1: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
2: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: \newcommand{\mum}{$\,\mu$m}
5: \newcommand{\Spitzer}{{\it Spitzer}}
6:
7: %\slugcomment{Version 2, Oct. 9, 2006}
8: %\slugcomment{Submitted, Nov. 15, 2006}
9: %\slugcomment{Revised, July 2, 2007}
10: \slugcomment{Accepted to PASP, July 19, 2007}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \shortauthors{Stansberry et al.}
15: \shorttitle{MIPS 160\micron\ Calibration}
16:
17: \title{Absolute Calibration and Characterization of the Multiband Imaging
18: Photometer for Spitzer. III. \\
19: An Asteroid-based Calibration of MIPS at 160\mum}
20:
21: \author{J. A. Stansberry\altaffilmark{1},
22: K.D. Gordon\altaffilmark{1},
23: B. Bhattacharya\altaffilmark{2},
24: C.W. Engelbracht\altaffilmark{1},
25: G.H. Rieke\altaffilmark{1},
26: F.R. Marleau\altaffilmark{2},
27: D. Fadda\altaffilmark{2},
28: D.T. Frayer\altaffilmark{2},
29: A. Noriega-Crespo\altaffilmark{2},
30: S. Wachter\altaffilmark{2},
31: E.T. Young\altaffilmark{1},
32: T.G. M\"uller\altaffilmark{3},
33: D.M. Kelly\altaffilmark{1},
34: M. Blaylock\altaffilmark{1},
35: D. Henderson\altaffilmark{2},
36: G. Neugebauer\altaffilmark{1}
37: J.W. Beeman\altaffilmark{4},
38: E.E. Haller\altaffilmark{4,5}
39: }
40: \altaffiltext{1}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721}
41: \altaffiltext{2}{Spitzer Science Center, 220-6, Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125}
42: \altaffiltext{3}{Max Planck Institute, D-85748 Garching, Germany}
43: \altaffiltext{4}{Materials Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab,
44: Berkeley, CA 94720}
45: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Materials Science and Engineering,
46: University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720}
47:
48: \begin{abstract}
49:
50: We describe the absolute calibration of the Multiband Imaging Photometer
51: for Spitzer (MIPS) 160\mum\ channel. After the on-orbit discovery of a
52: near-IR ghost image that dominates the signal for sources hotter than
53: about 2000~K, we adopted a strategy utilizing asteroids to transfer the
54: absolute calibrations of the MIPS 24 and 70\mum\ channels to the 160\mum\
55: channel. Near-simultaneous observations at all three wavelengths are
56: taken, and photometry at the two shorter wavelengths is fit using the
57: Standard Thermal Model. The 160\mum\ flux density is predicted from
58: those fits and compared with the observed 160\mum\ signal to derive the
59: conversion from instrumental units to surface brightness. The calibration
60: factor we derive is 41.7~MJy/sr/MIPS160 (MIPS160 being the instrumental
61: units). The scatter in the individual measurements of the calibration
62: factor, as well as an assesment of the external uncertainties inherent
63: in the calibration, lead us to adopt an uncertainty of 5.0~MJy/sr/MIPS160
64: (12\%) for the absolute uncertainty on the 160\mum\ flux density of a
65: particular source as determined from a single measurement. For sources
66: brighter than about 2~Jy, non-linearity in the response of the 160\mum\
67: detectors produces an under-estimate of the flux density: for objects as
68: bright as 4~Jy, measured flux densities are likely to be $\simeq20$\%
69: too low. This calibration has been checked against that of ISO (using
70: ULIRGS) and IRAS (using IRAS-derived diameters), and is consistent with
71: those at the 5\% level.
72:
73: \end{abstract}
74:
75: % KEYWORD for PASP indexing. Must appear after abstract, before intro.
76: % unfortunately latex bombs on this line, so comment it out...
77: % \Astronomical Instrumentation\
78:
79: \section{Introduction}
80:
81: The Multiband Imaging Photometer for Spitzer (MIPS; Rieke et al. 2004)
82: is the far-infrared imager on the Spitzer Space Telescope (\Spitzer,
83: Werner et al. 2004). MIPS has three photometric channels, at 24, 70,
84: and 160\mum. Like the other Spitzer instruments, the primary flux
85: density calibrators at 24 and 70\mum\ are stars. (IRAC: Reach et al.
86: 2005; Fazio et al., 2004; Hora et al., 2004; and IRS: Houck et al.,
87: 2004). The calibration for the MIPS 24 and 70\mum\ channels are presented
88: in companion papers by Rieke et al. (2007), Engelbracht et al. (2007:
89: 24\mum) and Gordon et al. (2007: 70\mum). Here we present the calibration
90: of the 160\mum\ channel, and describe some unexpected challenges that
91: had to be overcome in performing the calibration. The emission from
92: astonomical targets at this long wavelength is particularly useful in
93: characterizing the abundance of cold dust, which frequently dominates
94: the total emission from galaxies (e.g. Gordon et al., 2006; Dale et al.,
95: 2005). The MIPS 160\mum\ channel has also contributed new insight into
96: the sources responsible for the previously unresolved cosmic infrared
97: background (Dole et al. 2006).
98:
99: Very few calibrations exist in the 100--200\mum\ wavelength regime.
100: The Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS; Neugebauer, 1984; Beichmann
101: et al., 1985) 100\mum\ channel, the 60 -- 200\mum\ channels of the
102: ISO Imaging Photopolarimeter (ISOPHOT, Schulz et al. 2002) aboard the
103: Infrared Space Observatory (ISO), and the Diffuse Infrared Background
104: Explorer (DIRBE, at 60 to 240 \mum; Hauser et al., 1998) aboard the
105: Cosmic Infrared Background Explorer (COBE, e.g. Fixsen et al. 1997)
106: relied on observations of solar system targets for their absolute
107: calibrations. The Far Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer (FIRAS) on
108: COBE relied on observations of an external calibration target (Mather et
109: al. 1999). In the case of IRAS, the calibration relied on observations
110: of asteroids to extrapolate the calibration of the 60\mum\ channel to
111: 100\mum. In the case of ISOPHOT, a few asteroids were studied in great
112: detail, and their emission used as the basis of the absolute calibration
113: (M\"uller and Lagerros, 1998; 2002). The primary reason these previous
114: missions relied on observations of asteroids (and planets) to calibrate
115: their longest-wavelength channels was sensitivity: the instruments could
116: not detect enough stellar photospheres at adequate signal-to-noise
117: ratio (SNR) over a wide-enough range of flux densities to support a
118: calibration. In part that was because the instuments had large beams
119: that were not well sampled by their detectors, leading to high confusion
120: limits to their sensitivity.
