bruno Altieri, Puri Munuera.
- page 1 NHSC – DP workshop – Feb – N. Billot PACS PACS Photometer Standard Pipeline Level 0 to Level 1 processing: From raw to calibrated data cubes.
PACS NHSC Data Processing Workshop – Pasadena 10 th - 14 th Sep 2012 SPIRE AOTs, Products and Quick Look Tools Bernhard Schulz NHSC/IPAC on behalf of the.
September 16, 2008LSST Camera F2F1 Camera Calibration Optical Configurations and Calculations Keith Bechtol Andy Scacco Allesandro Sonnenfeld.
PACS SVR 22/23 June 2006 Instrument Performance Prediction1 PACS Instrument Model and Performance Prediction A. Poglitsch.
© 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Lecture Outline Chapter 24 College Physics, 7 th Edition Wilson / Buffa / Lou.
PACS NHSC Data Processing Workshop – Pasadena 10 th - 14 th Sep 2012 Measuring Photometry from SPIRE Observations Presenter: David Shupe (NHSC/IPAC) on.
Source catalog generation Aim: Build the LAT source catalog (1, 3, 5 years) Jean Ballet, CEA SaclayGSFC, 29 June 2005 Four main functions: Find unknown.
Optimisation of the PACS Chopper Markus Nielbock Ulrich Klaas Jeroen Bouwman Helmut Dannerbauer Jürgen Schreiber Ulrich Grözinger.
1 W14D2: Interference and Diffraction Experiment 6 Today’s Reading Course Notes: Sections
Spectroscopy with PACS M82 PACS line imaging from the SHINING team (Contursi et al First Results workshop talk) Phil Appleton and Dario Fadda for.
PACS SVR 22/23 June 2006 Scientific/Performance Requirements1 PACS Science and Performance Requirements A. Poglitsch.
MIRI Dither Patterns Christine H Chen. Dithering Goals 1.Mitigate the effect of bad pixels 2.Obtain sub-pixel sampling 3.Self-calibrate data if changing.
PACS page 1 NHSC Open Time Cycle 1 Observation Planning Workshop 3 rd - 4 th Jun 2010 – Bernhard Schulz SPIRE Overview Bernhard Schulz, Nanyao Lu, Kevin.
Background Subtraction and Likelihood Method of Analysis: First Attempt Jose Benitez 6/26/2006.
CEA DSM Dapnia SAp Readout mode of the Photometer Koryo Okumura, Marc Sauvage, Nicolas Billot, Bertrand Morin DSM/DAPNIA/SAp.
PACS SVR 2 18 Jan 2007 FM ILT: Spectrometer1 Spectrometer Performance H. Feuchtgruber, T. Müller, A. Poglitsch.
PACS Hitchhiker’s Guide to Herschel Archive Workshop – Pasadena 6 th - 10 th Oct 2014 SPIRE Broad-Band Photometry Extraction Bernhard Schulz (NHSC/IPAC)
PACS Hitchhiker’s Guide to Herschel Archive Workshop – Pasadena 6 th - 10 th Oct 2014 The PACS Spectrometer: Overview and Products Roberta Paladini NHSC/IPAC.
PVPhotFlux PACS Photometer photometric calibration MPIA PACS Commissioning and PV Phase Plan Review 21 st – 22 nd January 2009, MPE Garching Markus Nielbock.
Jan 21/22, 2009PACS PV Review Photometer Spatial Cal1 PACS Photometer Spatial Calibration PVPhotSpatial D.Lutz PACS PV Review Jan 21/ , MPE.
NHSC Cycle 1 Open Time Proposal Planning Workshop 3-4 June 2010 NASA Herschel Science Center - page 1 PAC S prepared by Nicolas BILLOT
PACS ICC Readiness Review MPE, July 3/ PACS Photometer PV Phase Plan 1 Status Report M. Nielbock: PACS PHOT PV Phase Plan Markus Nielbock (MPIA)
The HESSI Imaging Process. How HESSI Images HESSI will make observations of the X-rays and gamma-rays emitted by solar flares in such a way that pictures.
Overview, Spectrometer Products and Processing Philosophy Phil Appleton on Behalf of PACS Team PACS IFU Spectrometer.
Herschel EQM – Results and Lessons Learnt6/7 Feb 2006 PACS Overall Analysis1 Overall PACS EQM IMT Analysis Contributions by PACS ICC.
PACS NHSC Data Processing Workshop Aug 26-30, 2013 Page 1 SPIRE Spectrometer Data: Calibration Updates, User Data Reprocessing, and Other Issues Nanyao.
PACS Page 1 NHSC Data Processing Workshop – Pasadena Aug 26-30, 2013 SPIRE Spectrometer Data Reduction: Mapping Observations Nanyao Lu NHSC/IPAC (On behalf.
PACS ICC Meeting #291/2 Oct 2007 Wavelength Calibration1 FM ILT Spectrometer Wavelength Calibration Status Report H. Feuchtgruber.
1 NHSC PACS NHSC/PACS Web Tutorials Running PACS photometer pipelines PACS-402 (for Hipe 13.0) Level 1 to Level 2.5 processing: The JScanam pipeline Prepared.
PACS IIDR 01/02 Mar 2001 Optical System Design1 N. Geis MPE.
- page 1 July NHSC Mini-workshop PACS NASA Herschel Science Center PACS Spectrometer AORs Phil Appleton 1Roberta Paladini.
- page 1 PACS Phil Appleton on behalf of the NHSC/HSC and the PACS ICC ; especially Bart Vandenbussche and Pierre Royer (KUL Belgium) Instrument Performance.
In conclusion the intensity level of the CCD is linear up to the saturation limit, but there is a spilling of charges well before the saturation if.
Markus Nielbock (MPIA) – Herschel Pointing PACS ICC Meeting #38 Herschel Pointing Summary and Recent Developments Markus Nielbock (MPIA Heidelberg) with.
PACS Hitchhiker’s Guide to Herschel Archive Workshop – Pasadena 6 th – 10 th Oct 2014 Overview of SPIRE Photometer Data Reduction Pipeline Kevin Xu NHSC/IPAC.
Markus Nielbock (MPIA) – PACS Calibration Status Report Herschel Calibration Steering Group Meeting #24 PACS Calibration Status Report Markus Nielbock.
Markus Nielbock (MPIA) – PACS Photometer Flux Calibration EPOS Meeting PACS Photometer Flux Calibration Current Plans Markus Nielbock MPIA, 22 th February.
JWST-MIRIM (The MIRI Imager)
parity bit is 1: data should have an odd number of 1's
Herschel Calibration Workshop
PACS Calibration Status Report
ESAC 2017 JWST Workshop JWST User Documentation Hands on experience
Instrument Considerations
Echidna: current status and expected performance
Fourier Transform of Boundaries
parity bit is 1: data should have an odd number of 1's
Presentation transcript:

