Next Generation Adaptive Optics (NGAO)
Preliminary Design Phase Update
Presenters:
Richard Ellis, Michael Liu, Mark Morris, Tommaso Treu
& Peter Wizinowich
With contributions from the
NGAO Science Advisory Team & NGAO Design Team
Keck Strategic Planning Meeting
September 18, 2009
Presentation Sequence
• NGAO Overview (Wizinowich)
– Project Goals, Status, Plans & Technical Overview
• NGAO Science
–
–
–
–
Overview (Max)
Extragalactic Science (Ellis)
High Contrast Science (Liu)
Dark Matter Substructure Science Case (Treu)
• NGAO Science Advisory Team (Morris)
–
–
–
–
NSAT role
Complementarity with other Facilities (especially TMT)
NSAT assessment
Open issues & community input  Discussion
2
NGAO Overview
Peter Wizinowich
Sean Adkins, Richard Dekany,
Don Gavel, Claire Max
+ NGAO Team
NGAO Science Goals & Capabilities
Key Science Goals
Understanding the Formation and Evolution of Today’s Galaxies
Measuring Dark Matter in our Galaxy and Beyond
Testing the Theory of General Relativity in the Galactic Center
Understanding the Formation of Planetary Systems around Nearby Stars
Exploring the Origins of Our Solar System
Key New Science Capabilities
Near Diffraction-Limited in Near-IR (K-Strehl ~80%)
AO correction at Red Wavelengths (0.65-1.0 m)
Increased Sky Coverage
Improved Angular Resolution, Sensitivity and Contrast
Improved Photometric and Astrometric Accuracy
Imaging and Integral Field Spectroscopy
4
How is NGAO different from
Keck’s AO today?
5
NGAO Project Milestones & Funding
• All of the following successfully completed:
–
–
–
–
Jun/06.
Apr/08.
Nov/08.
Mar/09.
Proposal submitted
System Design Review
TMT AO cost comparison
Build-to-cost concept review
• Preliminary Design Review planned for Apr/10
• TSIP provided $2M for the preliminary design
• NSF-MRI (Aug/09) provided $1.4M for K2 center launch
• ATI (Nov/08), MRI-R2 (Aug/09) & TSIP (Sep/09) proposals
submitted for NGAO related activities
• Private funding being sought
6
NGAO System Design Review (April/08)
Very Experienced Review Committee:
• Brent Ellerbroek & Gary Sanders (TMT)
• Bob Fugate (NMT) & Norbert Hubin (ESO)
• Andrea Ghez (UCLA) & Nick Scoville (Caltech)
•
•
•
“The review panel believes that Keck Observatory has assembled an
NGAO team with the necessary past experience … needed to develop
the NGAO facility for Keck. It is a sound, though aggressive, strategy
to be among the first observatories to develop and depend on
advanced LGS AO systems as a means to maintain Keck’s leadership
in ground-based observational astronomy for the immediate future.“
“The panel also believes that NGAO is an important pathfinder for the
2nd generation of AO based instruments for future ELT’s”
“The NGAO Science cases are mature, well developed and provide
high confidence that the science … will be unique within the current
landscape.”
7
NGAO Build-to-Cost Review (March/09)
Very Experienced Review Committee:
• Brent Ellerbroek (TMT)
• Michael Liu (U. Hawaii)
• Jerry Nelson (TMT, UCSC)
•
•
•
Cost cap with instruments & contingency: $60M then-year dollars
"The Committee strongly congratulates the NGAO team for a concise,
convincing presentation which demonstrates that the above criteria for
further development of the system have been very effectively met. We
recommend that the project is now ready to proceed with the
Preliminary Design Phase to continue the development of the updated
system concept, with no further changes in overall scope or basic
architecture either necessary or desirable.“
“We are unable to identify any other design change to bring NGAO
within the cost cap with such a modest impact upon overall scientific
capability.”
