objectives n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Objectives PowerPoint Presentation
play fullscreen
1 / 37
Download Presentation

Objectives - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

kasia
122 Views
Download Presentation

Objectives

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Objectives • How should Gemini respond in terms of scientific effectiveness to the the current competition from Subaru, ESO and perhaps even Keck? • What does the Gemini Science Staff want to see discussed and proposed at Aspen 2003 • What is our vision of the Future?

  2. The Gemini telescopes are designed to compete by exploiting D/q For background or sky noise limited observations: S Telescope Diameter (D)  N Delivered Image Diameter (q)B Speed =1/Time to given S/Na D2 /q2 . h/B .  Where:is the product of the system throughput and detector QE B is the instantaneous background flux

  3. Gemini South IR Performance and some results 4.7mm R=100,000 Rogers et al (in prep.)

  4. Flamingos / Gemini-S Flamingos on Gemini-S Deep J,H,K images in 1 field south of the Orion Core Total of 4hr integration - 0.4 arcsec images Preliminary ResultsJ,H,K Luminosity Functions show the expected peak near 0.3 M(solar)a slow decline or plateau in the brown dwarf regime (J~14.5 - 17.5 mag) for unreddened objectsA more rapid decline below the deuterium-burning limit and indications of a cut-off at a few M(Jupiter)Observations are complete to well below K=19mag. Lucas et al

  5. IR Optimization works:Gemini-South IR (4 micron) Commissioning Images of Galactic Center • Simons & Becklin 1992 • IRTF (3.6m) - L’ • 16,000 images shift/add • An entire night…. • Gemini South + ABU + fast tip/tilt • Brackett  • FWHM ~ 0.35” • 1 minute integration

  6. 14 mJy/pixel after further IR Optimization Gemini North: M87 jet at 10 mm– Deepest image ever taken in the mid IR Perlman, Sparks, et al. HST/F300W, 0.3 m OSCIR, 10.8 m • Sensitivity (1, 1 h): 0.028 mJy/pix (pix scale = 0.089”) 0.1 mJy on point source

  7. Relative through-put of “Gemini Silver” vs. Aluminum Telescopes (450-1100nm) 1.4 • Ratio of System Transmission • Three Reflecting Surfaces 1.0

  8. Gemini in the Optical – GMOS North comes on-line 60min – 140min per filter Seeing (FWHM) 0.5 – 0.7 arcsec 5 sigma detection limits : g'=27.5 mag r'=27.2 mag i'=26.3 mag GMOS on Gemini 5.5’ x 5.5’ PMN2314+0201 Quasar at z=4.11 Gemini SV PI: Isobel Hook

  9. GMOS Queue Observing 2002A Summary of the completion rates as fraction of programs ========================================================== Band Completion rate >90% >50% <50% ----------------------------------------- 1 10/14=0.71 11/14=0.79 3/14=0.21 2 2/8 =0.25 3/8 =0.38 5/8 =0.63 3 2/8 =0.25 4/8 =0.50 4/8 =0.50 4 1/11=0.09 2/11 =0.18 9/11=0.82 Many observations in band 3 and 4 were taken in poor observing conditions, and the programs in these bands with significant data were programs that could tolerate CC=70% or worse, and seeing of 1arcsec or worse. Gemini North reliability >90% (<10% down time) GMOS Observing efficiency (shutter open/elapsed) ~ 70%

  10. GMOS: Evolution of ages and metalicity in Clusters from z= 1 to present epoch (Jørgensen 2002) The S/N needed for this type of work is 20-40 per Angstrom in the restframe of the cluster GMOS can deliver this. 5.5 hrs sky subtracted wavelength

  11. Example object: N&S subtracted I=23.8 z=1.07 [OII] 3727at 7700Å The GDDS team

  12. GDDS: ultra-super-preliminary results These are just the‘easy’ ones so far! Full 100,000 secswill pound on z=1.5old red galaxiesN&S works! Ultimate ‘sky null’ technique. Could reach I=27 in 106 secs on 30m The GDDS team