121:
122: The original intention was to calibrate the MIPS 160\mum\ channel
123: using observations and photospheric models of stars. Compared to the
124: earlier missions, the MIPS detectors and electronics are significantly
125: more sensitive. Also, the MIPS pixel scale, 16\arcsec, fully samples
126: the 40\arcsec\ beam provided by \Spitzer, resulting in lower confusion
127: limits. After launch, the stellar calibration stategy was found to be
128: unworkable because a bright, short-wavlength ghost image impinged on
129: the array at nearly the same location as the 160\mum\ image (see below).
130: The strategy we adopted was similar to that employed by IRAS: namely to
131: use observations of asteroids in all three MIPS channels to transfer the
132: calibration from the MIPS 24 and 70\mum\ channels to the 160\mum\ channel.
133:
134: \section{The Near-IR Ghost Image Problem}
135:
136: Initial 160\mum\ commissioning observations of stars seemed to indicate
137: that the array was 10--15 times more responsive than expected from
138: pre-launch models and instrument characterization tests. However,
139: observations of cold sources seemed to confirm the expected responsivity
140: of the array. Within 4 months of the launch of Spitzer, we concluded
141: that for targets with stellar near-IR:160\mum\ colors, near-IR photons
142: (with wavelengths $\simeq 1.6$\mum) were forming a ghost image on the
143: 160\mum\ array.
144:
145: The Ge detectors are sensitive to near-IR light because of their intrinsic
146: photoconductive response. The desired response to 160\mum\ light, on the
147: other hand, arises from the extrinsic photoconductive response (achieved
148: by doping with Ga) coupled with mechanical stress applied to the pixels
149: (which extends the response from the normal 100\mum\ cutoff to about
150: 200\mum). Optical modeling eventually indicated that near-IR photons
151: diffusely reflected off the surface of the 160\mum\ short-wavelength
152: blocking filter were responsible for the ghost image. That filter lies
153: near an intermediate focus in the optical train, and the reflected
154: photons form a poorly-focused ghost image on the array. By design,
155: the blocking filter is tilted relative to the light path to prevent
156: specularly reflected near-IR light from impinging on the array. However,
157: roughness on the surface of the blocking filter contributes a diffuse
158: component to the reflected near-IR light, and it is this diffusely
159: reflected light that forms the ghost image.
160:
161: The near-IR light reflected from the blocking filter passes through the
162: 160\mum\ bandpass filter (which has transmission in the near-IR of about
163: $10^{-3}$), but does not pass through the blocking filter. As a result,
164: the ghost image is quite bright in spite of the diffuse nature of the
165: reflection, having an intensity 10--15 times greater than the intensity
166: of the 160\mum\ image for sources with stellar colors. The fact that
167: the ghost image nearly coincides with the image of 160\mum\ light on the
168: array (see Figure~1) made it difficult to identify the problem in the
169: first place, and also makes it very difficult to calibrate the relative
170: strengths of the two images. Their relative strengths also depend on
171: the temperature of the source. For a blackbody source spectrum (and
172: assuming that the effective wavlength of the ghost image is 1.6\mum),
173: objects with temperatures $\ge 2000$~K will suffer from a ghost image
174: comparable to or greater in brightness than the 160\mum\ image. Several
175: attempts have been made to overcome these uncertainties and difficulties,
176: and to characterize and calibrate the ghost-image directly, but have
177: met with quite limited success.
178:
179: \section{Revised Calibration Strategy}
180:
181: Asteroids were chosen as the new calibrators because of their very red
182: near-IR to 160\mum\ color, their ubiquity, and their range of brightness.
183: For typical asteroids the brightness of the ghost image will be at least
184: 2000 times fainter than the 160\mum\ image, and so will not measurably
185: affect any calibration based on observations of asteroids. Unfortunately,
186: asteroids also have several qualities that detract from their attraction
187: as calibrators: their far-IR SEDs are difficult to predict (due to
188: temperature variations across and within the surface), are time-variable
189: (due to rotation and changing distance from the Sun and observer),
190: and are poorly characterized at far-IR wavelengths. L and T dwarfs can
191: not be used because they are far too faint to be detected using MIPS
192: at 160\mum.
193:
194: Because of the difficulty in predicting the 160\mum\ flux density
195: from a given asteroid for a particular observing circumstance,
196: we adopted a calibration strategy that relies on near-simultaneous
197: observations of asteroids at 24, 70 and 160\mum, and then bootstraps
198: the 160\mum\ calibration from the well-understood calibrations at 24 and
199: 70\mum. Additionally, we have observed many asteroids, so that
200: we can use the average properties of the data to derive the calibration,
201: rather than relying on detailed efforts to model the thermal emission
202: of individual asteroids. The emission from asteroids at wavelengths
203: beyond 60\mum\ has only been characterized for a few objects (e.g. M\"uller
204: and Lagerros, 1998; 2002), but those objects are all far too bright to
205: observe with MIPS.
206:
207: \subsection{Faint \& Bright Samples}
208:
209: Because the far-IR SEDs of asteroids are not well studied, we felt
210: that it was very important to characterize the thermal emission of
211: our calibration targets at both 24 and 70\mum\ to predict their
212: emission at 160\mum. However, saturation limits introduce a complication
213: in trying to observe any particular asteroid in all 3 MIPS channels.
214: For a typical asteroid, the ratio of the flux densities, 24:70:160\mum,
215: is about 10:3:0.8. The 24\mum\ channel saturates at 4.1~Jy in 1 second,
216: and somewhat brighter sources can be observed using the first-difference
217: image, which has an exposure time of 0.5 seconds. This limits the maximum
218: 160\mum\ brightness that can be related back to well-calibrated 24\mum\
219: observations to about 0.5~Jy. Sensitivity and confusion limits at
220: 160\mum\ require that we observe asteroids brighter than about 0.1~Jy
221: at 160\mum. Thus, the dynamic range of the 160\mum\ fluxes that can
222: be directly tied to 24\mum\ observations is only a factor of 5, from
223: 100~mJy to 500~mJy. The hard saturation limit at 70\mum, 23~Jy, does
224: not place any restriction on sources that can be observed at both 70
225: and 160\mum\ (the 160\mum\ saturation limit, 3~Jy, is about 1/2 of the
226: 160\mum\ flux density from an asteroid with a 23~Jy 70\mum\ brightness).
227: These saturation-related restrictions lead us to adopt a 2-tiered
228: observation and calibration strategy.
229:
230: \noindent {\it Faint Asteroids: 24\mum\ sample.} We observe asteroids
231: predicted to be fainter than $\sim 4$~Jy at 24\mum\ in all three MIPS
232: channels. The data are taken nearly simultaneously (typically less
233: than 30 minutes to observe all 3 channels, with nearly all of that
234: time being devoted to taking the 160\mum\ data). The short duration
235: of the observations limits potential brightness variations due to rotation of
236: the target (in addition, the targets were selected on the basis
237: of not exhibiting strong visible lightcurve variations). We then use the
238: observed flux densities at 24 and 70\mum\ to predict the flux density
239: at 160\mum\ using a thermal model (see below). We also compute the
240: ratio of the {\it measured} 70\mum\ flux density to the 160\mum\ {\it
241: model prediction}, and use that ratio later to predict the 160\mum\
242: flux density for asteroids too bright to observe at 24\mum.