8
Revised Cost Estimate
$54M in FY09 dollars  $60M in then-year dollars
Includes science instrument & contingency
NGAO System
System Design
Preliminary Design
Detailed Design
Full Scale Development
Delivery & Commissioning
Contingency (24%)
NGAO Total =
IFS Design
Imager and IFS Instrument
Contingency (10/30%)
NGAO Instrument Total =
Overall Total =
Actuals ($k)
Plan (Then-Year $k)
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13
739
495
214
1240
1492
1600
5500
978
400
500
7415
8715
739
739
709
709
1240
51
123
17
192
1432
466
1741
3014
3958
6000 10134 11729
229
78
443
4284
4264
486
67
1309
1279
146
739
5670
5544
632
4697 11670 15678 12361
FY14
FY15
5262
1764
3119
10145
1825
611
2436
12
4
15
10161
0
2436
Total
1234
2946
8078
22293
3589
8951
47090
358
9613
2822
12793
59883
9
Major NGAO Milestones
Year Month
NGAO Project Milestone
2006 June NGAO Proposal to SSC - complete
2006 Oct. System Design Start - complete
2008 April System Design Review - complete
2009 March Build-to-Cost Review - complete
2009 Dec. Laser Preliminary Design Reviews
2010 April Preliminary Design Review
2011 April Laser Final Design Review
2011 Sept. Keck II Center Launch Telescope Operational
2012 April Detailed Design Review
2013 Oct. Pre-Lab I&T Readiness Review
2013 April Pre-Ship Readiness Review
2014
July NGS AO First Light
2014 Sept. LGS AO First Light
2014 Oct. 15A Shared-Risk Science Availability Review
2015 Feb. Operational Readiness Review
10
NGAO System Architecture
Key Features:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Fixed narrow field laser tomography
AO corrected NIR TT sensors
Cooled AO enclosure
Cascaded relay
Combined imager/IFU instrument
11
NGAO Imaging Capability
•
Broadband
– z, Y, J, H, K (0.818 to 2.4 µm)
– photometric filters for each band plus narrowband filters similar to NIRC2
•
Plate scale
– 1 or more plate scales selected to optimally sample the diffraction limit, e.g.
(/2D), 8.4 mas at 0.818 µm
– Finer sampling may be important for photometry, astrometry
– Science requirement for ≥ 20" diameter FOV
@z band cut-off (0.818 m)
Sampling
Pixel scale
Detector size
2048 x 2048 (H2RG)
4096 x 4096 (H4RG)
/2D(mas)
/3D(mas)
8.4
5.6
FOV (")
17.3
11.5
34.6
23.0
– Multiple plate scales increase cost and may limit performance
•
•
•
Simple coronagraph
Throughput ≥ 60% over full wavelength range
Sky background limited performance
12
NGAO IFS Capability
• Narrowband
– z, Y, J, H, K (0.818 to 2.4 µm)
– ~5% band pass per filter, number as required to cover each wave band
• Spectroscopy
– R ~4,000
– High efficiency e.g. multiple gratings working in a single order
• Spatial sampling (3 scales maximum)
– 10 mas e.g. (/2D) at 1 µm
– 50 to 75 mas, selected to match 50% ensquared energy of NGAO
– Intermediate scale (20 or 35 mas) to balance FOV/sensitivity trade off
• FOV on axis
– 4" x 4" at 50 mas sampling
– possible rectangular FOV (1" x 3") at a smaller spatial sampling
• Throughput ≥ 40% over full wavelength range
• Detector limited performance
13
Early Science Return from NGAO
• NGAO laser launch telescope
– NSF-MRI (Aug/09) provided $1.4M to procure & implement a
center launch telescope on K2
• NGAO Laser
– Collaborating with ESO, AURA, GMT, TMT to fund & share the
results of preliminary designs (PDRs by Dec/09) from 2 vendors.