  13. Wavelength/velocity [OII]3727 structure has two velocity components at +/-400km/s 3C324 3-D data cubeat z = 1.2 Y ( 5 arcsec ) X (7 arcsec) Bunker et al (2002)

  14. CIRPASS early results– first use of anear-IR IFU on an 8m-class telescope. The example from the z=1.2 radio galaxy 3C324. Dispersion runs horizontally, spatial direction is vertical; each of the 500 IFU lenslets produces a spectrum 2 pixels high. The preliminary processing (basic sky subtraction and cosmic ray rejection) of this single 20 minute exposure shows a very clear detection of the redshifted [OIII] 500.7nm emission line (centre of the frame). http://www.gemini.edu/sciops/instruments/cirpass/cirpassDemoScience.html GMOS – IFU now available on Gemini North CIRPASS – IR IFU will be available on Gemini South in Service Mode in 2003A

  15. 2012 2015 Gemini N ? Gemini S 2000 2010 Exploring the Gemini context 2000 2010 SIRTF Keck I&II Keck-Inter. ESO-VLTI SOFIA NGST ALMA SIM VLA-upgrade SUBARU UT1,UT2,UT3,UT4 Magellan 1&2 HET LBT CELT LSST OWL VISTA and maybe GSMT… The decade of adaptive optics The era of the “giants”

  16. Exploring the Gemini context- and responding 2000 2010 SIRTF Keck I&II Keck-Inter. ESO-VLTI SOFIA NGST ALMA SIM VLA-upgrade SUBARU UT1,UT2,UT3,UT4 Magellan 1&2 HET LBT CELT LSST OWL VISTA and maybe GSMT… Michelle NIFS 2012 2015 Gemini N ? ALTAIR + LGS GMOS Gemini S GAOS -> MCAO 2000 2010 GNIRS NICI Flam. 2 T-RECS The decade of adaptive optics The era of the “giants”

  17. Our communities have struggled to deliver instruments 1.0 Slip Factor = original schedule + slip original schedule Schedule Performance Data complied by Adrian Russell

  18. Queue Observing Gemini’s queue support threshold Gemini-North Time Distribution New Instrument Mode Tests Above 50% Classical time allocated ALTAIR LGS NIFS ALTAIR (cont.) Hokupa’a-S MICHELLE ALTAIR

  19. Queue Observing Gemini’s queue support threshold Gemini-South Time Distribution Above 50% Classical time allocated New Modes GNIRS (cont) NICI MCAO FLAMINGOS-2 bHROS SCAO GNIRS GSAOI GMOS-S T-ReCS (cont) T-ReCS

  20. Challenges • Instruments, instruments, instruments…… • Gemini South will be without facility instruments until mid 2003 from the user perspective • And instrument delivery schedules constrain science availability of Gemini Telescopes • How do we maximize our science effectiveness? • Should we commission everything we get?

  21. Responding to the Future • MCAO • Building a system • Aspen 2003 Instrumentation Workshop • Planning Gemini instruments for 2007+ • The competition in the next decade (post 2012) • Exploring our “market place”

  22. Exploring the Gemini contextSpace verses the Ground Takamiya (2001)

  23. R = 30,000 R = 5,000 R = 1,000 R = 5 Defining the role of Gemini in the era of a 6.5m NGST Assuming a detected S/N of 10 for NGST on a point source, with 4x1000s integration Time gain GEMINI advantage 1 102 NGST advantage 104

  24. Redefining “wide field” in the 8 – 10m era PMN2314+0201 Quasar at z=4.11 5 sigma detection limits : g'=27.5 mag r'=27.2 mag i'=26.3 mag >1000 objects NICMOS HDF 49”x49” GMOS on Gemini 5.5’ x 5.5’ 235 Objects down to AB mag 28.8 at 1.6 mm