243:
244: \noindent {\it Bright Asteroids: 70\mum\ sample.} For asteroids predicted
245: to be brighter than $\sim 4$~Jy at 24\mum, we observe only at 70 and 160\mum.
246: We then use the average 70:160 color from the faint sample to predict the
247: 160\mum\ flux density from the 70\mum\ observation. This sample extends
248: the available dynamic range of the 160\mum\ observations by more than
249: a factor of two relative to the 24\mum\ sample alone, allowing us to
250: both measure the calibration factor up to the 160\mum\ saturation limit,
251: and to determine whether the response is linear.
252:
253: \subsection{Limitations}
254:
255: This strategy is subject to some limitations in addition to uncertainties
256: inherent to all absolute calibration schemes. The calibration we derive at
257: 160\mum\ is wholly dependent on the MIPS calibrations at 24 and 70\mum,
258: and its accuracy can not exceed the accuracy of the calibration of
259: those channels. As described in Engelbracht et al. (2007), the absolute
260: calibration at 24\mum\ is good to 2\%; Gordon et al. (2007) show that
261: the 70\mum\ absolute calibration is good to 5.0\%. These absolute calibration
262: uncertainties in the shorter channels translate into a 7\% uncertainty
263: on the predicted 160\mum\ flux density of any object with a a 24:70\mum\
264: color temperature of around 250~K (as our targets do). This represents
265: the ultimate theoretical accuracy of the 160\mum\ calibration we can
266: derive via the methods described here.
267:
268: As mentioned above, the dynamic range of the 160\mum\ fluxes that we can
269: relate to objects observed at both 24 and 70\mum\ is quite small. Thus,
270: the bright sample is critical for extending the dynamic range of the
271: calibration. However, our predicted 160\mum\ fluxes rely on the average
272: 70:160\mum\ model color of the faint sample, so the calibration is dependent
273: on the uncertainty in that color. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of our
274: measurements at the shorter wavelengths is typically in excess of 50, so
275: their precision is not a major factor. However, the average 70:160\mum\
276: color we use depends on what we assume for the spectral emissivity
277: of asteroids. There are hints in the ISO data that the emissivity of
278: some asteroids is depressed by $\simeq 10$\% in the far-IR (M\"uller \&
279: Lagerros, 2002), and model-based predictions that surface roughness may
280: also affect the slope of the far-IR thermal spectrum. Here we assume
281: that asteroids emit as gray-bodies, and use a thermal model that
282: does not incorporate the effect of surface roughness on the slope, and the
283: calibration we derive follows directly from those assumption. The full
284: impact of all of the uncertainties mentioned here on the accuracy of
285: the calibration are discussed in \S~8.1.
286:
287: \section{Observations and Data Analysis}
288:
289: \subsection{The Observations}
290:
291: For each MIPS observing campaign, we used the JPL Solar System Dynamics
292: division's HORIZONs system (http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov) to select main-belt
293: asteroids within the Spitzer operational pointing zone. From this set,
294: we selected objects with an albedo and diameter in the HORIZONs database
295: (primarily derived from the IRAS asteroid catalog, Tedesco et al. 2002).
296: For the purposes of observation planning only, we used the IRAS albedos
297: and diameters to predict flux densities in the MIPS channels. We typically
298: selected a few to observe, picking those that could be observed in a
299: reasonable amount of time, would not saturate the detectors, and that did
300: not have significant lightcurve amplitudes (again, as indicated by the
301: HORIZONs database).
302:
303: 102 individual observations of asteroids were made through the 28th
304: MIPS observing campaign (between December 2003 and January 2006). Of
305: those, 79 resulted in 160\mum\ detections with signal-to-noise ratios
306: $\ge 4$. Thirty-three of those were 3-color (24, 70, and 160\mum)
307: observations of fainter asteroids, and 46 were 2-color (70 and 160\mum\
308: only) of brighter objects. All observations were made using the MIPS
309: photometry Astronomical Observing Template (AOT), which provides dithered
310: images to improve point spread function (PSF) sampling and photometric
311: repeatability. The 160\mum\ array is quite small, having an (unfilled)
312: instantaneous field of view (FOV) of 0.8 by 5.3 arcminutes. The photometry
313: AOT, because of the dithers, results in a larger, but still restricted
314: 2.1 by 6 arcminute filled FOV for the final mosaic. The diameter of the
315: first Airy minimum of the 160\mum\ PSF is 90\arcsec. After collecting
316: 160\mum\ data using the standard dither pattern for a few observing
317: campaigns, we began taking those data by combining the AOT with small
318: map. This provided more sky around the target, and improved the sampling
319: of the PSF. Figure~1 shows a sample 160\mum\ image for a bright asteroid
320: resulting from such an observation.
321:
322: \subsection{Data Analysis}
323: The data were analyzed using the MIPS instrument team data analysis tools
324: (DAT; Gordon et al., 2005). These tools have been used to develop the
325: reduction algorithms and calibration of the MIPS data, beginning during
326: ground-test, and continuing through on-orbit commisioning and routine
327: operations. The Spitzer Science Center data processing pipeline is
328: used to independently verify the algorithms and calibrations developed
329: through the instrument team DAT. Both the SSC pipeline and the DAT
330: use the same calibration files (e.g. darks, illumination corrections),
331: and the same absolute calibration factors. Comparison of 160\mum\
332: photometry for data processed through the DAT and the SSC pipeline show
333: that the two agree to better than 1\%. Data at 24 and 70\mum\ were
334: reduced, and photometry extracted, in exactly the same manner as all
335: other calibration data for those channels (see Engelbracht et al. 2007,
336: and Gordon et al. 2007). Because the exposure times at 24 and 70\mum\
337: were so short, the motion of the asteroids during those observations
338: was insignificant relative to the beam size in all cases. At 160\mum\
339: the beam is typically much larger than target motion, even though the integration
340: times in that channel were sometimes quite long. In the few instances
341: where object motion during the 160\mum\ observation was significant
342: (160\mum\ AOR execution times approaching one hour), we generated mosaics
343: in the co-moving frame.
344:
345: The basic processing of the 160\mum\ data is described in Gordon et al.
346: (2005). Briefly, each observation consists of multiple, dithered images.
347: During acquisition of each image, termed a data collection event (DCE),
348: the signal from the pixels is non-destructively sampled every 1/8 second.