PACS Spectrometer Spatial Calibration plan in PV phase A.Contursi D. Lutz and U. Klaas

GOALS Spec. central pointing (Req PCD)‏ FOV distortion (Req PCD)‏ At module level As function of chopper position As function of wavelength PSF determination (Req PCD)‏ Ghosts (Req PCD)‏ Straylight (Req PCD)‏

Spectrometer central pointing This is only a verification of the pointing for the spectrometer. The Herschel pointing is calibrated with PACS bolometer. 9 9 Req PCD

Spectrometer central pointing MEASUREMENTS - Chopped 9×9 raster, - Step size= 1/4 of spectrometer pixel step size (2.35” assuming a spectral - pixel size = 9.4”), - Chopper throw = to 1.5’, - Dwell time on each raster position= 12 s - Fixed grating position (77 and 154 μm), - Point source on Spec virtual aperture (module 12 BLUE), - Duration (XHSPOT)= 0.61 h. ANALYSIS and SIAM UPDATE - 2d Gaussian fit to get peak coordinates - Fed back to SIAM - New measurement to check the update ERRORS and DEPENDNCIES FROM SOLAR ASPECT ANGLES - Repetition on 7 other sources at different solar aspect angles Is this necessary or already done during CP? TOTAL DURATION - 9 measurements = 5.5 h

Spectrometer central pointing SOURCES - No need to be perfectly point source but peak should be clear - Several hundreds Jys

