DOCSLIB.ORG

The Charge Management System for LISA and LISA Pathfinder

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Charge Management System for LISA and LISA Pathfinder The Charge Management System for LISA and LISA Pathfinder Daniel Hollington High Energy Physics Group Department of Physics Imperial College London Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy to Imperial College London 2011 · · Abstract The test masses at the heart of the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and LISA: Pathfinder experiments will experience charging caused by incident ion- ising radiation. This thesis describes work carried out in developing, testing and understanding the performance of the hardware used to characterise and counteract this test mass charging. Work will be presented that describes the simulation and testing of a radiation mon- itor to be flown on board Pathfinder. The Charge Management System will then be introduced and the results from testing at the Trento torsion pendulum facility discussed. Several measurements of individual properties that affect discharging are made and these are then incorporated into simulations of the discharging system as a whole. Finally, initial studies are conducted into the suitability of UV-LEDs as the discharging light source for LISA, with particular focus on their spectral stability. 2 For my Mum, Dad and Sister. 3 Contents Abstract 1 List of Tables 8 List of Figures 11 Declaration and Copyright 12 Acknowledgments 13 1 Ripples in Space-Time 14 1.1 GravitationalWaves . 14 1.2 PredictedSources............................. 17 1.2.1 LowFrequencyGravitationalWaves . 18 1.2.2 HighFrequencyGravitationalWaves . 19 1.3 DetectionMethods ............................ 19 1.3.1 PulsarTiming........................... 20 1.3.2 SpacecraftDopplerTracking . 21 1.3.3 ResonantBarDetectors . 21 1.3.4 Interferometers . 22 1.4 LISA.................................... 23 1.4.1 InertialSensor........................... 25 1.4.2 Interferometry. 26 1.4.3 SensitivityRequirements . 27 1.5 Pathfinder................................. 28 1.6 AccelerationNoise ............................ 30 1.6.1 ElectrostaticInteractions. 30 1.7 SourcesofTestMassCharging. 31 1.8 ManagingTestMassCharge . 33 4 2 ThePathfinderRadiationMonitor 34 2.1 HardwareDesign ............................. 35 2.2 DataAcquisition ............................. 37 2.3 BeamTest................................. 39 2.4 Geant4................................... 41 2.5 SimulatingtheBeamTest . 42 2.5.1 SimulationDescription . 43 2.5.2 BeamProperties ......................... 45 2.5.3 ParameterTuning. 46 2.6 Results................................... 48 2.6.1 BackgroundCounts. 48 2.6.2 AngularCalibrationoftheRotaryTable . 48 2.6.3 DepositedEnergySpectraTest . 52 2.6.4 MaximumCountRateTest . 57 2.6.5 CountRateTests ......................... 59 2.7 Conclusions ................................ 70 3 Charge Management 71 3.1 TheChargeManagementSystem . 71 3.1.1 UVLightUnit .......................... 74 3.1.2 FibreOpticHarness . 78 3.1.3 InertialSensorUVKit . 79 3.2 TorsionPendulumTesting . 81 3.3 Single-MassPendulum . 81 3.3.1 Single-MassChargeManagementSystem . 83 3.3.2 MeasuringTestMassCharge . 84 3.3.3 Results............................... 86 3.3.4 Conclusions ............................ 88 3.4 Four-MassPendulum . 88 3.4.1 DifferencestoSingle-MassSetup. 89 3.4.2 Results............................... 90 3.4.3 Conclusions ............................ 95 3.5 Summary ................................. 97 4 Measuring Properties Relevant to Test Mass Discharging 98 4.1 Surfaces .................................. 98 4.2 PhotoelectricProperties . 99 4.3 ModenaMeasurements . .100 5 4.3.1 Techniques.............................100 4.3.2 Work Function and Quantum Yield Results . 103 4.3.3 SurfaceCompositionResults. .106 4.3.4 PhotoelectronEnergyDistribution . 