• 2x250k Euros from ESO; $300k from WMKO using NSF/AURA funds
– MRI-R2 proposal submitted in Aug/09 to procure & implement the
1st NGAO laser on K2. Collaboration with TMT & ESO.
• PSF calibration
– WMKO obtained a MASS/DIMM from TMT that is being
implemented in Sept/09 by CFHT/UH as a Mauna Kea facility.
• Currently determining options for ATI proposal in Nov/09
14
Keck II Center Launch + New Laser
Predicted Performance for T Dwarf Binary Case
Relative Positional Error
Relative Positional Error (mas)
2.50
Current K2 LGS AO
+ Center Projection
2.00
+ New Laser
1.50
Factor of 2x improvement  6x
in dynamical mass determination
1.00
0.50
0.00
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Strehl Ratio (K-band)
Relative Magnitude Error
Relative Error (delta mag)
0.07
0.06
Current K2 LGS AO
0.05
+ Center Projection
+ New Laser
0.04
R = 16.2 NGS 31” off-axis
50 zenith angle
0.03
0.02
1% photometry
0.01
0.00
0.05
15
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Strehl Ratio (K-band)
0.3
0.35
K2 NGAO Laser 1
K2 NGAO + Camera
Jan-15
K2 Center Launch
Jan-14
Jan-13
Jan-12
Jan-11
K1 LGS + OSIRIS +
Interferometer
K1&2 WFC Upgrade
K2 OSIRIS
K2 LGS
1
Jan-10
Jan-09
Jan-08
Jan-07
Jan-06
Jan-05
Jan-04
Jan-03
K2 NIRC2
K1&2 NGS Interferometer
Jan-02
K2 NGS
K2 NIRSPAO
0
Jan-01
Jan-00
Jan-99
Major Keck AO Science Capability Milestones
Keck AO First TAC-allocated Science Milestones
Future
Date
16
NGAO Science
C. Max, E. McGrath, J. Crepp
A. Barth, D. Law
17
We categorized 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.
18
“Key Science Drivers”
(in inverse order of distance)
1.
High-redshift galaxies
2.
Black hole masses in nearby AGNs
3.
General Relativity at the Galactic Center
4.
Planets around low-mass stars
5.
Asteroid companions
These push limits of AO system, instrument, and telescope.
Determine the most difficult performance requirements.
19
“Science Drivers”
(in inverse order of distance)
1.
Gravitationally lensed galaxies
2.
QSO host galaxies
3.
Resolved stellar populations in crowded fields
4.
Astrometry science (variety of cases)
5.
Debris Disks and Young Stellar Objects
6.
Giant Planets and their moons
7.
Asteroid size, shape, composition
These are less technically demanding but still place important requirements
on observing modes, instruments, and PSF knowledge.
20
Science Topics
• Capabilities for spectroscopy and imaging of
high-redshift galaxies
• Black hole mass measurements
• New developments in planet detection
• Dark matter substructure
21
High Redshift Galaxies
& Blackhole Masses
Richard Ellis
Galaxies at the Period of Peak Star Formation
0.5 < z < 2.5
• NGAO will have higher spatial
resolution than JWST, providing
more detailed information on kpc
and sub-kpc scales.
• Internal kinematics and structure
key to understanding details of
galaxy assembly and evolution.
– e.g., merger driven starbursts vs.
gravitational instabilities/cold
accretion
SNR using H
• Exploring utility of other lines for
z > 2.5
23
Challenge: Redshifts 5 and (Much) Higher
•
WFC3 finds galaxies at z ~ 7 - 8 (!)
– Small: many < 0.2 arc sec
– VERY FAINT J(AB) = 26 - 29
•
Current Keck AO capabilities:
–
–
–
–
•
H(Vega) = 25 in 1 hr (pt source)
H(AB) ~ 26.4 in 1 hr (pt source)
AO has big advantage for pt sources
But don’t know galaxy size yet (how
much smaller than 0.2” are they?)
