A global approach to ELT instrument developments

1. A global approach to ELT instrument developments J.-G. Cuby for the French ELT WG

2. FP7 ELT Instruments: timeline • “The construction of an Extremely Large Telescope on a competitive time scale will be addressed by radical strategic planning…” (Council resolution) • Calls for a schedule compatible with other projects, TMT, GMT, ALMA, JWST, etc. • Assume 2016 • Calls for forefront instrumentation • Key to science, e.g. the VLT success • Reverse schedule: • FP7 (2008-2012) in parallel with the instrument study • No time left for generic studies for the first generation instruments • First / Main instruments need to be started NOW (2-4 years of demonstration)

3. A key word: demonstration • Some concepts for workhorse ELT instruments remain to be demonstrated • E.g. MOAO, XAO instruments • Demonstration requires focused and integrated studies at system level • Science • Top Level Requirements, Simulations, Simulators, Data Reduction, etc. • Adaptive Optics • TLRs, Simulations feeding science, AO system analysis, tests on existing systems, etc. • Instrumentation • TLRs, concepts, interfaces with AO, at least 2 prototyping cycles, etc. • System • Putting it all together, budgets, etc. • Demonstrators, either in lab (e.g. AO benches) or on-sky (e.g. VLT) • Synergy with transverse AO developments • Requirements • Interfaces • Synergy with telescope developments • Interfaces: focal plane, f ratio, back focal distance, platforms, ADCs, field of view (scientific & technical), LGS, etc.

4. A key word: demonstration • Demonstration by: • Study (simulations, concepts, etc.) • Prototypes • Demonstrators (benches, on-sky, etc.) • Demonstrations on existing infrastructures (e.g. VLT) for the next infrastructures • Develop new demonstrators in lab or on sky • Use existing or planned instruments as demonstrators (e.g. SPHERE) • Structuring activity • Teams with various competence, etc • Access to lab, possibly sky, demonstrators • Networks highly desirable, e.g. for the science activities • FP7: ideal for the demonstration phase – until instrument FDR (~ 2012) • JRAs, networks, access (to demonstrators)

5. Examples • WFSPEC, MOMFIS etc. • ‘High-z’ and mass assembly of galaxies • Complex • To be demonstrated (MOAO) • Major interface aspects with telescope and AO, etc.

6. Demonstrators MOMFIS WFSPEC WBS for the Instrument study Examples

7. Example: MOMFIS / WFSPEC demonstration • Potential Participants: F, UK, I, tbd. • Timescale: 2008-2012 for the bulk of the activities • Cost: ~ 8 M€ all inclusive (included in N. Hubin’s presentation) • Deliverables: reports, conceptual studies, several prototypes (hw & sw), Demonstrators (1 bench, 1 VLT) • Industrial dimension: interest in short term applied R&D • EU dimension: use of existing infrastructures, demonstration for future infrastructures, structuring activity, synergy with ELT Design Study

8. EPICS A Planet Finder instrument for the European ELT (slides from J.-L. Beuzit)

9. EPICS Design philosophy General approach -> Integrated concept • Science-driven: detection of exoplanets • Very detailed system analysis • Lessons learned from SPHERE on VLT (as demonstrator) • Globally optimized instrument (AO, corono, focal WFS control, observing modes) • Open concept, explore several options (corono, IFS...) • Settle on well-established competences distributed in the XAO community • Extensive simulations -> end-to-end model • Prototyping, validations, test benches, demosntrator

10. EPICS Design Strategy Prototypes HOT extension Aggressive Calibration & Post-processing Spatially Filtered SH FP6 Point design Simulations experiments EPICS System Dimensioning Experiments Simulations Advanced PYR Active suppression of Systematic speckles Theory SPHERE feedback Conceptual & Preliminary Design Reviews

11. Conclusions • FP7 to support the design phase of E-ELT instruments in period 2008-2012 (JRAs, network & access) • Global approach to instrument developments highly desirable • Better focus, better synergy • Allows smaller (integrated) teams • Higher efficiency, faster • Structuring activity • Not exclusive of transverse / generic activities • Activities in essence transverse, e.g. detectors, etc. • Upfront activities with longer development timescales • Synergy with ELT DS • Instrumentation currently severely under funded • Which call ? Preparatory phase or I3 ?