108 4.3.5 Conclusions ............................110 4.4 GoldReflectionMeasurements. .111 4.4.1 ExperimentalSetup. .112 4.4.2 LightSource............................114 4.4.3 GoldSamples ...........................114 4.4.4 Calibration ............................115 4.4.5 ExperimentalMethod . .116 4.4.6 DataAnalysis...........................116 4.4.7 Results...............................122 4.4.8 Conclusions ............................124 4.5 ISUKLightConeDistributions . .125 4.5.1 ExperimentalSetup. .125 4.5.2 ExperimentalMethod . .127 4.5.3 Results...............................128 4.5.4 Conclusions ............................137 5 SimulatingtheChargeManagementSystem 138 5.1 Geant4RayTrace.............................139 5.1.1 SensorGeometry . .140 5.1.2 LightSources ...........................143 5.1.3 ReflectionModel . .145 5.1.4 Results...............................150 5.1.5 Four-MassPendulumModel . .151 5.1.6 FlightModel ...........................158 5.1.7 Conclusions ............................163 5.2 PhotoelectronFlowModel . .164 5.2.1 ModelApproximations . .164 5.2.2 PhotoelectronEnergyDistributions . 165 5.2.3 ModelRoutine ..........................167 5.2.4 Results...............................168 5.2.5 Conclusions ............................174 5.3 StudyingPossibleSolutions . 175 5.4 Summary .................................177 6 6 Towards LISA 178 6.1 UV-LEDs .................................178 6.2 SpectralMeasurements . .180 6.2.1 ExperimentalSetup. .182 6.2.2 MercurySpectrum . .185 6.3 Results...................................187 6.3.1 255nmLEDSpectrum. .187 6.3.2 OperatingTemperature . .187 6.3.3 OperatingCurrent . .190 6.3.4 Ageing...............................192 6.4 Conclusions ................................195 6.5 Discussion .................................196 6.5.1 Mitigating the Effect of Surface Properties . 196 7 Conclusion 198 Bibliography 199 7 List of Tables 2.1 Thesimulatedbeamproperties. 45 4.1 Summary of the work function and quantum yield results. .105 4.2 Summary of the surface composition results. .107 4.3 Collated refractive index results for gold. .122 4.4 Parameters obtained for the single core fibre. .131 4.5 Parameters obtained for the multi-core fibre. .134 5.1 Collatedsurfaceroughnesses. 149 5.2 Summary of four-mass housing illumination results. .......152 5.3 Summary of four-mass test mass illumination results. .......154 5.4 Summary of flight housing illumination results. .159 5.5 Summary of flight test mass illumination results. .161 8 List of Figures 1.1 The effect of gravitational wave polarisation on a ring of test particles. 16 1.2 Predictedgravitationalwavesources. .... 17 1.3 Orbital decay of the Hulse-Taylor binary system. .... 20 1.4 Comparison of high and low frequency gravitational wave sources. 24 1.5 LISA’sorbitalconfiguration. 25 1.6 Diagram of the inertial sensor’s electrode layout. ........ 26 1.7 A photograph of the engineering model inertial sensor and test mass. 29 1.8 TheGalacticCosmicRayspectrum.. 33 2.1 A photograph of a PIN diode mounted on a copper shield wall..... 36 2.2 A photograph of the radiation monitor flight box. .... 37 2.3 Allocationofdatatransferbudget. 38 2.4 AphotographofthePIFbeamline.. 40 2.5 A photograph of the radiation monitor mounted on the rotary table. 41 2.6 Thesimulatedradiationmonitor. 43 2.7 Thesimulatedbeamline.. 44 2.8 Thesimulatedincidentbeamenergy. 46 2.9 Theaffectofsiliconthickness. 47 2.10 Radiationmonitorangularoffset. .. 50 2.11 Diodeslinearandangularoffset.. .. 51 2.12 Radiation monitor deposited energy spectra for 250 MeV and 200 MeV. 53 2.13 Radiation monitor deposited energy spectra for 150 MeV and 100 MeV. 54 2.14 Radiation monitor deposited energy spectra for 90 MeV and 80 MeV. 55 2.15 Radiation monitor deposited energy spectra for 70 MeV and all spectra. 56 2.16 Radiationmonitormaximumcountrate. .. 57 2.17 Radiation monitor corrected count rate.. ..... 59 2.18 Uncorrectedcountratetestresults. ... 61 2.19 Calibration factor varying with increasing incident energy. 62 2.20 Normalised flux varying with incident energy for differentangles.. 64 9 2.21 Count ratio varying with incident energy for different angles. 66 2.22 Normalised flux varying with angle for different incident energies. 68 2.23 Count ratio varying with angle for different incident energies.. 69 3.1 Aschematicofthedischargingconcept.. ... 72 3.2 AphotographoftheflightULU.. 75 3.3 Flightlampsmanufacturingprocedure. ... 77 3.4 AphotographoftheflightFOHbundle. 79 3.5 AphotographofanISUK. 80 3.6 A photograph of the single-mass torsion pendulum test mass.. 82 3.7 Applied AC and DC voltages during the charge measurements..... 85 3.8 Discharging rates varying with UV lamp power. .. 