With NGAO:
– Really compact galaxies at
z ~ 7-8 may be imaged in 1 night
•
A fascinating challenge for following up
survey discoveries
– Will evaluate NGAO capabilities over
next 6 months - let us know if you are
interested in helping out!
Redshift 7 - 8 galaxies with WFC3
Oesch et al. 2009,
Bouwens et al. 2009
(see also McClure et al. and
Bunker et al. 2009)
24
Cooled AO system crucial for K-band performance
•
Target goal: AO to contribute at most 30% (sky + tel) background
•
Spectra of “typical” z~2.6 galaxies in reasonable observing times ~ 3 hours
•
Simulations in collaboration with TMT IRIS science team are beginning,
using “cloned” nearby galaxies and latest NGAO designs
25
Black hole masses in nearby galaxies
•
Minimum detectable BH
mass scales as
(distance X ang res)2
•
NGAO will detect lower
mass BHs to farther
distances than JWST.
– At distance of Virgo Cluster
(17.6 Mpc):
– K band: 2 x 107 Msun BH
– Ca Triplet: 3 x 106 Msun
•
To date, only a handful of
similar mass BHs have been
detected kinematically.
•
NGAO using Ca II triplet is
comparable with TMT in K
band (CO bandhead).
Minimum BH mass detectable vs. distance,
assuming local M-  relation and  2 diffraction ltd.
resolution elements across rgrav
26
Extrasolar Planet Studies with NGAO
Michael Liu
27
?
Marois et al 2008
28
Direct imaging of exoplanets: Why?
 Probe >5 AU region
• planet frequency
• mass function: dN/dM
• orbit distribution: dN/da, dN/de
 Target stars not suitable for RV
• active, low-mass, and/or v.young
 Planet
formation
theories
(architectures)
29
Direct imaging of exoplanets: Why?
 Probe >5 AU region
• planet frequency
• mass function: dN/dM
• orbit distribution: dN/da, dN/de
 Target stars not suitable for RV
• active, low-mass, and/or v.young
 Planet
formation
theories
(architectures)
 Measure physical properties
• colors = atmospheres
• Teff , Lbol = evolution
• spectroscopy = composition
 Exoplanetary
physics
(processes)
30
NGAO enables high contrast studies for a
broad range of science programs.
Keck/NG
AO
(LGS)
Gemini/GPI,
VLT/SPHER
E
(NGS)
AO system
Extreme AO
(GPI, SPHERE)
v.bright stars only
Keck NGAO
many targets
Contrast
107–108
105–106
31
NGAO: Planet detection sensitivity
• Large number of
compelling science
targets that are too
optically faint for ExAO
(R<~9 mag), but suitable
for NGAO.
• NGAO will be a unique
means to test planet
formation models over a
wide range of stellar
host masses & ages.
32
NGAO enables high contrast studies for a
broad range of science programs.
~25 MJup
1. Direct imaging of planets
around VLM stars and
brown dwarfs (e.g. WISE).
~5 MJup
Chauvin et al (2005): VLT AO (IR WFS)
33
NGAO enables high contrast studies for a
broad range of science programs.
DH Tau B
GQ Lup B
~40 MJ, 330 AU
~20 MJ, 100 AU
1. Direct imaging of planets
around VLM stars and
brown dwarfs (e.g. WISE).
2. Search for forming planets
in situ around the
youngest (~1 Myr) stars.
Itoh et al 2004
Neuhauser et al 2005
34
NGAO enables high contrast studies for a
broad range of science programs.
Keck NGS: H-band
1. Direct imaging of planets
around VLM stars and
brown dwarfs (e.g. WISE).
2. Search for forming planets
in situ around the
youngest (~1 Myr) stars.
3. Identify low-mass planets
(e.g. Neptune) via dyn
signatures in debris disks.
35
NGAO enables high contrast studies for a
broad range of science programs.