  25. The Future and Exploiting our strengths • Image quality • Diffraction limited, near IR AO, thermal IR • Optical – exploiting queue scheduling -- AO enhanced seeing • Efficiency • Minimizing emissivity -- Maximizing through-put • Highly multiplexed spectroscopy • The “automated queue” • Innovation • How do we sustain innovation is such a competitive environment? But let’s look a little further ahead……

  26. Entering the Era of Giants- the Challengers in the post 2012 World ALMA

  27. CELT GSMT Entering the Era of Giants- the Challengers in the post 2012 World The 30m challengers The ~6-8m challenger NGST The 100m challenger OWL

  28. Looking Forward to 2012 Space verses the Ground Ground based territory NGST territory Takamiya (2001)

  29. R = 10,000 R = 1,000 R = 5 Comparative performance of a 30m GSMT with a 6.5m NGST Assuming a detected S/N of 10 for NGST on a point source, with 4x1000s integration GSMT advantage NGST advantage

  30. GSMT: Galaxy Evolution Courtesy of M. Bolte

  31. Resolved Stellar Populations- results from MCAO simulation GSMT/CELT NGST (Simulations 120 sec x 15 coadds)

  32. OWL 100m J Band 80% Strehl 104 sec 0.4’’ seeing Search for exo-biospheres:Solar system @30 light years(Gilmozzi et al 2002) O.1’’ Earth Jupiter

  33. Gemini’s Environment,“Aspen 2003”& our window of opportunity 2000 2010 SIRTF Keck I&II Keck-Inter. ESO-VLTI SOFIA NGST ALMA SIM VLA-upgrade SUBARU UT1,UT2,UT3,UT4 Magellan 1&2 HET LBT CELT LSST OWL VISTA and maybe GSMT… Mid-IR opportunity? Multi-IFU & MCAO++? Michelle NIFS 2012 2015 Gemini N ? ALTAIR + LGS GMOS Gemini S GAOS -> MCAO 2000 2010 Aspen 2003 GNIRS NICI Flam. 2 Extreme AO? T-RECS Seeing enhanced R=1,000,000 spectroscopy? The decade of adaptive optics The era of the “giants”

  34. Gemini’s Environment,“Aspen 2003”& our window of opportunity 2000 2010 SIRTF Keck I&II Keck-Inter. ESO-VLTI SOFIA NGST ALMA SIM VLA-upgrade In this evolving environment, timing as well as performance is key SUBARU UT1,UT2,UT3,UT4 Magellan 1&2 HET LBT CELT LSST OWL VISTA and maybe GSMT… Mid-IR opportunity? Multi-IFU & MCAO++? Michelle NIFS 2012 2015 Gemini N ? ALTAIR + LGS GMOS Gemini S GAOS -> MCAO 2000 2010 Aspen 2003 GNIRS NICI Flam. 2 Extreme AO? T-RECS Seeing enhanced R=1,000,000 spectroscopy? The decade of adaptive optics The era of the “giants”

  35. Conclusions and thoughts • Staying competitive in the 2010 decade is going to be challenging: • We will have to [very thoughtfully] play to our strengths • Gemini: IR performance, image quality Mauna Kea and Cerro Pachon • SUBARU: Extremely versatile high-performance telescope, unprecedented wide field performance, Mauna Kea • ESO…….. ????? • By 2012, in the era of, ALMA, NGST and “the emerging Giants” we must be globally acknowledged, world-class science machines • But probably quite specialized ‘queue based’ machines • And ‘classical’ time will be allocated to Project Teams (and their instruments), not individuals….. • optimum use of “remote observing” to create “virtual teams”

  36. Challenges • Instruments, instruments, instruments…… • Gemini South will be without facility instruments until mid 2003 from the user perspective • And instrument delivery schedules constrain science availability of Gemini Telescopes • Should we commission everything we get?

  37. Conclusions and thoughts • We must understand our respective “market places” – starting today • Can we continue to duplicate facility instruments at $7M - $15M each? • Should we begin to explore time exchange models?