FOV DISTORTION AT Module level Req PCD

FOV DISTORTION As function of chopper

FOV DISTORTION As function of wavelength

FOV DISTORTION MEASUREMENTS I - 27x27 chopped raster (as before but larger)‏ - Repeat minimum 5 chopper position, better all (Opt0,+/- Large, +/- Medium, +/- Small)‏ Medium, +/- Small)‏ - Fixed grating (77 and 154 µm)‏ - Dwell time =12 sec per raster - Total duration= 18.5 h (26 h)‏ MEASUREMENT II - Chopped scan maps at fixed grating position. - Chop frequency =1 Hz - Chop throw = medium ( larger than the spectrometer FOV). - Scan speed =3”/sec - Off-position while chopping before and after scan map. - Leg length = 1.5', - # legs =31 legs - Leg distance = 3” - Source in the positive beam - Final map size = 1.5”×1.5” (bit larger than raster)‏ minimum 5 chopper position, better all - Repeat minimum 5 chopper position, better all - Fixed grating (77 and 154 µm)‏ - Total duration=17.5 h (24.1 h)‏

FOV DISTORTION SOURCES - Several hundreds Jys - If no point sources available, small extended OK but clear peak

PSF CHARACTERIZATION Characterize the PSF profiles Check whether they are nominal at given wavelength Req PCD

PSF CHARACTERIZATION MEASUREMENTS I (PSF in each spatial pixel at a given λ)‏ - 27x27 chopped raster (same as FOV distortion)‏ - 1 chopper position - Fixed grating position (77 and 154 µm)‏ - PSF in all pixels - Total duration =3.7 h MEASUREMENTS II (PSF in central module at other λ)‏ - 9×9 chopped raster (same as for pointing)‏ - Dwell time per raster position = 12 s - Raster step size in S/C x and y-direction = 2.5” - Source centered on the raster for the positive beam, - Chop throw = 1.5' - Off-positions while chopping before and after the raster. - Source centered on central module - Mapped area= 22”× 22” arcsec2 (to get at least the first Airy ring in the - diffraction limited case.)‏ - For 5 chopper deflections at 0, ±0.5’, ±1.5’. - Fixed grating positions at 55 / 110 μm and 90 / 180 μm. - Total duration = 1.5 h

PSF CHARACTERIZATION SOURCES - Strictly point like source - Several hundred Jys - Best (and almost unique) candidate : Neptune !!!!! !!!! !!!!! Constraints on observation period !!!! IMPORTANT NOTE If Neptune available in PV (unlikely) FOV distortion measurements give also PSFs measurements. No need to repeat big raster. Only 9x9 rasters needed

SPECTROMETER GHOSTS Large map(s) to check the existence of ghosts. If found, characterize them Req PCD ~100”

SPECTROMETER GHOSTS MEASUREMENT I - 50x50 chopped raster (same as FOV distortion)‏ - 1 chopper position - Fixed grating position (77 and 154 µm)‏ - total size = 188” - Large chopper throw - Total duration =14 h Further combinations of chopper deflections and wavelengths will be only implemented, if analysis of the available data sets suggests any dependence on chopper position or wavelength.

SPECTROMETER GHOSTS MEASUREMENT II - Very large scan map - Chopper frequency = 1 Hz - Chopper throw = 3' - Scan speed = 3”/sec - Off-position while chopping before and after the scan map - Leg length = 3' - # legs = 45 - Leg distance = 4” - Source in the positive beam, would give a - Final map size = 3'x3' (~3 times the 27x27 raster size)‏ - Scan map repetition = 8 - Fixed grating position at 77 and 154 µ m - Total duration = 8 h The use of the scan was first thought to be more efficient than rasters to observe large areas. This turned out not to be true if measurements are not too long.