86 3.9 Test mass equilibrium potential reached for different applied VZBIAS. 87 3.10 A photograph of the four-mass torsion pendulum experiment. .... 89 3.11 Test mass equilibrium potential reached with different VInj....... 92 3.12 Apparent yields as a function of test mass potential. ....... 94 4.1 Modena photocurrent measurement on the TM2 pendulum test mass. 101 4.2 Modena UPS measurements for five gold coated sapphire substrates. 102 4.3 Modena XPS measurements for five gold coated sapphire substrates. 103 4.4 Estimating the photoelectrons energy distribution. .........109 4.5 Experimental setup used for reflection measurements. .......113 4.6 Spectrum of the LED used for the reflection measurements. .114 4.7 Photographs of the gold samples used for the reflection measurements.115 4.8 Fitsperformedonthedirectbeamdata. 118 4.9 Fitsperformedonthereflectedbeamdata. 118 4.10 Fresnelfitsforthemeasureddata.. 121 4.11 Comparison of measured gold reflectivity curves. .......123 4.12 Experimental setup used to measure the ISUK light cone distributions.126 4.13 Configuration used for the multi-core measurements. .......127 4.14 Measured light distributions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Planck Satellite and the Cosmic Microwave Background
    The Cosmic Microwave Background, Dark Matter and Dark Energy Anthony Lasenby, Astrophysics Group, Cavendish Laboratory and Kavli Institute for Cosmology, Cambridge Overview The Cosmic Microwave Background — exciting new results from the Planck Satellite Context of the CMB =) addressing key questions about the Big Bang and the Universe, including Dark Matter and Dark Energy Planck Satellite and planning for its observations have been a long time in preparation — first meetings in 1993! UK has been intimately involved Two instruments — the LFI (Low — e.g. Cambridge is the Frequency Instrument) and the HFI scientific data processing (High Frequency Instrument) centre for the HFI — RAL provided the 4K Cooler The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) So what is the CMB? Anywhere in empty space at the moment there is radiation present corresponding to what a blackbody would emit at a temperature of ∼ 2:74 K (‘Blackbody’ being a perfect emitter/absorber — furnace with a small opening is a good example - needs perfect thermodynamic equilibrium) CMB spectrum is incredibly accurately black body — best known in nature! COBE result on this showed CMB better than its own reference b.b. within about 9 minutes of data! Universe History Radiation was emitted in the early universe (hot, dense conditions) Hot means matter was ionised Therefore photons scattered frequently off the free electrons As universe expands it cools — eventually not enough energy to keep the protons and electrons apart — they History of the Universe: superluminal inflation, particle plasma,
    [Show full text]
  • Coryn Bailer-Jones Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg
    What will Gaia do for the disk? Coryn Bailer-Jones Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg IAU Symposium 254, Copenhagen June 2008 Acknowledgements: DPAC, ESA, Astrium 1 Gaia in a nutshell • high accuracy astrometry (parallaxes, proper motions) • radial velocities, optical spectrophotometry • 5D (some 6D) phase space survey • all sky survey to G=20 (1 billion objects) • formation, structure and evolution of the Galaxy • ESA mission for launch in late 2011 2 Gaia capabilities Hipparcos Gaia Magnitude limit 12.4 G = 20.0 No. sources 120 000 1 000 000 000 quasars 0 1 million galaxies 0 10 million Astrometric accuracy ~ 1000 μas 12-25 μas at G=15 100-300 μas at G=20 Photometry 2 bands spectra 330-1000 nm Radial velocities none 1-10 km/s to G=17 Target selection input catalogue real-time onboard selection 3 How the accuracy varies • astrometric errors dominated by photon statistics • parallax error: σ(ϖ) ~ 1/√flux ~ distance, d for fixed MV • fractional parallax error: σ(ϖ)/ϖ ~ d2 • fractional distance error: fde ~ d2 • transverse velocity accuracy: σ(v) ~ d2 • Example accuracy • K giant at 6 kpc (G=15): fde = 2%, σ(v) = 1 km/s • G dwarf at 2 kpc (G=16.5): fde = 8%, σ(v) = 0.4 km/s 4 Distance statistics 8kpc At larger distances may use spectroscopic parallaxes 100 000 stars with fde <0.1% 11 million stars with fde <1% panther-observatory.com NGC4565 from Image: 150 million stars with fde <10% 5 Payload overview 6 Instruments 7 Radial velocity spectrograph • R=11 500 • CaII triplet (848-874 nm) • more detailed APE for V < 14 (still millions of stars) 8 Spectrophotometry Figure: Anthony Brown Anthony Figure: Dispersion: 7-15 nm/pixel (red), 4-32 nm/pixel (blue) 9 Stellar parameters • Infer via pattern recognition (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Interferometric Orbits of New Hipparcos Binaries