349: The pixels were reset every 40th sample. Cosmic rays are identified as
350: discontinuities in the data ramps, and slopes are then fit to the cleaned
351: ramps. Because the responsivity of the Ge:Ga array varies with time
352: and flux-history, internal relative calibration sources (stimulators)
353: are flashed every 8th DCE during data collection. Each slope image is
354: then ratioed to an (interpolated and background-subtracted) stimulator
355: image, and the result corrected for the measured illumination pattern
356: of the stimulators to produce a responsivity normalized image for each
357: dither position in an observation. Those images are mosaicked using
358: world coordinate system information to produce a final image of the
359: sky and target. The mosaics used in this analysis were constructed
360: using pixels 8\arcsec\ square, $\simeq$ 1/2 the native pixel scale of
361: the 160\mum\ array. This subsampling provides better PSF sampling and
362: aids in identifying outlier pixels during mosaicking. Because the slope
363: image from each DCE is ratioed to a stimulator image, brightness in
364: the resulting mosaics is in dimensionless instrumental units which we
365: will refer to as ``MIPS160'' units, or simply MIPS160. The goal of the
366: calibration program is to derive the conversion (the ``calibration
367: factor,'' $CF$) between MIPS160 and surface brightness in units of, e.g.,
368: MJy/sr.
369:
370: \section{Photometry and Aperture Corrections}
371:
372: Figure~2 shows an azimuthally averaged radial profile of an observed
373: 160\mum\ PSF, and compares it to model profiles generated using the
374: Spitzer PSF software (STinyTim, v1.3; Krist, 2002). The measured profile
375: is derived from the observation of the bright (2.3~Jy) asteroid Papagena
376: (see Figure~1); other observations result in very similar PSFs. Model
377: PSFs were generated assuming a source with a 250~K blackbody spectrum,
378: consistent with the temperatures we find for our sample. The models were
379: also generated using 5-times oversampling, resulting in model pixels
380: 3\farcs2 square. As is seen for the other two MIPS channels (see
381: Engelbracht et al., 2007, and Gordon et al. 2007), the primary
382: difference between the model and observed PSFs is in the region of the
383: first Airy minimum. However, suitably smoothed, the model PSF represents
384: the observed PSF quite well. This is reflected in Figure~1, where
385: the overall morphology of the observed and model PSFs can be compared.
386: Figure~2 compares the radial profiles for the observed and model PSFs,
387: and shows the good agreement between the two. The best-fit model PSF
388: is smoothed using a boxcar with a width of 25\farcs6, corresponding to
389: a width of 1.6 native pixels.
390:
391: Because of the restricted FOV of the 160\mum\ images, we are forced to
392: use small apertures for performing photometry (this is in contrast to
393: the large apertures used to derive the 24 and 70\mum\ calibrations). Thus
394: the calibration at 160\mum\ depends more strongly on the aperture
395: corrections. We computed aperture corrections based on the model PSF shown
396: in Figures 1 and 2. The models offer two advantages over the observed
397: PSF: they are noiseless, and there is no uncertainty associated with
398: determining the background (particularly difficult at 160\mum\ because
399: of the restricted FOV). The total flux in STinyTim model PSFs depends
400: on the model FOV: we utilized models 128\arcmin\ across in order to
401: capture most of the flux in the far-field of the PSF. We have extrapolated
402: the PSF to 512\arcmin\ using an Airy function, and integrated over
403: that much larger model to constrain the magnitude of any bias in our
404: aperture corrections stemming from their finite FOV. Those calculations
405: indicate that only 0.1\% of the flux from a source falls in the region
406: between 128\arcmin\ and 512\arcmin: we conclude that our aperture
407: corrections are not significantly biased by our use of the 128\arcmin\
408: models. Later we show that our calibration, when applied to extended
409: sources, gives results consistent with ISO to within 6\%. That
410: agreement provides some additional confidence in the accuracy of our
411: aperture corrections.
412:
413: Application of the model-based aperture corrections to observed PSFs
414: revealed that for apertures $\le 48\arcsec$ in radius the measured
415: flux depended on aperture size. The reason is the small but systematic
416: difference between the observed and model PSFs at radii of $\simeq
417: 10\arcsec$--20\arcsec, which can be seen in Figure~2. To correct this,
418: we have adopted a hybrid approach to computing the aperture corrections,
419: using the smoothed model PSFs for apertures with radii $\ge 48\arcsec$,
420: and observed PSFs for smaller apertures. We used observations of 9
421: asteroids observed using a small 160\mum\ map (giving a somewhat
422: larger FOV, as noted earlier), and with fluxes near 1~Jy for the
423: computation. (We also compared these asteroid-based corrections to
424: those based on Pluto (with a color temperature of 55--60~K), and found no
425: measurable difference). The empirical corrections are normalized to the
426: model correction for the 48\arcsec\ aperture. Table~1 lists the resulting
427: hybrid aperture corrections for a selection of photometric aperture sizes,
428: with and without sky annuli, and for a range of source temperatures.
429: Note that these corrections can only accurately be used for sources that
430: are relatively cold (significantly less than 2000~K) -- otherwise the
431: near-IR ghost image both alters the PSF, and becomes comparable to or
432: brighter than the 160\mum\ image. We have verified that the corrections
433: in Table~1 result in photometry that is independent of aperture size by
434: analyzing 29 cluster-mode asteroid observations, where the targets ranged
435: in brightness from 0.1--4~Jy. The variation with aperture size shows no
436: monotonic trend, and the results for all apertures agree to within 1\%.
437:
438: We performed photometry on our 160\mum\ images using an aperture
439: 24\arcsec\ in radius. The small aperture allowed us to increase
440: the SNR of our photometry for the faintest asteroids, and thereby to
441: extend the calibration to somewhat fainter flux densities than would
442: have been possible otherwise. The aperture photometry was corrected to
443: total counts using the aperture correction in Table~1. Photometry at 24
444: and 70\mum\ was performed exactly as it was to derive the calibrations
445: in those channels, and as described in Engelbracht et al. (2007) and
446: Gordon et al. (2007). Because a number of our brightest asteroids were
447: in the non-linear response regime at 70\mum ({\it i.e.} above a few Jy),
448: we have used PSF-fitting (using the StarFinder package: Diolaiti et al.
449: 2006) to do all of the 70\mum\ photometry used here. We attempted to
450: analyze the 160\mum\ data using PSF-fitting as well, but the resulting
451: photometry displayed more scatter than did the aperture photometry.
452: We believe this was due to the restricted FOV of the mosaics, and the
453: presence of spatial structure (artifacts) in the images, particularly
454: for fainter sources. An area of concentration in the future will be
455: implementing more robust PSF-fitting algorithms for use at 160\mum.
456:
457: \section{Color Corrections}
458:
459: The effective wavelengths of the MIPS channels, defined as the average
460: wavelength weighted by the spectral response function, $R(\lambda)$,
461: are $\lambda_0=$ 23.68, 71.42 and 155.9\mum. The color corrections,
462: which correct the observed in-band flux to a monochromatic flux density
463: at the effective wavelength, are defined by:
464: $$
465: K ={{{1\over{F(\lambda_0)}}\int F(\lambda) R(\lambda) d\lambda } \over
466: {{1\over{G(\lambda_0)}}\int G(\lambda) R(\lambda) d\lambda } }.
