TMT Instrumentation Overview TMT Week, Aspen, Sept 29, 2005

1
TMT Instrumentation OverviewTMT Week, Aspen,
Sept 29, 2005

• David Crampton,
• TMT Instrumentation Manager
• (crampton_at_tmt.org)

2
Instrumentation Staff

• David Crampton, HIA
• half time
• Luc Simard (ACURA, located at HIA)
• Starting Sept 26, 2006
• Both of us are astronomers, active observers
• Bring important viewpoints to project
• Assistance from IWG and instrument team members

3

• The challenge
• Potentially much larger instruments, much tighter
  specs
• Going much deeper into the night sky
• Limited AO experience in community

4
Overall Instrumentation Goals

• Establishment of telescope and observatory
  subsystem specifications
• Including contributions to error budget
• To enable instruments to meet performance specs
• Development of telescope and observatory
  interfaces
• To ensure efficient, effective operation
• Provision of three(?) instruments on time for
  first light
• Instruments must deliver superb performance
• Instruments must be best value for TMT and
  within budget
• Delivery of entire instrumentation suite of SRD
• Phased throughout first decade

5
Single TMT Reference Design

• 30m filled aperture, highly segmented (738)
• Aplanatic Gregorian (AG) telescope
• f/1 primary
• f/15 final focus
• Field of view 20 arcmin
• Elevation axis in front of the primary
• Wavelength coverage 0.31 28 µm
• Operational zenith angle range 1 thru 65
• Instruments (and their AO systems) are located on
  large Nasmyth platforms, addressed by an
  articulated tertiary mirror.
• Both seeing-limited and adaptive optics observing
  modes

6
Science Instrument Acronyms

• Adaptive Optic systems defined in SRD
• NFIRAOS (Narrow Field facility AO system) for
  first light
• MOAO (Multi-Object Adaptive Optics 20
  positionable, 5 compensated patches in 5)
• MIRAO (MidIR AO)
• MCAO (wide field AO, optimized for photometric
  and astrometric goals)
• Eight Instruments identified
• IRIS, a NIR imager and integral field
  spectrograph working at the diffraction limit,
  fed by NFIRAOS
• WFOS, a wide field, seeing-limited optical
  spectrograph
• IRMOS, a NIR multi-object integral field
  spectrograph fed by MOAO
• MIRES, a mid-IR echelle spectrograph fed by MIRAO
• PFI, a planet formation instrument, which
  combines a high contrast AO system and an imaging
  spectrograph.
• NIRES, a NIR echelle spectrograph, also fed by
  NFIRAOS
• HROS, a high spectral resolution optical echelle
  spectrograph
• WIRC, a wide field NIR camera fed by
  multi-conjugate AO

7
Instrument Design Challenges

• Maximizing scientific output
• Not easy a decade in advance
• Most of the exciting science cannot be predicted
• Pacing the design and development effort
• To take advantage of latest innovations
• To respond to changing scientific priorities
• To establish costs and budgets
• To reduce technical risk
• Designing instruments and telescope systems
  together
• This is an advantage, but must bootstrap
  everything!
• Not much experience with diffraction-limited
  observations
• Especially at limits achievable by TMT
• OCDDs very important

8
Instrument Design Challenges

• Seeing Limited Instruments
• Scale (2.2 mm/arcsec 20 arcmin is 2.6m)
• Size of optical elements is frequently a limiting
  factor
• Pixel scale is large - cosmic ray issues
• Achieving desired spectral resolution is
  difficult
• Sheer size
• Controlling flexure
• Competitivity cf 8-10m instruments (that can more
  easily have wider fields, potentially better IQ?
  May have, e.g., GLAO?)
• Overall cost
• Overall magnitude of projects
• Much larger than most previous projects
  undertaken by partner institutions

9
Instrument Design Challenges

• Diffraction limited instruments
• Maintaining image quality
• Controlling wavefront errors in instruments (lt
  50nm)
• Controlling vibrations
• Sheer number of pixels (Nyquist sampling at 1mu
  requires 3.5mas pixels)
• 10 IFU with 50mas sampling and R 4000
  translates to 15B pixels (or 4000 2K2K
  detectors!)
• NIR detector read noise and dark current (for 2D
  spectroscopy at DL)
• Sky subtraction (lt 0.1) with IFUs
• Achievable only with equivalent of Nod and
  Shuffle?
• Quantitative analysis of AO PSFs (especially for
  2D spec)
• Keck OSIRIS and Gemini NIFS experience should
  help
• Competition from space-based telescopes
• Thermal IR
• Competition from IR-optimized 8-10m telescopes
  and space