    Interferometric orbits of new Hipparcos binaries I.I. Balega1, Y.Y. Balega2, K.-H. Hofmann3, E.V. Malogolovets4, D. Schertl5, Z.U. Shkhagosheva6 and G. Weigelt7 1 Special Astrophysical Observatory, Russian Academy of Sciences [email protected] 2 Special Astrophysical Observatory, Russian Academy of Sciences [email protected] 3 Max-Planck-Institut fur¨ Radioastronomie [email protected] 4 Special Astrophysical Observatory, Russian Academy of Sciences [email protected] 5 Max-Planck-Institut fur¨ Radioastronomie [email protected] 6 Special Astrophysical Observatory, Russian Academy of Sciences [email protected] 7 Max-Planck-Institut fur¨ Radioastronomie [email protected] Summary. First orbits are derived for 12 new Hipparcos binary systems based on the precise speckle interferometric measurements of the relative positions of the components. The orbital periods of the pairs are between 5.9 and 29.0 yrs. Magnitude differences obtained from differential speckle photometry allow us to estimate the absolute magnitudes and spectral types of individual stars and to compare their position on the mass-magnitude diagram with the theoretical curves. The spectral types of the new orbiting pairs range from late F to early M. Their mass-sums are determined with a relative accuracy of 10-30%. The mass errors are completely defined by the errors of Hipparcos parallaxes. 1 Introduction Stellar masses can be derived only from the detailed studies of the orbital motion in binary systems. To test the models of stellar structure and evolution, stellar masses must be determined with ≈ 2% accuracy. Until very recently, accurate masses were available only for double-lined, detached eclipsing binaries [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Herschel, Planck to Look Deep Into Cosmos
    Jet APRIL Propulsion 2009 Laboratory VOLUME 39 NUMBER 4 Herschel, Planck to look In a cleanroom at Centre Spatial Guy- deep into anais, Kourou, French Guyana, the Herschel spacecraft is raised cosmos from its transport con- tainer to begin launch Thanks in large part to the preparations. contributions of instruments By Mark Whalen and technologies developed by JPL, long-range views of the universe are about to become much clearer. European European Space Agency When the European Space Agency’s Herschel and wavelengths, continuing to move further into the far like the Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based Planck missions take to the sky together, onboard will infrared. There’s overlap with Spitzer, but Herschel telescopes to view galaxies in the billions, and millions be JPL’s legacy in cosmology studies. extends the range: Spitzer’s wavelength range is 3.5 to more with spectroscopy. In comparison, in the far infra- The pair are scheduled for launch together aboard an 160 microns; Herschel will go from 65 to 672 microns. red we have maybe a few hundred pictures of galaxies Ariane 5 rocket from Kourou, French Guyana on April Herschel’s mirror is much bigger than Spitzer’s and its that emit primarily in the far-infrared, but we know they 29. Once in orbit, Herschel and Planck will be sent angular resolution at the same wavelength will be sub- are important in a cosmological sense, and just the tip on separate trajectories to the second Lagrange point stantially better. of the iceberg. With Herschel, we will see hundreds of (L2), outside the orbit of the moon, to maintain an ap- “Herschel is really critical for studying important pro- thousands of galaxies, detected right at the peak of the proximately constant distance of 1.5 million kilometers cesses like how stars are formed,” said Paul Goldsmith, wavelengths they emit.” (900,000 miles) from Earth, in the opposite direction NASA Herschel project scientist and chief technologist A large fraction of the time with Herschel will be than the sun from Earth.