SPECTROMETER GHOSTS UNIFYING PSF AND GHOSTS MEASUREMENTS - The scan map is 5 h shorter than the raster. - But since ghosts have to be done on point sources too, we can combine the PSF measurements at chopper = 0 with the ghosts measurements. the PSF measurements at chopper = 0 with the ghosts measurements. Instead of having ~ 12h we would have 14h Instead of having ~ 12h we would have 14h SOURCES - Strictly Point sources, as isolated as possible and with clean background. - Very bright (1000 Jy) (Neptune still the best candidate!)‏

STRAYLIGHT 5 strips (scan map) around very very bright source (i.e. Jupiter)‏ repeat the same measurement w/o source X = Jupiter 30 Oct 2009 Req PCD

STRAYLIGHT MEASUREMENTS - 5 strips around Jupiter (Jupiter moves ~ 3' per day)‏ - Each strip = unchopped scan maps - Leg length =15' - # legs = 4 - Leg separation = 30” - Scan speed = 3”/sec - Repeat maps twice to disentangle glitch effects and increase S/N. - Point to a clean off-position before after scan. - Strips orientation in TRUE sky coordinates to avoid Jupiter - If e.g.. Jupiter is selected fix grating at prominent line so that instantaneous spectrum of any intensity feature could support origin by Jupiter. - Repeat same types of measurements with Jupiter far away. - Total duration = 19 h Rasters would be too long due to overheads!

CANDIDATES SOURCES PLANETS Best candidates: small and bright! ~ 250 Jy ~ 600 Jy ~ 1.5e4 Jy ~ 2.5e4 154 µm PV

CANDIDATES SOURCES Neptune Neptune (best candidate for brightness and size) BUT basically not visible during PV Uranus (good for brightness not for PSF measurements)‏ is visible most of PV. We could use Uranus for all Spectrometer Spatial Calibration measurements but PSFs. We still need other than Uranus sources for the Central Pointing dependency from the solar aspect angle.

CANDIDATES SOURCES Neptune Uranus Velocity (arcsec/hour)‏ Days since 1 May ”/h 27x27 raster lasts 3.7 h If we observe where v<0.5”/h Neptune moves ~ 2.3” in the all raster. Start to become significant for PSF.

CANDIDATES SOURCES Planets Planets can be observed as Fixed objects: not advisable for PSF Moving object: tracking must be good reduction could become an issue Point like candidates Not moving objects: reduction much more straightforward They might be not point sources after all. They will be checked with photometer

Proposed strategy SOURCES Use point like candidates for all but PSF and ghosts measurements. (The important requirement is to get the intensity peak)‏ Use Neptune ONLY for PSF and ghosts, as moving target. Since this will be observed after PV at that point in time we might have: 1) gained experience for reduction strategy 1) gained experience for reduction strategy 2) have s/w available for reduction 2) have s/w available for reduction Type of measurements Since scanning does not seem to be significantly more efficient than rastering, do scanning only when rastering is prohibitive (i.e. Straylight). Try to double some observations with both techniques for exploration purposes (FOV Distortion).

Summary measurements Spec Central Pointing: 9 9x9 rasters, total time = 5.5 h source with good peak source with good peak FOV distortion: 7 (each chop position) 27x27 rasters, total time = 26 h 5 scan maps, total time = 17.5 h 5 scan maps, total time = 17.5 h source with good peak source with good peak PSF and Ghosts: 6 27x27 rasters (all chop but center) total time = 16.2h total time = 16.2h One 50x50 raster at chop=0, total time 13.2 h One 50x50 raster at chop=0, total time 13.2 h 2 9x9 rasters at chop 0 at other λ, total time = 1.5 h 2 9x9 rasters at chop 0 at other λ, total time = 1.5 h Source: Neptune (POST PV !!!) Source: Neptune (POST PV !!!) Straylight : 5 scan maps, total time =19h TOTAL SPEC SPATIAL CALIBRATION CAMPAIGN DURATION: TOTAL SPEC SPATIAL CALIBRATION CAMPAIGN DURATION: ~99 h ( 68 h in PV, 31 h after PV)‏ ~99 h ( 68 h in PV, 31 h after PV)‏

CONCLUSIONS Time expensive campaign. Raster type data format already known (analysis “should” be straightforward)‏ Scan map never tried. Moreover no such pointing mode is available for spectrometer science data. This means no piece of s/w is available neither. If scan map can be reduced at a desired precision level, we will have the following advantages: 1) have redundant data for the spatial calibration 2) the possibility to introduce this mode for the spectrometer later in the mission..... in the mission.....