10
Putting it all together..
Must ensure that dynamic performance also meets
performance spec
11
Putting it all together..
12
Notional Nasmyth Layout
13
Notional Nasmyth Layout

• Some obvious issues
• Some instruments extend beyond platform
• Need to update dimensions, provide space for
  access
• Not much real estate for new or visitor
  instruments
• But no show-stoppers

14
Classic Nasmyth Layout(Two position M3

• Shave off sides of primary to get platforms
  closer?
• preferable to other options?
• any really negative cons?

M4
M4

• Add M4 to address instruments?
• Movable M4?
• Move instruments?
• eg, on tracks?

15
NFIRAOS Instrument Interfaces

• Interface is mounting face for Instruments
  rotary bearing
• 1 meter back focal distance
• Instruments fit on all three ports
• Two vertical-axis ports for IRIS, NIRES
• Constant gravity environment
• One horizontal-axis port for WIRC
• 1 meter back focal distance
• External Rotation bearing or internal rotating
  pupil relay
• Instruments responsible for
• NGS tip/tilt/focus sensing
• Field derotation bearings (if any)
• Atmospheric dispersion compensation (if any)
• Cable wraps (if instrument rotates)

16
Instrument Interfaces

• Most ICDs are still TBD
• Awaiting input from instrument feasibility
  studies
• Reminder basic AO and Instrument interface
  document already on Docushare (was part of
  feasibility study announcement)
• TMT.OBS.ICD.05.001.REL01

17

• Instrument Feasibility Studies

18
Feasibility Study Goals

• Using world-class teams, develop best possible
  instrument concepts to meet the scientific
  requirements
• Attempt to engage whole astronomical community,
  including international partnerships
• Develop state-of-the-art but feasible and
  realistic concepts through competitive studies
• Identify and retire risks
• Determine rough cost schedule estimates for all
  instruments by CoDR for the overall project (May
  2006)

19
Feasibility Studies

• Call for proposals for feasibility studies for 8
  instruments and conceptual design study for
  NFIRAOS in early Jan, 2005
• 40 letters of interest received
• 16 proposals received
• 3 each for HROS, IRMOS, WFOS
• 2 each for MIRES, NFIRAOS
• 1 each for IRIS, NIRES, PFI
• 0 for WIRC
• Major collaborations formed
• 200 scientists and engineers involved at 34 US
  institutions, 10 Canadian, 2 French institutions
• Reviewed by panels mostly composed of external
  referees plus a SAC member and an IWG member
• 12 studies now underway
• NFIRAOS (HIA)
• IRIS (UCLA and Caltech)
• MIRES (NOAO and U Hawaii)
• WFOS (HIA) and GLAO at Caltech
• PFI (LLNL, JPL, U de Montreal)
• HROS 2 studies - UCSC and U Colorado
• IRMOS 2 studies - U Florida and Caltech

20
Feasibility Study Schedule

• Monthly progress reports
• Four milestones
• Draft IOCDD (Initial Operational Concepts
  Document)
• Largely developed by the instrument science team
  to describe what the instrument must do to meet
  the scientific goals and how it will be used at
  the telescope to achieve them.
• Also serves as a guide for astronomers
• Draft IFPRD (Initial Functional and Performance
  Requirements Document)
• A document that describes all of the technical
  requirements the instrument must include in order
  to achieve the scientific goals. These
  requirements should be traceable to the functions
  listed in the OCDD
• Guide for engineering team for development of
  detailed design and fabrication
• Final IOCDD
• Final IFPRD
• Jan 13, 2006 Final Outline
• Feb 15, 2006 Final Feasibility Study Reports due
• Mar 2006 Feasibility Study Reviews
• Apr 14, 2006 Revised Final Feasibility Study
  Reports due

21
Feasibility Study Schedule

• Monthly progress reports
• Four milestones
• Draft IOCDD (Initial Operational Concepts
  Document)
• Largely developed by the instrument science team
  to describe what the instrument must do to meet
  the scientific goals and how it will be used at
  the telescope to achieve them.
• Also serves as a guide for astronomers
• Draft IFPRD (Initial Functional and Performance
  Requirements Document)
• A document that describes all of the technical
  requirements the instrument must include in order
  to achieve the scientific goals. These
  requirements should be traceable to the functions
  listed in the OCDD
• Guide for engineering team for development of
  detailed design and fabrication
• Final IOCDD
• Final IFPRD
• Jan 13, 2006 Final Outline
• Feb 15, 2006 Final Feasibility Study Reports due
• Mar 2006 Feasibility Study Reviews
• Apr 14, 2006 Revised Final Feasibility Study
  Reports due