Keck NGS: H-band
Undetectable
Neptune with
1:1 resonant
dust ring
1. Direct imaging of planets
around VLM stars and
brown dwarfs (e.g. WISE).
2. Search for forming planets
in situ around the
youngest (~1 Myr) stars.
Solar system model
3. Identify low-mass planets
(e.g. Neptune) via dyn
signatures in debris disks.
High Strehl NGAO
Keck AO today
36
Testing models of exoplanet evolution
• Interpreting the emitted light of exoplanets
into physical quantities (Teff, Mass) requires
theoretical models of their luminosity evolution.
• Models can best be tested using dyn masses of
brown dwarf binaries from NGAO astrometry.
Dupuy, Liu & Ireland 2009
58 ± 2
MJup
37
Dark Matter Substructure
and NGAO
Tommaso Treu
“Missing satellites”: theory
Cluster
Galaxy
Kravtsov 2009
39
“Missing satellites”: observations
Cluster
Galaxy
Kravtsov 2009
40
Milky Way Satellites
Kravtsov 2009
Strigari et al. 2007
41
Milky Way satellites: big questions
• How massive are they?
– (Keck is working on it!)
• Are the excess satellites predicted by theory
non-existent or just dark?
– Enter gravitational lensing
42
“Missing satellites” and strong lensing
• Strong lensing can detect satellites
based solely on their mass at
virtually any redshift!
• Satellites are detected as
“anomalies” in the gravitational
potential ψ and its derivatives
– ψ’’ = magnification anomalies
– ψ’ = astrometric anomalies
– ψ = time delay anomalies
– Natural scale is milliarcseconds
43
Flux ratio anomalies and adaptive optics
Without satellites A+C=B
Anomaly predicted satellite before
Keck LGSAO discovered Satellite G2
We now know MASS and LUMINOSITY!
McKean et al. 2007
44
Astrometric anomalies and adaptive optics
Astrometric perturbations of order 10 mas
are expected based on simulations
Chen et al. 2007
45
Gravitational mass imaging: idea
Mass substructure distorts
extended lensed sources
46
Gravitational mass imaging: simulations
Simulated Data
5 108 Msun
Detectable with HST
Potential
Model
Surface mass density
Vegetti & Koopmans 2009
47
Gravitational mass imaging with NGAO
NGAO should be 4-16x
better than HST,
reaching 3 107 – 108 Msun
(depending on mass profile
of satellites)
With this kind of resolution
and a sample of lenses
one can reconstruct the
mass function of satellites
Proof of concept with
LGSAO in progress
Strigari et al. 2007
48
Gravitational mass imaging with NGAO
with sample of ~30 lenses
Vegetti & Koopmans 2009
49
NGAO Science Advisory Team
Mark Morris
NGAO Science Advisory Team
•
•
•
Established by Directors in Jun/09.
Mark Morris (chair), Laird Close, George Djorgovski, Richard Ellis,
James Graham, Michael Liu, Keith Matthews, Tommaso Treu
Charter:
– The purpose of the NSAT is to help ensure that the NGAO facility will
provide the maximum possible science return for the investment and that
NGAO will meet the scientific needs of the Keck community.
– To that end the NSAT will provide science advice to the NGAO project with
an emphasis on the further development of the science cases and science
requirements.
– The NSAT is also expected to provide science input in such areas as
performance requirements, operations design, and design trades.
– The NSAT will report to the Directors, providing a panel of experts for them
to consult, and will work closely with the NGAO Project Scientist providing
an expert science team that represents a wide range of AO interests in the
Keck community.