    [Show full text]
  • LISA, the Gravitational Wave Observatory
    The ESA Science Programme Cosmic Vision 2015 – 25 Christian Erd Planetary Exploration Studies, Advanced Studies & Technology Preparations Division 04-10-2010 1 ESAESA spacespace sciencescience timelinetimeline JWSTJWST BepiColomboBepiColombo GaiaGaia LISALISA PathfinderPathfinder Proba-2Proba-2 PlanckPlanck HerschelHerschel CoRoTCoRoT HinodeHinode AkariAkari VenusVenus ExpressExpress SuzakuSuzaku RosettaRosetta DoubleDouble StarStar MarsMars ExpressExpress INTEGRALINTEGRAL ClusterCluster XMM-NewtonXMM-Newton CassiniCassini-H-Huygensuygens SOHOSOHO ImplementationImplementation HubbleHubble OperationalOperational 19901990 19941994 19981998 20022002 20062006 20102010 20142014 20182018 20222022 XMM-Newton • X-ray observatory, launched in Dec 1999 • Fully operational (lost 3 out of 44 X-ray CCD early in mission) • No significant loss of performances expected before 2018 • Ranked #1 at last extension review in 2008 (with HST & SOHO) • 320 refereed articles per year, with 38% in the top 10% most cited • Observing time over- subscribed by factor ~8 • 2,400 registered users • Largest X-ray catalogue (263,000 sources) • Best sensitivity in 0.2-12 keV range • Long uninterrupted obs. • Follow-up of SZ clusters 04-10-2010 3 INTEGRAL • γ-ray observatory, launched in Oct 2002 • Imager + Spectrograph (E/ΔE = 500) + X- ray monitor + Optical camera • Coded mask telescope → 12' resolution • 72 hours elliptical orbit → low background • P/L ~ nominal (lost 4 out 19 SPI detectors) • No serious degradation before 2016 • ~ 90 refereed articles per year • Obs
    [Show full text]
  • Astrophysics
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Astrophysics Astronomy and Astrophysics Paul Hertz Advisory Committee Director, Astrophysics Division Washington, DC Science Mission Directorate January 26, 2017 @PHertzNASA www.nasa.gov Why Astrophysics? Astrophysics is humankind’s scientific endeavor to understand the universe and our place in it. 1. How did our universe 2. How did galaxies, stars, 3. Are We Alone? begin and evolve? and planets come to be? These national strategic drivers are enduring 1972 1982 1991 2001 2010 2 Astrophysics Driving Documents 2016 update includes: • Response to Midterm Assessment • Planning for 2020 Decadal Survey http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/documents 3 Astrophysics - Big Picture • The FY16 appropriation/FY17 continuing resolution and FY17 President’s budget request provide funding for NASA astrophysics to continue its planned programs, missions, projects, research, and technology. – The total funding (Astrophysics including Webb) remains at ~$1.35B. – Fully funds Webb for an October 2018 launch, WFIRST formulation (new start), Explorers mission development, increased funding for R&A, new suborbital capabilities. – No negative impact from FY17 continuing resolution (through April 28, 2017). – Awaiting FY18 budget guidance from new Administration. • The operating missions continue to generate important and compelling science results, and new missions are under development for the future. – Senior Review in Spring 2016 recommended continued operation of all missions. – SOFIA is adding new instruments: HAWC+ instrument being commissioned; HIRMES instrument in development; next gen instrument call in 2017. – NASA missions under development making progress toward launches: ISS-NICER (2017), ISS-CREAM (2017), TESS (2018), Webb (2018), IXPE (2020), WFIRST (mid-2020s). – Partnerships with ESA and JAXA on their future missions create additional science opportunities: Euclid (ESA), X-ray Astronomy Recovery Mission (JAXA), Athena (ESA), L3/LISA (ESA).