• We must deliver the instruments on budget and
  schedule, therefore expect
• Continuation of this process for next phases,
  this serves as an introduction
• Increased emphasis on project management
• Increased rigour in oversight and reporting
• Increased emphasis on accurate costing

22
Diffraction-limited performanceis essential

• Keck Gemini June, 2005

23
Diffraction-limited performanceis essential

• But we have very limited experience
• All SAC and instrument teams should take
  advantage of new LGS AO facilities

24
OCDD example (NIR D-L Imaging)

• Many of our instruments have tiny fields
• What about acquisition?
• What about guide stars?
• What about reference stars?
• D-L images are very small!
• What are the requirements on pointing
  repeatability? (HST reacquires targets to 5 mas,
  a small fraction of a pixel. Similarly, JWST
  requirement is RMS pointing and guiding to 5 mas
  - will do much better on bright stars - is this
  now expected or assumed? )
• Plate scale stability and field rotation
  requirements?
• Probably controlled by NGS WFS
• Absolute astrometry requirements or strategies?
• Registration with ALMA, JWST, Chandra and other
  wavelength sources?
• Dithering is required to remove effects of bad
  pixels and to enlarge area
• For some projects will have to rely on WFS
  position to register and superimpose images
• Detector effects, e.g., remanence
• Reduces desirability of imaging stars for
  acquisition or monitoring PSF

25
OCDD example (NIR D-L Imaging)
M31 nucleus has no NGS stars

• Many of our instruments have tiny fields
• What about acquisition?
• What about guide stars?
• What about reference stars?
• D-L images are very small!
• What are the requirements on repeatability? (HST
  reacquires targets to 5 mas, a small fraction of
  a pixel)
• Dithering required to remove effects of bad
  pixels and to enlarge area
• May have to rely on WFS position to register and
  superimpose images
• Plate scale stability and field rotation
  requirements?
• Probably controlled by NGS WFS
• Detector effects, e.g., remanence
• Reduces desirability of imaging stars for
  acquisition or monitoring PSF

? ? BH
26
OCDD example (NIR D-L Imaging)
Registering frames can be problematic
Pueo

• CFHT Pueo 3C273 example
• Jet is located 11 - 21 from 3C273 (R 13)
• 16 H band dithered images
• Two positions to cover jet
• Unfortunately seeing was poor (0.5 to 1.2)
• Nothing visible on individual frames
• Had to calibrate WFS positions with glob cluster
  stars observed with HST to stack images - only
  possible to 50mas accuracy.
• Final resolution at end of jet in stacked image
  estimated to be 0.3 rather than 0.12

27
OCDD example (NIR D-L Imaging)
Absolute astrometry (or even relative astrometry)
can be problematic
HST

• Many of our instruments have tiny fields
• What about acquisition?
• What about guide stars?
• What about reference stars?
• D-L images are very small!
• What are the requirements on repeatability? (HST
  reacquires targets to 5 mas, a small fraction of
  a pixel)
• Dithering required to remove effects of bad
  pixels and to enlarge area
• May have to rely on WFS position to register and
  superimpose images
• Plate scale stability and field rotation
  requirements?
• Probably controlled by NGS WFS
• Detector effects, e.g., remanence
• Reduces desirability of imaging stars for
  acquisition or monitoring PSF

I never published these data even though they
were best NIR data available - too difficult to
be quantitative
28
OCDD Plea

• Many of our instruments have tiny fields
• What about acquisition?
• What about guide stars?
• What about reference stars?
• D-L images are very small!
• What are the requirements on repeatability? (HST
  reacquires targets to 5 mas, a small fraction of
  a pixel)
• Dithering required to remove effects of bad
  pixels and to enlarge area
• May have to rely on WFS position to register and
  superimpose images
• Plate scale stability and field rotation
  requirements?
• Probably controlled by NGS WFS
• Detector effects, e.g., remanence
• Reduces desirability of imaging stars for
  acquisition or monitoring PSF

Carefully think through the example projects for
your instrument, from proposal writing to
published data
29
Feasibility Study Reviews