51
Complementarity with Other Facilities
• Other ground-based observatories
• JWST & ALMA
• TMT
52
NGAO in the world of 8-10 m telescopes:
Uniqueness is high spatial resolution, shorter ’s, AO-fed NIR IFS
Table 1. Next-Generation AO Systems Under Development for 8 - 10 meter Telescopes
Type
Telescope
GS
Highcontrast
Subaru
Highcontrast
VLT
NGS
Highcontrast
Gemini-S
Wide-field
Next-Generation AO Systems for
8 to 10 m telescopes
Capabilities
Dates
Good Strehl, 188-act curvature,
4W laser
2008
Sphere (VLT-Planet Finder)
High Strehl
2010
NGS
Gemini Planet Imager (GPI)
Very high Strehl
2010
Gemini-S
5 LGS
MCAO
2’ FOV
2009
Wide-field
Gemini
4 LGS
GLAO
Feasibility Study Completed
?
Wide-field
VLT
4 LGS
HAWK-I (near IR imager) +
GRAAL GLAO
7.5' FOV, AO seeing reducer,
2 x EE in 0.1''
2012
Wide-field
VLT
4 LGS
MUSE (24 vis. IFUs) + GALACSI
GLAO
1' FOV; 2 x EE in 0.2" at 750nm
2012
Narrow-field
VLT
4 LGS
MUSE (24 vis. IFUs) + GALACSI
GLAO
7.5” FOV, 10% Strehl @ 750 nm in
best seeing, low sky coverage
2012
N/LGS Coronagraphic Imager Hi(CIAO)
•
Most 8-10 m telescopes plan either high contrast or wide field AO
•
Only VLT has narrow-field mode, but has low sky coverage and needs best seeing
53
Complementary Landscape: ALMA
• Millimeter and sub-millimeter
wavelengths (0.35 - 9 mm)
• Typical spatial resolutions ~ 0.1”
• Resolutions for widest arrays as
low as 0.004” at the highest
frequencies
• ALMA science: regions colder and
more dense than those seen in the
visible and near-IR by NGAO
• Keck NGAO and ALMA
observations complementary for:
– Spatially resolved galaxy
kinematics, z < 3
– Debris disks, protoplanetary disks
& young stellar objects
– Planetary & pre-planetary nebula
54
NGAO comparison to JWST & TMT
Diffraction-limit (mas) at 2 m
Diffraction-limit (mas) at 1 m
Sensitivity
Imager
Detector
Wavelength range (m)
Sampling (mas/pixel)
FOV (arcsec)
Spectrometer
Detector
Wavelength range (m)
WMKO NGAO
41
20
1x
NGAO Imager
H4RG
0.8-2.4
8.5
35
NGAO IFS
H4RG
0.8-2.4
Spectral Resolution
Spatial Resolution (mas)
R~4000
10, ~25 & ~60
FOV (arcsec)
Projected 1st science paper
0.8, 2 & 4
~2015
JWST
TMT NFIRAOS
63
14
limited by sampling
7
~200x@K; ~1/6x@J
~80x
IRMS
NIRCam
IRIS Imager
H2RG
4x H2RG
H4RG
0.8-2.5
0.6-2.35
0.8-2.5
60
31.7
4
120
130
15
IRMS
NIRSpec
IRIS IFS
H2RG
2x H2RG
H4RG
0.8-2.5
0.6-2.35
0.8-2.5
R~100 & ~1000
R=3270
multi-object modes Two image
(0.24" slit)
R~3000 IFU or longslicers;
R=4660
slit modes
R~4000
(0.16" slit)
~100
160
4 to 50
200 FOR
4 slit; 3x3 IFU
120 FOR
up to 3
~2014
~2020
55
NGAO comparison to JWST
Key Science Case
Galaxy Assembly
(JHK)
Nearby AGNs (Z)
General Relativity at
Galactic Center (K)
Extrasolar Planets
around old Field
Brown Dwarfs (H)
Multiplicity of Minor
Planets (Z or J)
JWST & NGAO
JWST much more sensitive at K.
NGAO sensitivity higher between OH lines at H.
NGAO sensitivity higher for imaging & spectroscopy at J.
NGAO wins in spatial resolution at all .