467: $$
468: Here $F(\lambda)$ is the spectrum of the source, $G(\lambda)$ is the
469: reference spectrum, $\lambda$ is wavelength, $F$ and $G$ are in units
470: of photons/sec/cm$^2$/$\mu$m, and $R$ is in units of $e^-$/photon. As
471: defined here, the observed flux should be divided by $K$ to compute
472: the monochromatic flux density. The MIPS response functions can be
473: obtained from the Spitzer web site (http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/mips).
474: For MIPS, the reference spectrum, $G$, is chosen as a $10^4$~K blackbody. While
475: we refer to the 24, 70 and 160\mum\ channels, we have used the actual
476: effective wavelengths of those channels for all quantitative analyses.
477: For reference, the zero magnitude flux density at 155.9\mum\ is $160 \pm
478: 2.45$~mJy. Because the asteroids are much colder (with typical 24:70\mum\
479: color temperatures around 250~K), we had to apply color corrections
480: to convert the measured fluxes to monochromatic flux densities at
481: the effective wavelengths. The color corrections for all three MIPS
482: channels and representative source spectra are given in Table~2. In all
483: three channels they are slowly varying functions of temperature above
484: temperatures of 100~K, and also deviate only a few percent from unity
485: at those temperatures. For objects with data at both 24 and 70\mum, the
486: color corrections were computed iteratively based on the 24 and 70\mum\
487: flux densities. For the brighter targets lacking 24\mum\ data, we assumed
488: a temperature of 251~K (see Figure~4), and applied the corresponding
489: color correction.
490:
491: \section{Thermal Modeling}
492:
493: The Standard Thermal Model (STM, Lebofsky \& Spencer 1989) is the most
494: widely used (therefore ``Standard'') model for interpreting observations
495: of thermal emission from small bodies in the asteroid main belt and the
496: outer Solar System ({\it c.f.} Campins et al. 1994; Tedesco et al. 2002;
497: Fern\'{a}ndez et al. 2002; Stansberry et al. 2006). The model assumes
498: a spherical body whose surface is in instantaneous equilibrium with the
499: insolation, equivalent to assuming either a thermal inertia of zero,
500: a non-rotating body, or a rotating body illuminated and viewed pole-on.
501: In the STM the subsolar point temperature is
502: \begin{equation}
503: T_0 = [S_0(1-p_Vq)/(\eta\epsilon\sigma)]^{1/4}\;,
504: \end{equation}
505: where $S_0$ is the solar constant at the distance of the body, $p_V$ is
506: the geometric albedo, $q$ is the phase integral (assumed here to be
507: 0.39, equivalent to a scattering asymetry parameter, $G = 0.15$ (Lumme
508: and Bowell 1981; Bowell et al. 1989)), $\eta$ is the beaming parameter,
509: $\epsilon$ is the emissivity (which we set to 0.9), and $\sigma$ is the
510: Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Given $T_0$, the temperature as a function of
511: position on the surface is $T = T_0 \mu^{1/4},$ where $\mu$ is the cosine
512: of the insolation angle. The nightside temperature is taken to be zero.
513: Surface roughness leads to localized variations in surface temperature
514: and non-isotropic thermal emission (beaming). When viewed at small phase
515: angles, rough surfaces appear warmer than smooth ones because the
516: emission is dominated by warmer depressions and sunward-facing slopes.
517: This effect is captured by the beaming parameter, $\eta$. Lebofsky et
518: al. (1986) found $\eta = 0.76$ for Ceres and Vesta; the nominal range for
519: $\eta$ is 0 to 1, with unity corresponding to a perfectly smooth surface
520: (Lebofsky \& Spencer 1989).
521:
522: The purpose of our thermal modeling is to use the measured 24 and/or
523: 70\mum\ flux densities to predict the 160\mum\ flux density for that
524: target. First we correct the flux density from the observed phase angle
525: (typically about 20\degr\ for our targets) to 0\degr\ using a thermal
526: phase coefficient of 0.01~mag/\degr\ (e.g. Lebofsky et al. 1986).
527: We then use the absolute visual magnitude ($H_V$, defined for a phase
528: angle of 0\degr) from Horizons and the relation (e.g. Harris, 1998)
529: $D=1329\times10^{-H_V/5}\,p_V^{-1/2}$ to compute the target diameter
530: (where $D$ is the diameter in km, and $p_V$ is the visible geometric
531: albedo). Target diameter and albedo are varied until a fit to the
532: observed flux density is achieved. For targets observed at both 24 and
533: 70\mum, the beaming paramter is also varied in order to simultaneously fit
534: both MIPS bands and the visual magnitude. The fitted physical parameters
535: are then fed back into the STM to predict the 160\mum\ flux density.
536:
537: Figure~3 illustrates the measured spectral energy distribution (SED)
538: for one of our targets. Also shown are a blackbody and STM fit to the
539: 24 and 70\mum\ points. The blackbody and STM fits are indistinguishable
540: at the MIPS wavelengths, but small deviations can be seen on the short
541: wavelength side of the emission peak. For the purpose of calibrating
542: the 160\mum\ channel, we simply require a reliable way to predict the
543: 160\mum\ flux density by extrapolation from the shorter wavelengths.
544: As the figure demonstrates, the details of the short-wavelength SED do
545: not appreciably affect the predicted 160\mum\ flux density. Indeed, we
546: have performed the calibration using both STM and blackbody predictions,
547: and the results are consistent with each other to within better than 1\%.
548:
549: \section{Results}
550:
551: \subsection{The 24\mum\ Subsample}
552: Table~3 summarizes our measurements of targets in the 24\mum\ sample.
553: Aperture- and color-corrected flux densities are given for the 24 and
554: 70\mum\ measurements. The 160\mum\ data are given in the instrumental
555: units, MIPS160, described in \S~4.2. As for the shorter wavelengths,
556: the 160\mum\ measurements have been aperture- and color-corrected.
557: The 24\mum\ sample makes up one half of the full data set, and covers
558: the faint end of the sample. These observations also allow us to directly
559: determine the color temperatures (used to compute color corrections for
560: individual observations within the sample, and to predict an average
561: color temperature, used to compute color corrections for the 70\mum\
562: sample). We also use the 24\mum\ sample to compute the average 70:160\mum\
563: model color for asteroids, which we use to predict 160\mum\ fluxes for
564: the 70\mum\ sample.
