June 17, 2008 1

TMT Instrumentation Program:Status and Opportunities

Luc Simard

“Science with Giant Telescopes: PublicParticipation in TMT and GMT”

Chicago, June 15-18, 2008

June 17, 2008 2

TMT SAC Instrument Suite

June 17, 2008 3

TMT SAC Instrument Suite

Visible, Seeing-Limited

June 17, 2008 4

TMT SAC Instrument Suite

Near-IR, AO-assisted

June 17, 2008 5

TMT SAC Instrument Suite

High-Contrast AO

June 17, 2008 6

TMT SAC Instrument Suite

Mid-infrared, AO-assisted

June 17, 20087

TMT Aperture Advantagewith Adaptive Optics

Seeing-limited observations and observations of resolved sources

Background-limited AO observations of unresolved sources

High-contrast AO observations of unresolved sources

High-contrast ExAO observations of unresolved sources

Sensitivity ∝ ηD2 (~ 14 × 8m)

Sensitivity ∝ ηS2D4 (~ 200 × 8m)

Sensitivity ∝ η S2

1−SD4 (~ 200 × 8m)

Contrast ∝ D2 (~ 14 × 8m)Sensitivity ∝ ηD6 (~ 3000 × 8m)

Sensitivity=1/ time required to reach a given s/n ratioη= throughput, S = Strehl ratio. D= aperture diameter

June 17, 2008 8

Feasibility Study Phase - Request For Proposals

Announcement of Opportunities sent in January 2005 to institutions across North America - 40 responses leading to 15 proposalsThe proposals were reviewed by panels mostly composed of external referees plus a SAC memberSeveral collaborative studies emerged:

– IRIS (UCLA and Caltech)– MIRES (NOAO and U Hawaii) (plus supporting MIRAO study)– NIRES (UH and NOAO)– WFOS (HIA) and a costing study of Caltech MILES design (plus GLAO studies)– PFI (LLNL, JPL, U de Montreal)

Studies of two different concepts for two of the instruments:– HROS: UCSC and U Colorado– IRMOS: U Florida and Caltech (plus supporting MOAO study at CfAO)

Contracts and work packages were negotiated with all 14 groups~$1.6M total budgetTMT funds were considerably leveraged, especially by some teams.

9

Feasibility studies 2005-6 (concepts, requirements, performance,…)

HROS-CASA

IRMOS-UFWFOS-HIA

HROS-UCSC

MIRES

IRMOS-CIT

IRIS

PFI

June 17, 2008 10

Results of Feasibility Study Phase

~200 scientists and engineers involved; at 34 US institutions, 10 Canadian, 2 French institutions

VERY successful - Excellent reports on all instrument studies: – Extended science cases (with detailed simulations)– Technical design + functional/performance requirements documents– Observing program definitions (--> Design Reference Mission)

35 external reviewers, mostly “instrument experts” from 8-10m class telescopes, reviewed the studies.– Reviewers brought external perspectives, different experiences– Very useful on-line discussions preceded face-to-face reviews– Face-to-face meetings between panels and teams took place in March 2006– Excellent review panel reports – Lots of advice about potential issues related to aggressive requirements,

schedule, complexity, instrument priorities, etc.

June 17, 2008 11

From Science to Instrument Concepts:WFOS Observing Programs

Nasmyth Configuration: First Decade Instrument Suite

June 17, 2008

Dual conjugate AO system:– Order 61x61 DM and TTS at h = 0 km– Order 75x75 DM at h = 12 km– Better Strehl than current AO systems

Can feed three instrumentsCompletely integrated system– Fast (< 5 min) switch between targets with same instrument

> 50% sky coverage at galactic poles13

Narrow-Field IR AO System (NFIRAOS):TMT’s Early-Light Facility AO system

Strehl Ratio Band SRD (120 nm) Baseline (177

nm) Baseline + TT

R 0.313 0.080 0.052 I 0.411 0.145 0.105 Z 0.566 0.290 0.236 J 0.674 0.424 0.366 H 0.801 0.617 0.569 K 0.889 0.774 0.742

IRIS

IRMS (NIRES)