NGAO provides higher spectral resolution.
Only NGAO provides needed spatial resolution (especially at Ca triplet).
Only NGAO provides needed spatial resolution (especially important to
reduce confusion limit).
Long term monitoring may be inappropriate for JWST.
Only NGAO provides needed spatial resolution.
JWST coronagraph optimized for 3-5 m, >1"; NGAO competitive ≤2
m, <1".
Only NGAO provides needed spatial resolution.
56
NGAO comparison to TMT
•
NGAO & NFIRAOS wavefront errors are similar (162 vs 174 nm rms).
– Similar Strehls. TMT will have higher spatial resolution and sensitivity.
– NGAO advantages: earlier science, accumulate experience that TMT will benefit from.
NGAO will screen most important targets for TMT (time scarce), do synoptic obsns.
Key Science Case
Galaxy Assembly
(JHK)
Nearby AGNs (Z)
General Relativity at
Galactic Center (K)
Extrasolar Planets
around old Field
Brown Dwarfs (H)
Multiplicity of Minor
Planets (Z or J)
TMT & NGAO
TMT IRIS lenslets (0.004″/px, 0.009″/px) have outstanding spatial resolution. TMT
IRIS slicer (0.025"/px, 0.05"/px) gives same spatial resolution as NGAO IFU. TMT
has higher sensitivity. NGAO may do many Z < 3 targets before TMT.
NGAO will screen most important targets for TMT. With 3x higher spatial resolution
TMT will detect smaller nearby black holes, and more distant large black holes.
NGAO IFU: good performance at 850nm Ca triplet is specific requirement. Could
potentially go to shorter wavelengths (e.g. Ha).
TMT wins in spatial resolution, sensitivity less important (confusion limited).
Significant value in continuing NGAO astrometry into TMT era (MCAO field stability
concern; Keck access easier). NGAO synoptic advantage.
TMT spatial resolution an advantage.
Control of static wavefront errors & PSF characterization will be critical (NGAO will
have 5 year head start on experience which TMT can learn from).
NGAO synoptic advantage.
TMT spatial resolution an advantage but NGAO could move to shorter l.
A lot of this science could be done by NGAO before TMT.
NGAO synoptic advantage.
57
Synergy / collaboration with TMT AO
•
Design reviews
–
–
–
•
Analysis & Development
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Ellerbroek & Sanders on NGAO SDR committee
Ellerbroek on NGAO Build-to-Cost committee
Wizinowich TMT telescope/AO performance review chair & on NFIRAOS PDR
committee
Joint TMT / NGAO error budget comparison
Joint TMT / NGAO cost assessment
Working together on extending LAOS simulation tool capabilities
TMT provided atmospheric site monitor that WMKO is working with CFHT/UH to
implement on Mauna Kea (for PSF reconstruction support)
Discussions of real-time control architecture & algorithms
Evaluating where TMT’s IRIS & the NGAO science instrument designs can overlap
Hardware Development
–
–
–
CCD development (led by Adkins)
Laser preliminary designs (with ESO, AURA & GMT)
MRI-R2 proposal for procuring/implementing laser for K2
58
NSAT Initial Assessment
• Very positively disposed to the evolution of the NGAO
project
• The scientific topics driving NGAO are the key topics our
community needs and wants to invest in
• Project is going well and on track; complex project
• Supportive of development / science steps along the way
(e.g., center launch, new laser, PSF calibration demos)
• NGAO provides extremely beneficial groundwork for AO in
the TMT era
• NSAT is a conduit for the community’s input.
59
Open Issues & Community Input
• What science might drive NGAO to shorter wavelengths?
• Given NGAO as it is currently envisioned are there other
science cases that we should be considering to further
enhance the scientific appeal of NGAO?
• How do we define science metrics for the stability and
knowledge of PSFs?
• What other opportunities are there for productive
TMT/NGAO collaboration?
– And for TMT/Keck community involvement?
60