565:
566: Figure~4 shows the color temperatures of the objects in the 24\mum\
567: sample, determined by fitting a blackbody to the photometry in those
568: channels. The temperatures are fairly tightly clustered, with an average
569: and standard deviation of $\simeq 251\pm 25.6$~K. The temperatures are
570: plotted vs. predicted 160\mum\ flux density. In the context of this
571: figure (only), the prediction is simply the extrapolation of the fitted
572: blackbody curve to 160\mum. Although the range of predicted 160\mum\
573: flux densities for the 24\mum\ sample is only a factor of 5, there is no
574: apparent trend of color temperature. Because the temperatures are fairly
575: similar amongst all the targets, the predicted 160\mum\ flux density is
576: to first order a measure of the overall apparent thermal brightness of
577: the targets. It then reflects a combination of the influences of distance
578: (helio- and Spitzer-centric), albedo, and size. It might be expected that
579: if any of these things were biasing our results, or imposing a systematic
580: trend in the predicted 160\mum\ flux density (e.g. if our brightest
581: targets were systematically hotter), it would be apparent in this figure.
582:
583: Given the fairly narrow range of color temperatures we see for the objects
584: in the 24\mum\ sample, and the insensitivity of the model spectra from
585: 24 to 160\mum\ to details of the thermal models, we expect the 70\mum\
586: to 160\mum\ color of the asteroids to be quite constant. Figure~5 shows
587: the ratio of the measured 70\mum\ flux density to the predicted 160\mum\
588: flux density for each asteroid in the 24\mum\ sample. As expected, the
589: color is tightly clustered, with a mean value of 3.77, and a root-mean-square
590: (RMS) scatter of 0.095, or 2.5\%. Under the assumption that asteroids do not
591: posess any strong emissivity variations vs. wavelength in the far-IR,
592: we use this color ratio to interpret our data for the brighter asteroids.
593:
594: \subsection{The 70\mum\ Subsample}
595: Table~4 summarizes our measurements of targets in the 70\mum\ sample, and
596: is exactly like Table~3 except for the lack of 24\mum\ data. Making use
597: of the average 70:160\mum\ color from the 24\mum\ sample, we compute
598: the predicted 160\mum\ flux density for the 70\mum\ sample. The
599: uncertainty on the 160\mum\ prediction is derived from the uncertainty
600: in the 70\mum\ measurement root-sum-square (RSS) combined with the 2.5\%
601: uncertainty in the average 70:160 color.
602:
603: \section{Calibration Factor}
604: Figure~6 shows the calibration factor ($CF$) we derive from our observations
605: of both the 24\mum\ and 70\mum\ samples, as a function of the predicted
606: 160\mum\ flux density. The calibration factor is defined as the predicted
607: flux density at 160\mum\ divided by the (aperture- and color-corrected)
608: brightness in instrumental units (MIPS160), and by the area of a pixel
609: in steradians.
610:
611: Of the 102 individual observations, 23 were rejected on the grounds of
612: having 160\mum\ SNR$<$4; three more were rejected for having a measured
613: 160\mum\ flux density more than twice the prediction (these were all for
614: very bright sources, and the discrepancy is due to poorly compensated
615: non-linear response in the 70\mum\ channel resulting in predictions that
616: were too low. Figure~6 shows the remaining 76 values of the calibration
617: factor. There is a fairly clear trend of increasing calibration factor
618: for predicted flux densities greater than about 2~Jy. We attribute this
619: trend to a non-linear response of the detectors for bright targets. This
620: effect is similar in magnitude to that seen at 70\mum, also at flux
621: densities greater than about 1--2~Jy (Gordon et al. 2007). For the moment
622: we exclude the 19 points above 2~Jy from consideration. Taking the
623: points below 2~Jy, we compute the average and RMS scatter, and identify
624: as outliers 8 points that deviate from the mean by more than 1.5 times
625: that scatter (indicated by circled points in Figure~6). We use the
626: weighted mean of the remaining 49 values to compute the calibration
627: factor for the MIPS 160\mum\ channel. Use of the weighted mean ensures
628: that a source with zero flux produces zero response if all of the inputs
629: to the calibration (e.g. dark current, linearity) are perfectly known.
630:
631: The weighted mean calibration factor is $CF = 41.7$~MJy/sr/MIPS160, and
632: the RMS scatter is 4.82~MJy/sr/MIPS160. This suggests an uncertainty
633: of 11.6\% for the determination of the flux density of a particular
634: source based on a single meausurement. The formal uncertainty
635: on the average calibration factor is 0.69~MJy/sr/MIPS160, or only
636: 1.6\%, but this value clearly underestimates the uncertainty that
637: should be assumed when interpreting 160\mum\ photometry (see below).
638: The average calibration factor and RMS scatter are shown in Figure~6
639: as the horizontal dashed lines. Below we discuss other sources of
640: uncertainty in the calibration. The final value and uncertainty we adopt
641: are $41.7\pm5.0$~MJy/sr/MIPS160 (equivalent to a 12\% uncertaintiy).
642: This calibration is valid for sources with 155.9\mum\ flux densities
643: $\le2$~Jy.
644:
645: We also computed a weighted linear fit to the data, but in this
646: case include those points with predicted 160\mum\ flux densities
647: $>2$~Jy. Based on the linear fit, $CF = (39.24 + 2.58\times
648: P_{160})$~MJy/sr/MIPS160, where $P_{160}$ is the predicted 160\mum\
649: flux density. The formal uncertainties on the intercept and slope
650: from the linear fit are 1.29~MJy/sr/MIPS160 and 0.76~MJy/sr/MIPS160/Jy,
651: respectively, indicating that the slope is significant at the $3.4\sigma$
652: level. This reflects the influence of the response non-linearity above
653: 2~Jy, and can be used to provide an approximate calibration of targets
654: with flux densities $>2$~Jy. Inspection of the points in Figure~6
655: suggest that the non-linearity may affect photometry at the 20\% level
656: for targets with flux densities near 4~Jy, somewhat more than would
657: be derived based on the linear fit to the data.
658:
659: \subsection{Uncertainty on the 160\mum\ Absolute Calibration}
660:
661: As suggested above, observers are typically more interested in the
662: uncertainty they should assume for the flux density they determine
663: from a single observation of a target than they are in the formal
664: uncertainty on the calibration factor determined from an ensemble. Here
665: we compare the 11.6\% uncertainty estimated above to the uncertainty
666: we would expect given the other uncertainties in the inputs to
667: the calibration. The relevant uncertainties to consider are: 1) the
668: photometric repeatability at 160\mum, 2) the uncertainties in the 24\mum\
669: and 70\mum\ calibrations, 3) systematic uncertainties associated with
670: color and aperture corrections, and 4) uncertainties inherent to the
671: models used in the calibration.
