I first show the direct solar flux and then the reflected solar flux. These plots are from

1. I first show the direct solar flux and then the reflected solar flux. These plots are from • O:\aquarius\ta_space\data\sun_tables.dat  ta_vs_iorbit_zang.m • There are all for a nominal flux of 100. • These maps are different from those shown in Simulation_of_solar_contamination_2007update.doc because: • Solar flux is 100 • Yaw steering is now applied, which I determined as a significant effect on these types of plots. • I did a special run of mk_sun_tables.f ==> merge_sun_table for which • 1. I turned off yaw steering • 2. I applied daily flux just like simorbit6 did • I compare the direct solar maps from this run with the maps you get when you run • O:\aquarius\orbit_simulator\sun\total_sun_effect_new.m. they are very similar. • Note there will still be small difs due to • 1. simorbit6 maps use cellat for binning. simorbit7 maps use zang • 2. the gain patterns for horn 1 and 3 are dif due to the constant phase adjustment • (i believe this is a very small effect and may not be noticable) • Note that there are other difference between the maps produced by O:\aquarius\orbit_simulator\sun\total_sun_effect_new.m • and the maps shown in Simulation_of_solar_contamination_2007update.doc. O:\aquarius\orbit_simulator\sun\memo6.txt • discuses these difs, which are mostly due again to how the daily flux values were applied. • IN SUMMARY: • The maps shown in imulation_of_solar_contamination_2007update.doc and dif from the maps shown here mostly because • 1. yaw steering is now applied • 2. daily flux values are dif. • I verified that if you do everything the same way, you get the old results. • Next 3 slides show the direct solar flux • These assume: • a nominal flux value of 100

2. Direct Solar TA, F=100

3. Direct Solar TA, F=100

4. Direct Solar TA, F=100

5. Now I show the reflected solar flux. • These assume: • a nominal flux value of 100 • A specular ocean surface everywhere • Transq = 0.98

6. Reflected Solar TA, F=100

7. Reflected Solar TA, F=100

8. Direct Solar TA, F=100

9. The program ck_tasun_table.f  ta_vs_iorbit_zang_ck.m produces similar plots as above using the Simorbit7 data rather than the pre-computed tables. The results for the direct sun are essentially the same as above, and I don’t bother showing the. However, the reflected sun is somewhat dif because simorbit7 can tell when there is land at the solar reflection point. This is why these next figures are jaggedy. I first show the sim_orbit7 value and the dif of the table minus sim_orbit7. The order for these pairs of figures is the same as above: Vpol Hpol 3rd stokes Note the baseline is dif for these simorbit7 figs. Simorbit7 data extends more than 1 year

16. Now I begin dealing with the direct and reflected galaxy First I show the map of the galaxy and then the 3 stokes for the direct galaxy ta. Direct ta plots are from O:\aquarius\ta_space\data\galaxy_tables.dat  ta_vs_iorbit_zang.m

18. Direct Galactic TA

19. Direct Galactic TA

20. Direct Galactic TA

21. I now show the reflected galaxy ta assuming a pencil beam antenna These plots are from O:\aquarius\ta_space\data\galaxy_tables.dat  ta_vs_iorbit_zang.m Note CASA is not in these plots

22. Reflected Galactic TB, Pencil Beam

23. Reflected Galactic TB, Pencil Beam

24. I now show the reflected galaxy ta integrated over the antenna patter. • These plots are from O:\aquarius\ta_space\data\galaxy_tables.dat  ta_vs_iorbit_zang.m • These assume: • A specular ocean surface everywhere • Transq = 1

25. Reflected Galactic TA

26. Reflected Galactic TA

27. Reflected Galactic TA I assume large 3rd stokes due to sharp gradients

28. Now I show the direct and reflected CASA-only ta First 3 show direct, next 3 show reflected Note CASA is included in all the other slides, except for the pencil beam TB Cassiopeia A

29. Direct Galactic TA, Cas-A

30. Direct Galactic TA, Cas-A

31. Direct Galactic TA, Cas-A

32. Reflected Galactic TA, Cas-A

33. Direct Galactic TA, Cas-A

34. Direct Galactic TA, Cas-A

35. Now I show the reflected galaxy ta but assuming 10 m/s. • THESE ROUGH RESULTS NEED TO BE REDONE BECAUSE • CASA NEEDS BETTER TREATMENT • INTEGERATION NEEDS TO BE FINER

39. Next slides show dif of tagal_ref(10 m/s) – tagal_ref(spec)

43. Next 3 slide same as previous but color scale is amplified

47. The program ck_tagal_table.f ta_vs_iorbit_zang_ck.m produces similar plots as above using the • Simorbit7 data rather than the pre-computed tables. The results for the direct galaxy are extremely similar, and I don’t bother showing them. • The results for the reflected galaxy are dif. • There are two runs of ck_tagal_table.f ta_vs_iorbit_zang_ck.m. • The first generate plots of the data like above. The second, for which the data file has the suffix corr, produces plots of the dif between the pre-computed table values minus the simorbit7 value. • I first show the simorbit7 values and then the dif. • The pairs of figures are shown in the usual order: • V-pol • H-pol • 3rd Stokes • The reasons for the difs are: • Simorbit7 used the wrong TB for CASA (too small) and also did not do the integration correctly. A much finer integration, than is currently be done by Simorbit7, needs to be done to capture CASA. • The relatively coarse integration of Simorbit7 relative to the spatial resolution of the galaxy map is probably responsible for the remaining dif. • I believe the table values are the correct ones. The error in renormalizng the table values, which were computed for wind=0, transq=1 , to the simorbit7 values, which were computed at wind=7.5 and transq=0.98 should be extrmely small. Thus the following figs are simply showing the error in simorbit7 (at least that’s what I think is happening).