    [Show full text]
  • Epo in a Multinational Context
    →EPO IN A MULTINATIONAL CONTEXT Heidelberg, June 2013 ESA FACTS AND FIGURES • Over 40 years of experience • 20 Member States • Six establishments in Europe, about 2200 staff • 4 billion Euro budget (2013) • Over 70 satellites designed, tested and operated in flight • 17 scientific satellites in operation • Six types of launcher developed • Celebrated the 200th launch of Ariane in February 2011 2 ACTIVITIES ESA is one of the few space agencies in the world to combine responsibility in nearly all areas of space activity. • Space science • Navigation • Human spaceflight • Telecommunications • Exploration • Technology • Earth observation • Operations • Launchers 3 →SCIENCE & ROBOTIC EXPLORATION TODAY’S SCIENCE MISSIONS (1) • XMM-Newton (1999– ) X-ray telescope • Cluster (2000– ) four spacecraft studying the solar wind • Integral (2002– ) observing objects in gamma and X-rays • Hubble (1990– ) orbiting observatory for ultraviolet, visible and infrared astronomy (with NASA) • SOHO (1995– ) studying our Sun and its environment (with NASA) 5 TODAY’S SCIENCE MISSIONS (2) • Mars Express (2003– ) studying Mars, its moons and atmosphere from orbit • Rosetta (2004– ) the first long-term mission to study and land on a comet • Venus Express (2005– ) studying Venus and its atmosphere from orbit • Herschel (2009– ) far-infrared and submillimetre wavelength observatory • Planck (2009– ) studying relic radiation from the Big Bang 6 UPCOMING MISSIONS (1) • Gaia (2013) mapping a thousand million stars in our galaxy • LISA Pathfinder (2015) testing technologies
    [Show full text]
  • LISA and ESA's Cosmic Vision 2015-2025 Programme
    LISA and ESA’s Cosmic Vision 2015-2025 Programme J. Clavel Head, Astrophysics Mission Division, Science Directorate of ESA 7th International LISA Symposium, Barcelona, 16-June-2008 Missions in preparation HeHerschel-rschel- Planck Planck BBeepipi-C-Cololombomboo 2008 CoroCorott 2008 20132013 (CNES-ESA)(CNES-ESA) Lisa-Pathfinder 20062006 Lisa-Pathfinder 20102010 Chandrayan GaiaGaia Chandrayan SolarSolar (ISRO-ESA) 20112011 (ISRO-ESA) JWSJWSTT OrbiterOrbiter 20082008 (NASA-ESA-CSA)(NASA-ESA-CSA)(ESA-NASA)(ESA-NASA) MicroscopeMicroscope 20132013 20152015 (CNES-ESA)(CNES-ESA) 20102010 20052005 20062006 20072007 20082008 20092009 20102010 20112011 20122012 20132013 20142014 20152015 20162016 20172017 7th International LISA Symposium, Barcelona, 16-June-2008 ESA’sESA’s newnew longlong termterm planplan forfor spacespace sciencescience 7th International LISA Symposium, Barcelona, 16-June-2008 Cosmic Vision 2015-2025 process • Call for Science Themes in Spring 2004 • Responses analysed by ESA’s advisory structure in July 2004 • Workshop with community in Paris in September 2004 (400 participants) • Spring 2005: the Cosmic Vision Plan was presented to the community • Plan should cover one decade, with 3 Calls for Missions planned 7th International LISA Symposium, Barcelona, 16-June-2008 Four “Grand Themes” identified 1. What are the conditions for life and planetary formation? 2. How does the Solar System work? 3. What are the fundamental laws of the Universe? 4. How did the Universe originate and what is it made of? 7th International LISA Symposium, Barcelona, 16-June-2008 Cosmic Vision process • First “Call for Missions” issued in 1st Q 2007 • 50 proposals received by June 2007 deadline • Selection process by advisory structure on behalf of scientific community during summer 2007 • Final recommendation from SSAC in October 2007 7th International LISA Symposium, Barcelona, 16-June-2008 The ESA program is chosen by the Scientific Community….