672:
673: We have assessed the photometric repeatability of the 160\mum\ channel
674: two ways. Because we have relatively few repeated observations of stable
675: (i.e. non-asteroidal), red sources, we analyzed 81 160\mum\ observations
676: of a stellar calibrator (HD 163588), and found that those measurments
677: exhibited an RMS scatter of 3.4\%. While those data are severely impacted
678: by the short-wavelength ghost, they do provide a valid measure of the
679: repeatability delivered by the readout electronics and the end-to-end
680: data analysis for a very bright source. We have also analyzed 5 160\mum\
681: observations of IRAS~03538-6432, which has a very red near-IR:160\mum\
682: color, and a 160\mum\ flux density of $\simeq1.04$~Jy (Klass et al. 2001),
683: finding an RMS scatter of 5.5\%. We adopt 5\% as our current estimate
684: of the repeatability.
685:
686: The uncertainties in the calibrations of the shorter MIPS bands
687: are estimated to be 2\% (24\mum: Engelbracht et al. 2007) and 5\%
688: (70\mum: Gordon et al. 2007). As noted earlier, taken in combination
689: and ignoring any other uncertainties, these place a lower limit on
690: the 160\mum\ calibration uncertainty of 7\%. The color corrections we
691: have applied are very modest (a few percent), and so are unlikely to
692: contribute significantly to the calibration uncertainty. The 24 and
693: 70\mum\ photometry was done identically to the way it was done for the
694: calibrations of those bands, and so should not impose any additional
695: uncertainty or systematic bias on the results used here.
696:
697: The 160\mum\ aperture correction we used, 2.60, is large and is probably
698: uncertain at the level of a few percent. Uncertainty in the aperture
699: correction will be irrelevant if others use the same aperture ({\it i.e.}
700: 24\arcsec, with a sky annulus of 64\arcsec--128\arcsec) and correction
701: to perform photometry of point sources, and we encourage observers to
702: use this aperture when practical. However, we can not assume that such
703: will be the case. Checks of 160\mum\ measurements of extended sources
704: (see below) against previous missions suggest agreement to within about
705: 6\%, suggesting that our aperture corrections are reasonably accurate.
706: As noted earlier, we find no evidence to suggest that the aperture
707: correction for the 24\arcsec\ aperture is any more uncertain than that
708: for a 48\arcsec\ aperture, where the aperture correction is a more modest
709: (and model-based) 1.60. For lack of good 160\mum\ observations to further
710: assess the uncertainty in the aperture corrections, and based on our
711: experience with the 24 and 70\mum\ calibrations, we adopt an uncertainty
712: of 3\% for our 160\mum\ aperture corrections. This uncertainty should
713: be interpreted as applying to the 48\arcsec\ aperture, and as being
714: empirically verified as transferable to the 24\arcsec\ aperture.
715:
716: The final uncertainty in the calibration is associated with the
717: assumptions inherent in the Standard Thermal Model, particularly the
718: spectral emissivity in the 24\mum\--160\mum\ range. As noted earlier, we
719: have assumed a gray emissivity, whereas there are suggestions from ISO
720: observations that the emissivity of some asteroids may decline by 10\%
721: or so in this region (e.g. M\"uller and Lagerros, 2002). We find that
722: our 24 and 70\mum\ measurements of asteroids, when fit independently
723: with the STM, give diameters for the targets that agree to within 3\%,
724: with an RMS scatter of 5\% (the 70\mum\ diameters being smaller). This
725: suggests that there is no strong decrease of emissivity for the asteroids
726: in our sample between 24 and 70\mum\ (because those calibrations are
727: derived solely from observations of stars). Unfortunately we can not
728: make a similar argument about emissivity in the range 70--160\mum\ based
729: on our data. We adopt an uncertainty of 5\% to account for our lack of
730: knowledge of the spectral emissivity at 160\mum, and as being consistent
731: with the lack of evidence for any measurable emissivity trend from 24--70\mum.
732:
733: If we RSS combine the uncertainties just discussed, we predict that
734: the 160\mum\ calibration should be accurate to 10.4\%, which is very
735: consistent with the 11.6\% uncertainty estimated from the RMS scatter of
736: the calibration factor values in Figure~6. While the combined effect
737: of the calibration uncertainties at 24 and 70\mum\ are the largest
738: single contributor to the 160\mum\ uncertainty, the other uncertainties
739: together are at least as important. Given that emissivity effects would
740: result in a systematic bias in our calibration, we should not
741: really RSS it with the other uncertainties. If we RSS-combine the other
742: uncertainties, and then simply add the 5\% uncertainty for emissivity
743: effects, we predict a worst-case uncertainty of 14.1\% in the calibration
744: (worst-case because it assumes that the net effect of the random
745: uncertainties combine constructively with the emissivity uncertainty).
746: Given the general agreement in the magnitude of these estimates and that
747: based on the RMS scatter of the measurements of $CF$ itself, we
748: adopt an uncertainty of 12\% for the absolute calibration of the 160\mum\
749: channel of MIPS.
750:
751: \subsection{Calibration Cross Checks}
752:
753: Soon after the launch of \Spitzer, observations of a few targets that
754: have well-studied SEDs in the 160\mum\ region were made, and formed
755: the basis of the initial calibration. These included observations
756: of a few asteroids (those data were included in the analysis above),
757: which led to $CF = 41.6\pm8.5$~MJy/sr/MIPS160. Observations of K-giant
758: calibration stars were affected by the near-IR ghost, but after roughly correcting for
759: the ghost, those data indicated $CF = 37.8\pm11.3$~MJy/sr/MIPS160. Early
760: science observations of Fomalhaut were also analyzed, and indicated $CF =
761: 39.8\pm6.0$~MJy/sr/MIPS160. We also analyzed early science data for M33
762: (Hinz et al., 2004), NGC 55, NGC 2346, and the Marano Strip, which,
763: taken together, indicated $CF = 46.8\pm12$~MJy/sr/MIPS160. All of
764: these results lead us to adopt an initial calibration for the 160\mum\
765: channel of $CF = 42.5\pm8.5$~MJy/sr/MIPS160. Gordon et al. (2006) have
766: compared MIPS 160\mum\ measurements of M31 to DIRBE and ISO measurements,
767: finding excellent agreement. All of these provide a sanity check of
768: the new calibration, because it is only 1.9\% lower than the initial
769: calibration.
770:
771: More recently we have compared MIPS measurements of a few ULIRGs to
772: ISO measurements of the same objects, and to the IRAS results for the
773: asteroids observed for the MIPS 160\mum\ calibration program. In both
774: of these cases we have included comparisons at the shorter MIPS bands
775: as well as at 160\mum. The comparisons at the shorter wavelengths serve
776: two purposes. Because both the 24 and 70\mum\ calibrations are entirely
777: based on observations of stars, any short-wavelength spectral leaks
778: present in those channels would bias photometry of cold sources such
779: as ULIRGs and asteroids: the comparisons serve to confirm the lack of
780: such leaks. Because the 160\mum\ calibration is derived directly from
781: the shorter MIPS bands, the comparisons at those wavelengths also serve
782: to confirm the validity of the 160\mum\ calibration, even though it
783: (unlike for the shorter bands) is based on observations of red sources.