(WIRC)

NFIRAOS

June 17, 2008 14

Impact of Feasibility Study Phase Results on TMT Systems

Choice of early-light instruments by TMT SAC (incl. US community members) with “workhorse” scientific capabilities and synergy with ALMA and JWST:– IRIS– WFOS – IRMS

Instrument Systems– Target acquisition sequences– Access and servicing

Observatory systems– Nasmyth platforms (e.g., mass budget, area, height, M1 airflow)– Cooling systems (e.g., vibrations must be minimized)– Cranes

Observatory is being designed as an “end-to-end” system to maximize performance in diffraction-limited regime

June 17, 2008 15

Infrared Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS)

Integral Field Spectrograph and Imager working at the diffraction limitFed by NFIRAOS (Narrow field facility AO System)Wavelength range: 0.8-2.5µm; goal 0.6-5µm

Field of view: < 2 arcsec for IFU, up to 10” for imaging modeSpatial sampling: 4 mas per pixel (Nyquist sampled (λ/2D)) over 4096 pixels for IFU); over 10x10 arcsec for imaging

– Plate scale adjustable 0.004, 0.009, 0.022, 0.050 arcsec/pixel – 128x128 spatial pixels with small (Δλ/λ ≤ 0.05) wavelength coverage

Spectral resolution – R=4000 over entire J, H, K, L bands, one band at a time– R=2-50 for imaging mode

Parallel imaging: goal

June 17, 2008 16

IRIS Team

James Larkin (UCLA), Principal Investigator– Overall IRIS instrument (including WFS, cal, etc)– Lenslet-based IFS– ADC and optical design: UCSC

Anna Moore (Caltech), co-I– Sharing overall instrument responsibilities– Slicer-based IFS

Tomonori Usuda and IRIS-Japan team– Imager design

Betsy Barton (UC Irvine), Project ScientistScience Team– Pat Cote (HIA), Andrea Ghez (UCLA), Shri Kulkarni (Caltech),

David Law (Caltech), Jonathan Tan (U. Florida), Joshua Bloom (UC Berkeley), Tim Davidge (HIA), Shelley Wright (UCLA)

June 17, 2008 17

IRIS

LensletArray

Grating

Imager Filter Wheels

NFIRAOSEnclosure(at -30C)

ADC forVisible imager??

IRIS dewar(at 77k)

Interface/WFS unit

F/15 AO Focus

Basically 3 instruments:• Lenslet IFU• Slicer IFU• Imager

IRIS IFUs (2’’ x 2’’)

IRIS imager (15’’x15’’)

IR TT(F) Wavefront Sensors (5’’ x 5’’)

Should be the most sensitive astronomical IR spectrograph ever built.Unprecedented ability to investigate objects on small scales.

0.01” @ 5 AU = 36 km (Jovian’s and moons) 5 pc = 0.05 AU (Nearby stars – companions) 100 pc = 1 AU (Nearest star forming regions) 1 kpc = 10 AU (Typical Galactic Objects) 8.5 kpc = 85 AU (Galactic Center or Bulge) 1 Mpc = 0.05 pc (Nearest galaxies) 20 Mpc = 1 pc (Virgo Cluster) z=0.5 = 0.07 kpc (galaxies at solar formation epoch) z=1.0 = 0.09 kpc (disk evolution, drop in SFR) z=2.5 = 0.09 kpc (QSO epoch, Hα in K band) z=5.0 = 0.07 kpc (protogalaxies, QSOs, reionization)

18

Motivation for IRIS

Titan with an overlayed 0.05’’ grid (~300 km) (Macintosh et al.) High redshift galaxy. Pixels are 0.04” scale

(0.35 kpc). Barczys et al.)Keck AO images

M31 Bulge with 0.1” grid (Graham et al.)