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Perryman
    Michael Perryman Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge (1977−79) European Space Agency, NL (1980−2009) (Hipparcos 1981−1997; Gaia 1995−2009) [Leiden University, NL,1993−2009] Max-Planck Institute for Astronomy & Heidelberg University (2010) Visiting Professor: University of Bristol (2011−12) University College Dublin (2012−13) Lecture program 1. Space Astrometry 1/3: History, rationale, and Hipparcos 2. Space Astrometry 2/3: Hipparcos science results (Tue 5 Nov) 3. Space Astrometry 3/3: Gaia (Thu 7 Nov) 4. Exoplanets: prospects for Gaia (Thu 14 Nov) 5. Some aspects of optical photon detection (Tue 19 Nov) M83 (David Malin) Hipparcos Text Our Sun Gaia Parallax measurement principle… Problematic from Earth: Sun (1) obtaining absolute parallaxes from relative measurements Earth (2) complicated by atmosphere [+ thermal/gravitational flexure] (3) no all-sky visibility Some history: the first 2000 years • 200 BC (ancient Greeks): • size and distance of Sun and Moon; motion of the planets • 900–1200: developing Islamic culture • 1500–1700: resurgence of scientific enquiry: • Earth moves around the Sun (Copernicus), better observations (Tycho) • motion of the planets (Kepler); laws of gravity and motion (Newton) • navigation at sea; understanding the Earth’s motion through space • 1718: Edmond Halley • first to measure the movement of the stars through space • 1725: James Bradley measured stellar aberration • Earth’s motion; finite speed of light; immensity of stellar distances • 1783: Herschel inferred Sun’s motion through space • 1838–39: Bessell/Henderson/Struve
    [Show full text]
  • Astrophysics
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Astrophysics Committee on NASA Science Paul Hertz Mission Extensions Director, Astrophysics Division NRC Keck Center Science Mission Directorate Washington DC @PHertzNASA February 1-2, 2016 Why Astrophysics? Astrophysics is humankind’s scientific endeavor to understand the universe and our place in it. 1. How did our universe 2. How did galaxies, stars, 3. Are We Alone? begin and evolve? and planets come to be? These national strategic drivers are enduring 1972 1982 1991 2001 2010 2 Astrophysics Driving Documents http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/documents 3 Astrophysics Programs Physics of the Cosmos Cosmic Origins Exoplanet Exploration Program Program Program 1. How did our universe 2. How did galaxies, stars, 3. Are We Alone? begin and evolve? and planets come to be? Astrophysics Explorers Program Astrophysics Research Program James Webb Space Telescope Program (managed outside of Astrophysics Division until commissioning) 4 Astrophysics Programs and Missions Physics of the Cosmos Cosmic Origins Exoplanet Exploration Program Program Program Chandra Hubble Spitzer Kepler/K2 XMM-Newton (ESA) Herschel (ESA) WFIRST Fermi SOFIA Planck (ESA) LISA Pathfinder (ESA) Astrophysics Explorers Program Euclid (ESA) NuSTAR Swift Suzaku (JAXA) Athena (ESA) ASTRO-H (JAXA) NICER TESS L3 GW Obs (ESA) 3 SMEX and 2 MO in Phase A James Webb Space Telescope Program: Webb 5 Astrophysics Programs and Missions Physics of the Cosmos Cosmic Origins Exoplanet Exploration Program Program Program Missions in extended phase Chandra Hubble Spitzer Kepler/K2 XMM-Newton (ESA) Herschel (ESA) WFIRST Fermi SOFIA Planck (ESA) LISA Pathfinder (ESA) Astrophysics Explorers Program Euclid (ESA) NuSTAR Swift Suzaku (JAXA) Athena (ESA) ASTRO-H (JAXA) NICER TESS L3 GW Obs (ESA) 3 SMEX and 2 MO in Phase A James Webb Space Telescope Program: Webb 6 Astrophysics Mission Portfolio • NASA Astrophysics seeks to advance NASA’s strategic objectives in astrophysics as well as the science priorities of the Decadal Survey in Astronomy and Astrophysics.
