MCAO for Gemini South Preliminary Design Review

1. MCAO for Gemini SouthPreliminary Design Review May 24-25 Hilo, Hawaii

2. MCAO Project Overview Brent Ellerbroek

3. Presentation Outline • Gemini AO program overview • MCAO context • Concept and benefits • Other MCAO projects • MCAO and Conventional LGS AO for Gemini-South • MCAO and Altair • Project schedule, organization, and partners • Progress during the Preliminary Design phase • PDR groundrules, logistics, and schedule MCAO Preliminary Design Review

4. Gemini AO Requirements and MCAO • Science Requirements Document, 1992: • Tip/tilt correction: Image quality in K band better than 0.1 arc sec over a 1 arc min field. • Higher-order correction: Delivered on-axis H band Strehl of 50% under median seeing conditions • Altair Science Requirements, 1995: • LGS AO: Objective is to increase sky coverage at above performance levels • MCAO on Gemini South can provide • Mean H band Strehl of 40% over square 1 arc minute field • Sky coverage equal or superior to conventional LGS AO • 18% sky coverage at galactic pole, 77% at 30 degree latitude MCAO Preliminary Design Review

5. Gemini AO System Summary MCAO Preliminary Design Review

6. MCAO Concept, Benefits, Requirements • Wide field-of-view turbulence compensation • Multiple deformable mirrors conjugate to distinct ranges • Multiple wave front sensing guidestars and tomography • Highly uniform point spread functions • Improved observing efficiency, simplified data reduction • Satisfactory sky coverage using laser guide stars • 3 tip/tilt natural guide stars correct tilt and tilt anisoplanatism • Feasible AO component requirements • Orders of individual mirrors and sensors equivalent to conventional AO systems • Processing requirements now straightforward • Laser requirements equivalent to conventional LGS AO on a per-beacon basis MCAO Preliminary Design Review

7. MCAO Demonstration Programs • Three programs announced since Gemini MCAO CoDR • Demonstrators, not facility instruments • All expect first results within 2-3 years • ESO • Multiple NGS WFS and two low-order bimorph DM’s • “Conventional” and/or “layer-oriented” MCAO • University of Arizona • 5 Rayleigh guide stars, two deformable mirrors • Palomar/CfAO • Tomographic NGS wave front sensing with multiple Shack-Hartmann WFS • Potential future upgrades to multiple DM’s and laser beacons MCAO Preliminary Design Review

8. MCAO and Conventional LGS AO for Gemini-South • Gemini Board has approved LGS AO for Gemini-South • MCAO is our long-term goal • Conventional LGS AO is the first step • Subset of MCAO system with a single DM, WFS, LGS • Designs fully compatible • No penalty (beyond two reflections) for including MCAO upgrade path in LGS AO design • MCAO depends on several milestones • Board-mandated technical peer review (this PDR) • Review of science case and costs (CDR—late 2002) • Successful laser development process (2002/03) MCAO Preliminary Design Review

9. MCAO and Altair • Conjugation to altitude unsuitable for Cerro Pachon • ~60% of turbulence power near the ground • Systems will employ common LGS infrastructure • Safety systems • Beam transfer optics • Laser launch telescope • Control systems • Laser systems will be specified/procured separately • Single or multiple lasers for MCAO • Pulsed vs. CW issues for MCAO • Need to procure Altair laser system now MCAO Preliminary Design Review

10. MCAO Project Milestones • Feasibility Study Report: November 1999 • Conceptual Design Review: May 2000 • Preliminary Design Review: May 2001 • Subsystem RFPs (excepting lasers): July-August 2001 • Laser System RFP: Mid-2002 • Subsystem Critical Design Reviews: July-August 2002 • System CDR: September 2002 • Laser System CDR: Mid-2003 • AO Module lab integration: 11/03-6/04 • LGS subsystems integration (initial laser): 2/04-9/04 • System integration and test (initial laser): 07/04-12/04 • Follow-on laser integration and test: 2005 MCAO Preliminary Design Review