• Reviewers Project, SAC, AO IWG members plus
  external experts will review reports.
• Meetings, mostly to respond to reviewers
  questions
• Location Project Office
• Tentative dates Mar 6 - 15, 2006
• Mar 6 pm NFIRAOS
• Mar 7 NFIRAOS, IRIS
• Mar 8 PFI, MOAO
• Mar 9 IRMOS-UF, IRMOS-Caltech
• Mar 13 pm MIRES and MIRAO
• Mar 14 WFOS including GLAO
• Mar 15 HROS-CASA, HROS-UCSC

30
After Apr 15, 2006

• SAC establishes priorities for instruments and
  instrument functionalities
• Develop plan for first light instruments within
  budgetary envelope
• Update instrument requirements
• Must continue studies of at least a few of the
  first-light instruments to meet first light
  schedule.
• Further milestones
• Cost Review (Sept 25 29, 2006)
• Update CoDR all subsystems
• Cost review for project scope decisions by TMT
  Board
• PDR/Construction Proposal Review (Sept 24 28,
  2007)
• Revise TMT project scope (?)
• Update CoDR to PDR for critical systems
• Definitive cost/scope, illustrative schedule

31
After Apr 15, 2006

• SAC establishes priorities for instruments and
  instrument functionalities
• Develop plan for first light instruments within
  budgetary envelope
• Update instrument requirements
• Must continue studies of at least a few of the
  first-light instruments to meet first light
  schedule.
• Further milestones
• Cost Review (Sept 25 29, 2006)
• Update CoDR all subsystems
• Cost review for project scope decisions by TMT
  Board
• PDR/Construction Proposal Review (Sept 24 28,
  2007)
• Revise TMT project scope (?)
• Update CoDR to PDR for critical systems
• Definitive cost/scope, illustrative schedule

• Must develop costs
• To level 8 of WBS structure
• Based on updated(?) SRD requirements

32
DDP Instrumentation (Re)Plan
33
Construction phase
34
Construction phase
Only 3 yr to build ? must start in 2008 to be
ready for first light
35
Construction Phase
36
Plausible Scenario forconstruction (and
early-ops) phase
I C
CoDR
PDR
FDR
I C
PDR
FDR
CoDR
PDR
I C
FDR
CoDR
CoDR
I C
FDR
PDR
PDR
CoDR
I C
FDR
PDR
FDR
CoDR
I C
I C
PDR
CoDR
FDR
I C
CoDR
PDR
FDR
?First Light
?Early Ops
I Install C Commission
37
DDP Plan after CoDR

• In order to have minimum instrument complement
  for first light we require
• Conceptual design of WFOS by the end of 2007
• Preliminary design for WFOS by the end of 2008
• Conceptual designs of IRIS MIRES by end of 2008
• Project funding plan for more instrument studies
  is still TBD
• Informed by results of feasibility studies, SAC
  priorities
• Decision next spring, post-CoDR
• Specification and Design of common subsystems and
  interfaces
• Guided by results of feasibility studies
• In addition to normal services and interfaces,
  these are likely to include
• Facility calibration system
• Facility cooling system(s)

38
Current Concerns

• NIRES not being studied at all
• Lack of interface requirements
• Lack of OCDD
• 3-5 micron orphan
• NFIRAOS/NIRES or MIRAO??
• Budget
• Currently no funds for instrument studies after
  April
• Issues arising from OCDDs
• E.g., facility calibration
• Telescope performance/division of error budget
• Much better to design everything to deliver good
  images than to compensate afterwards, e.g., with
  AO

39
Current Concerns/Plans

• NIRES not being studied at all
• Lack of interface requirements
• Lack of OCDD
• 3-5 micron orphan
• NFIRAOS/NIRES or MIRAO??
• Budget
• Currently no funds for instrument studies after
  April
• Issues arising from OCDDs
• E.g., facility calibration
• Telescope performance/division of error budget
• Much better to design everything to deliver good
  images than to compensate afterwards, e.g., with
  AO

Plan to fund a mini study of NIRES
Will continue to promote instrument studies as
high priority
Will distill results from feasibility studies
Will continue to be vigilante!
40
SUMMARY

• TMT instruments are achievable albeit challenging
  
• (am I glad were not planning a 50 or 100m!!)

41
Looking ahead to 2014.
Scientists Discover Intelli First images
from TMT reveal
National Hockey League
Astronomical Discovery Page L6