    [Show full text]
  • PROGRESS and PROSPECTS TOWARD a SPACE-BASED GRAVITATIONAL- WAVE OBSERVATORY John Baker 15Th Capra Meeting 13 June 2012 University of Maryland - College Park
    PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS TOWARD A SPACE-BASED GRAVITATIONAL- WAVE OBSERVATORY John Baker 15th Capra Meeting 13 June 2012 University of Maryland - College Park 1 Plan: LISA past and future • No theory here • Extreme/Intermediate Mass-Ratio Inspirals (EMRI/ IMRI) are an astrophysical testbed for GR • Space-based GW observation (ie LISA) needed • Our old friend LISA before 2010 • LISA 2011-2012 • (based on GSFC activity and 9th LISA Symposium) • Activity in Europe (LISA Pathfinder, NGO, Consortium) • Activity in the US (SGO Study) • Activity in Asia • LISA in the future 2 LISA: PROBING THE UNIVERSE WITH GRAVITATIONAL WAVES LISA capabilities Sensitivity The sensitivity of LISA is shown in Figure 2-5 together with a comparable sensitivity curve for the future ground-based Advanced LIGO. Sensitivity over a logarithmic frequency interval is shown here in terms of the dimensionless strain f Sh( f ) (where Sh( f ) is the 1-! level of strain noise spectral amplitude), in order to facilitate comparison with the much higher measure- ment frequencies of LIGO. The LISA sensitivity curve divides into three regions: a low- frequency region where proof-mass acceleration noise dominates, a mid-frequency region where shot noise and optical-path measurement errors dominate, and a high-frequency region where the sensitivity curve rises as the wavelength of the GW becomes shorter than the LISA armlength. Additionally, a diffuse background of unresolved galactic binaries is expected to contribute to the measured strain level in the frequency range from 0.1 - 1 mHz; this component is indicated in Figure 2-5. Figure 2-5 illustrates also the different astrophysical sources that LISA will study, contrasted with those studied by ground-based interferometersLISA such as LIGO.
    [Show full text]
  • ARIEL Payload Design Description
    Doc Ref: ARIEL-RAL-PL-DD-001 ARIEL Payload ARIEL Payload Design Issue: 2.0 Consortium Description Date: 15 February 2017 ARIEL Consortium Phase A Payload Study ARIEL Payload Design Description ARIEL-RAL-PL-DD-001 Issue 2.0 Prepared by: Date: Paul Eccleston (RAL Space) Consortium Project Manager Reviewed by: Date: Kevin Middleton (RAL Space) Payload Systems Engineer Approved & Date: Released by: Giovanna Tinetti (UCL) Consortium PI Page i Doc Ref: ARIEL-RAL-PL-DD-001 ARIEL Payload ARIEL Payload Design Issue: 2.0 Consortium Description Date: 15 February 2017 DOCUMENT CHANGE DETAILS Issue Date Page Description Of Change Comment 0.1 09/05/16 All New document draft created. Document structure and headings defined to request input from consortium. 0.2 24/05/16 All Added input information from consortium as received. 0.3 27/05/16 All Added further input received up to this date from consortium, addition of general architecture and background section in part 4. 0.4 30/05/16 All Further iteration of inputs from consortium and addition of section 3 on science case and driving requirements. 0.5 31/05/16 All Completed all additional sections except 1 (Exec Summary) and 8 (Active Cooler), further updates and iterations from consortium including updated science section. Added new mass budget and data rate tables. 0.6 01/06/16 All Updates from consortium review of final document and addition of section 8 on active cooler (except input on turbo-brayton alternative). Updated mass and power budget table entries for cooler based on latest modelling. 0.7 02/06/16 All Updated figure and table numbering following check.
    [Show full text]