June 17, 2008 19

Wide Field Optical Spectrometer (WFOS)

June 17, 2008 20

WFOS(-MOBIE) Team

Rebecca Bernstein (UCSC), Principal InvestigatorBruce Bigelow (UCSC), Project ManagerChuck Steidel (Caltech), Project ScientistDiscussions of Japanese collaboration under wayScience Team– Bob Abraham (U. Toronto), Jarle Brinchmann (Leiden), Judy

Cohen (Caltech), Sandy Faber, Raja Guhathakurta, Jason Kalirai, Jason Prochaska, Connie Rockosi (UCSC), Gerry Lupino (UH IfA), Alice Shapley (UCLA)

First phase of new concept study to be completed by SeptemberConceptual design complete by mid 2009

June 17, 2008 21

WFOS-MOBIE Echellette Design

Spectral footprint in higher dispersion mode - 3’’ slits spaced 25’’ apart, five orders

MOBIE can trade multiplexing for expanded wavelength coverage in its higher dispersion mode

Bernstein et al. 2008, SPIE 2008

June 17, 2008 22

IGM Tomography with WFOS

Given that TMT+WFOS will go ~ 2.5 mag deeper than 8-10m class telescopes, and background UV-bright galaxies will then become usable beacons, the surface density of sightlines on the sky for intergalactic medium tomography will be ~200x higher.

This means that one will be able to probe individual galaxy haloes through multiple sightlines.

(R. Cen, Princeton U.)

June 17, 2008 23

InfraRed Multi-slit Spectrometer(IRMS - Keck/MOSFIRE on TMT)

IRMOS (deployable MOAO IFUs) deemed too risky and too expensive for first light

=> IRMS: clone of Keck MOSFIRE; Step 0 towards IRMOS

– Multi-slit NIR imaging spectro: 46 slits,W:160+ mas, L:2.5”

– Deployed behind NFIRAOS 2’ field 60mas pixels EE good (80% in K over 30”)

– Spectral resolution up to 5000– Full Y, J, H, K spectra

Imager as well

Slit width

Whole 120” field

June 17, 2008 24

IRMS Spectra

Full Y, J, H, K spectra with R ~ 5000 with 160mas (2 pix) slits in central ~1/3 of field

June 17, 2008 25

LGS IRIS, IFU modeBaseline acquisition scenario using the acquisition camera: 289 s (~4.8 minutes)*Alternative scenarios:- Blind acquisition scenario: 219 s (~3.6 minutes)*-Spiral acquisition scenario: 224 s (~3.7 minutes after 2 steps)**assuming 3 minutes for telescope setup

Instrument Systems:LGS IRIS Acquisition Sequence

June 17, 2008 26

Instrument Systems:Access and Servicing

June 17, 2008 27

Observatory Systems:Cooling

R507-coolant circuit for NFIRAOS (Similar circuits to be used for instrument electronics enclosures)

Two-stage, closed loop, gaseous helium system for cryogenic instruments - eliminates vibrations on Nasmyth platforms

June 17, 2008 28

Future Plans and Opportunities

Conceptual studies are currently underway for IRIS and WFOS (~$700K each). Opportunities for involvement in the TMT early-light instruments are always available to potential partners, e.g., Japanese involvement in IRIS (TMT’s top priority instrument).Future development efforts will be patterned after our highly successful instrument feasibility phase:– Request for proposals issued to the broad community– Competitive studies – Extensive external reviews

Plans are to bring five additional instruments on-line within the first decade of TMT operations– $15M/yr instrument budget– According to the TMT funding-paced schedule, calls for proposals

will be issued at the start of construction

June 17, 2008 29

www.tmt.org/foundation-docs/index.html

Detailed Science Case 2007 Observatory Requirements Document Observatory Architecture Document Operations Concept Document TMT Construction Proposal– Currently in use for funding proposals

TMT Foundation Documents

June 17, 2008 30

Acknowledgments

The TMT Project gratefully acknowledges the support of the TMT partner institutions. They are the Association of Canadian Universities for Research in Astronomy (ACURA), the California Institute of Technology and the University of California. This work was supported as well by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, the National Research Council of Canada, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund, the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) and the U.S. National Science Foundation.