11. MCAOPreliminary Design ProjectTeam Associate Director For Engineering Jim Oschmann Project Manager Brent Ellerbroek Project Scientist Francois Rigaut Chip Kobulnicki (U. Wisconsin) Ivan Baldry (AAO) Eric Steinbring (UCSC) Workshop leaders and chairs Contracts Andy Flach System Engineering /Modeling Brent Ellerbroek Software/Controls Corinne Boyer Laser System Celine d’Orgeville Glen Herriot (HIA) Jean-Pierre Veran (HIA) Les Saddlemyer (HIA) the Optical Sciences Company SHAKTIWARE Coherent Technologies U Chicago/LiteCycles Starfire Optical Range AO Module Eric James Beam Transfer Optics /Launch Telescope Celine d’Orgeville Safety System Jacques Sebag Optics Richard Buchroeder (ODS) Jim Stillburn (HIA) Jim Catone Brian Baumann (LLNL) Don Gavel (LLNL) Electronics Mark Hunten Paul Clark (Durham) Tim Hardy (HIA) Mechanics Andre Anthony (HIA) Joeleff Fitsimmons (HIA) Kei Szeto (HIA) MCAO Preliminary Design Review

12. MCAO Project Partners • Preliminary design support • HIA (RTC electronics/algorithms, reliability analysis, WFS CCD electronics, NGS T/T WFS design, mechanical design) • LLNL (BTO/LLT design/modeling) • U Durham (DM electronics) • Laser risk reduction projects • AFRL, CTI, U Chicago/LiteCycles (CfAO support) • Real-time control benchmarking/architecture • HIA, SHAKTIWARE (ESO support), tOSC • CTIO sodium layer measurements • Imperial College (ESO and NOAO support) • Laser safety and traffic control • Keck Observatory • Algorithm and modeling collaborations • AFRL, CELT, CfAO, ESO, HIA MCAO Preliminary Design Review

13. Preliminary Design Phase Highlights • Subsystem design • AO Module opto-mechanical design • BTO/LLT layout, budgets, mechanical design • RTC benchmarking, architecture studies and algorithms • Control system software specifications • Laser risk reduction • 10 W, 1.319 mm, mode-locked CW, Nd:YAG laser demo • Science case • Santa Cruz MCAO science workshop • Management and system engineering • Management and integration/test plans • Modeling and analysis • Wave optics propagation simulation MCAO Preliminary Design Review

14. Technical Risks—CoDR and Now MCAO Preliminary Design Review

15. PDR Objectives • Present results of the Preliminary Design effort • Science case • System performance estimates • System and subsystem design • Laser requirements and options • Program cost and schedule estimates • Committee peer review of technical approach • Approval necessary for pursuit of MCAO • Obtain more general feedback from the Committee • Design suggestions • Integration and test plan • Cost estimates, management plan, science case MCAO Preliminary Design Review

16. Logistics/Procedures • Lunch here (both days) • Please sign attendance sheet • Design report available electronically • Viewgraphs and selected appendices available upon request • Please document comments for the committee and/or Gemini on the forms provided • Friday PM session restricted to the committee, vendors, and Gemini management chain • We will keep to schedule • Hold all but most essential questions to end of presentation • Committee questions first, audience questions as time allows (and during breaks) MCAO Preliminary Design Review

17. Thursday, 5/24 0800 Welcome 0805 Project overview 0830 Science case 0930 Break 0945 System overview System modeling 1100 AO Module optics 1145 Lunch 1245 AO Module mechanics 1340 AO Module electronics 1400 Break 1415 Beam Transfer Optics 1510 Laser Launch Telescope Closed committee session 1800 Adjourn PDR Agenda MCAO Preliminary Design Review

18. Friday, 5/25 0800 Laser System 0900 CTIO Sodium Studies 0915 Control System 0945 Break 1000 RTC Electronics 1045 Safety System 1100 Availability analysis 1130 Closed vendor Sessions 1200 Lunch 1300 Cost and schedule 1400 Committee session 1700 Committee report 1800 Adjourn PDR Agenda MCAO Preliminary Design Review

19. Thursday, 5/24 0800 Welcome 0805 Project overview 0830 Science case 0930 Break 0945 System overview System modeling 1100 AO Module optics 1145 Lunch 1245 AO Module mechanics 1340 AO Module electronics 1400 Break 1415 Beam Transfer Optics 1510 Laser Launch Telescope Closed committee session 1800 Adjourn PDR Agenda MCAO Preliminary Design Review