august 2 and 3, 2010 kosmos design considerations jay elias
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
August 2 and 3, 2010
KOSMOS Design Considerations
Jay Elias
![Page 2: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
• References: – Science Requirements Document– Preliminary Operations Concept Document– SDN 1.01-1.04 on science requirements– SDN 2.02 & 2.03 on SW requirements– Functional Performance Requirements
Document
![Page 3: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
KOSMOS Design
• Basic principles:– Modify as little as possible consistent with
requirements– Above all, avoid “scope creep”
![Page 4: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
KOSMOS Design
• Focus on two areas:– Differences between MDM 2.4-m and KPNO
4-m– Differences between science needs of
NOAO user base• Derive input from ReSTAR, KPNO staff, NOAO
Users’ Committee
![Page 5: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
KOSMOS Design – Facility Issues
• Larger telescope requires faster camera to preserve pixel scale– 0.3 arcsec/pixel (or slightly coarser) is a
good match to seeing at both telescopes.– Finer scale plus binning is not a good
solution because 4k pixels then provide fewer resolution elements; in this case a larger CCD could be used but require more $$, new dewar, etc.
![Page 6: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
KOSMOS Design – Facility Issues
• Larger telescope requires faster camera to preserve pixel scale– Field of view size a related issue, see later
![Page 7: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
KOSMOS Design – Facility Issues
• Want to use NOAO standard CCD system (dewar + Torrent controller)– Easier to support– Existing dewars save money– Interchangeable with other
instruments/telescopes– Considerations reinforced if we implement
2 CCDs (as we did)
![Page 8: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
KOSMOS Design – Facility Issues
• Software interfaces different– Telescope, CCD system, data archive– Only instrument controls common to
OSMOS– Choice of adapting existing top-level OSU
software or NOAO software• Adopt NOAO software (NOCS) after evaluation;
see later presentation for more on the NOCS• We spent time trying to make this decision
rationally
![Page 9: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
KOSMOS Design – Science Issues
• User community differences– Not much (not surprising)– Less emphasis on the low-resolution prism
mode– More interest in higher spectral resolution– Initial disperser complement 2 moderate
resolution grisms; prism remains an option for the future
![Page 10: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
KOSMOS Design – Science Issues
• Field of view– Physical field of view of OSMOS only 10
arcmin on 4-m; with faster camera could (probably) provide a larger field on CCD
– This requires (at least) a larger collimator and makes the slit wheel, probably the whole instrument much larger• A lot of re-design• Doesn’t fit in the cass cage any more without
fold(s)
![Page 11: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
KOSMOS Design – Science Issues
• Field of view (cont’d)– ReSTAR did not identify maximum field as
a strong science driver• A lot of the science programs involved single
objects• KOSMOS AΩ already as good as GMOS• Science value added not considered enough to
offset added cost, delivery delays, and performance risk
![Page 12: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
KOSMOS Design – Science Issues
• Higher resolution– Resolution R>2300 (4000 goal)– RC Spec will go higher (about 10,000) but
demand is limited– A requirement for higher max resolution
requires larger beam size, hence a larger instrument; similar issues as larger FOV
– Fixed-angle layout limits coverage at higher resolution
![Page 13: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
KOSMOS Design – Science Issues
• Wavelength coverage– OSMOS does well in the UV down to ~365
nm– Desirable to keep this level of performance
for KOSMOS• Performance likely to be limited not by design
(which is good) but by differences between design and actual materials; mitigate by index measurement (see later discussion) but don’t put in the maximum possible effort (blank selection via testing) because of time and cost
![Page 14: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
KOSMOS Design – Science Issues
• Wavelength coverage (cont’d)– OSMOS performance in the red limited by
CCD– Option to acquire a thick LBNL chip
appeared, took advantage of this– LBNL CCD is not the commissioning CCD
and probably will not be the most-used CCD on KOSMOS; purchasing e2v CCD for that purpose• Need to define scheduling policy for these
CCDs
![Page 15: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
KOSMOS Design – Science Issues
• Flexure– OSMOS worst-case performance about
1/pixel hour• Flexure is along direction of changing gravity so
it’s simple to understand• Flexure leads to need for more night-time
calibration (fringing could be a serious problem but not with CCDs selected)
• OSMOS performance acceptable but not desirable
![Page 16: August 2 and 3, 2010 KOSMOS Design Considerations Jay Elias](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022083004/56649e405503460f94b321e8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
KOSMOS Design – Science Issues
• Flexure (cont’d)– Greater stiffness possible in 2 areas:
• Higher-grade focus stages – modest cost increase, otherwise no impact
• Stiffer enclosure – reduce aggressive light-weighting needed for MDM 2.4-m; don’t pursue extensive re-design & analysis effort
• Requirement is to meet OSMOS performance; goal is factor of 2 improvement