784:
785: We reduced Spitzer archive data for the ULIRGs IRAS 03538-6432 (5
786: epochs), IRAS 13536+1836, IRAS 19254-7245 and IRAS 20046-0623 (1 epoch
787: for each), and measured their flux densities at 70 and 160\mum. The
788: 70\mum\ flux densities for the first three was within a few percent
789: of the values we would expect based on the ISO photometry reported by
790: Klaas et al. (2001). In particular, for the first two, the MIPS and ISO
791: results agreed to better than a percent. The 160\mum\ flux densities
792: were 5\% higher than expected from the ISO data on average. Again, for
793: IRAS 03538-6432 the agreement was within 1\%. The MIPS data for
794: IRAS 20046-0623 gave 70 and 160\mum\ flux densities 25\%--30\% lower
795: than would be expected from the ISO data, but there is no obvious
796: reason for this discrepancy (e.g. no bright background objects that
797: might have fallen within the ISO beam).
798:
799: We have also fitted our 24 and 70\mum\ observations of asteroids with
800: the STM, deriving diameters for all our targets. The diameters we
801: derive by fitting the two bands independently (for the faint sample)
802: agree quite well: the mean and RMS scatter of the ratio of
803: the diameters determined at 24\mum\ to those determined at 70\mum\
804: being 1.02 and 0.051, respectively. This confirms that the calibrations
805: of these two bands are very consistent when applied to observations
806: of red sources. The small deviation of this ratio from unity has a
807: formal significance of $2.8\sigma$, but could easily be due to
808: the failure of the simple assumptions of the STM to fully describe
809: the thermal emission. We also have compared the diameters determined
810: from our data to the diameters derived from IRAS data (the SIMPS
811: catalog, Tedesco et al. 2002). The average and RMS scatter of the
812: ratios of the MIPS diameters to the IRAS diameters at 24\mum\ are
813: 1.01 and 0.09, while at 70\mum\ they are 0.99 and 0.10. We conclude
814: that our calibration in those bands is entirely consistent with
815: the IRAS calibration; by inference the 160\mum\ calibration should
816: also be consistent with IRAS.
817:
818: \subsection{Extended Source Calibration}
819:
820: We also checked the calibration on extended sources at 160\mum, using
821: observations of a handful of resolved galaxies which were observed
822: by ISOPHOT using the C\_160 broad band filter ($\lambda_{ref} =
823: 170$~\micron). The galaxies used for this comparison are M31 (Haas et
824: al. 1998; Gordon et al. 2006), M33 (Hippelein et al. 2003; Hinz et al.
825: 2004), M101 (Stickel et al. 2004; Gordon et al. 2006, in prep.), and
826: NGC3198, NGC3938, NGC6946, and NGC7793 (Stickel et al. 2004; Dale et al.
827: 2005, 2007). These objects range in diameter from 5--10\arcmin\ (the NGC
828: objects) to $\ge 0.5\degr$ (the Messier objects), and so are all highly
829: resolved by both MIPS at 160\mum (40\arcsec\ FWHM) and ISOPHOT at 170\mum\
830: (90\arcsec\ pixels). We applied color corrections to the MIPS and ISOPHOT
831: measurements, and corrected for the difference in wavelengths, assuming
832: the emission has a color temperature of 18~K. The resulting average ratio
833: and uncertainty in the mean of the MIPS 160\mum\ to ISOPHOT 170\mum\
834: flux densities is $0.94\pm0.06$. If the emissivity of the dust in these
835: galaxies is proportional to $\lambda^{-2}$, the expected ratio of the
836: measurements is 1.00, consistent to within the uncertainty in the measured
837: mean. Thus the MIPS and ISOPHOT extended-source calibrations near 160\mum\
838: are entirely consistent with one another. These comparisons also indicate
839: that the MIPS point-source derived calibration at 160\mum\ is directly
840: applicable to observations of extended sources, and by inference that
841: the aperture corrections in Table~1 are accurate to within a few percent.
842:
843: \subsection{160\mum\ Enhanced AOT: Calibration and Sensitivity}
844:
845: In Spring of 2007 a new 160\mum\ photometry observing template (the
846: ``Enhanced AOT'' was made available. The goal of the new template is
847: to allow 160\mum\ photometry data to be time filtered, as has been
848: done all along for the 70\mum\ data. A limited number of observations
849: (3) taken using the enhanced 160\mum\ AOT were available at the time
850: of this writing. In each case, the same target was observed using the
851: standard 160\mum\ AOT as well.
852:
853: All of these data were reduced in the standard manner, as described
854: earlier. In addition, the enhanced AOT data were processed by applying
855: a high-pass time-domain filter to the time series for each pixel (this
856: filtering process is a standard part of the reduction at 70\mum: Gordon
857: et al. 2005; 2007). Because a dither is performed between all images,
858: the filter preserves the signal from point sources while suppressing
859: elevated noise levels that result from signal drifts in un-filtered data
860: products. Such filtering can not reliably be applied to data from the
861: standard AOT because the dithers never completely move the source out
862: of the FOV of the array. The result is that time-filtering erodes flux
863: from the target source, and does so in a way that is flux dependent.
864: The enhanced AOT implements a wider dither pattern, providing enough
865: data away from the source that the filter works well.
866:
867: Photometry on the standard AOT, enhanced AOT without time-filtering,
868: and enhanced AOT with time-filtering was measured as described earlier.
869: We draw preliminary but encouraging conclusions based on these initial
870: results. 1) Photometry measured on the standard and enhanced AOT data
871: agree to within about 5\%, except on bright ($>1$~Jy) sources, where the
872: time-filtered product gives systematically lower fluxes (at about the
873: 10\% level). Thus, the enhanced AOT should only be utilized for sources
874: expected to be fainter than about 1~Jy. 2) The time-filtered enhanced AOT
875: data provides significant sensitivity improvements over the standard AOT,
876: unfiltered data. We computed the $1\sigma$, 500 second noise-equivalent
877: flux density (NEFD, frequently referred to as ``sensitivity''). For the
878: old AOT NEFD$= 35$~mJy, while for the enhanced AOT NEFD$=22$~mJy.
879: Thus the enhanced AOT improves the point-source sensitivity of the
880: 160\mum\ channel by about 35\%. We lacked sufficient data to compare the
881: repeatability of the enhanced AOT relative to the old AOT, but expect
882: that it may result in some significant gains, particularly for faint
883: sources and/or higher backgrounds.
884:
885: \section{Summary}
886:
887: We have undertaken a program to calibrate the MIPS 160\mum\ channel
888: using observations of asteroids. The strategy employed was statistical in
889: nature: rather than perform detailed modeling of a few asteroids to try
890: and accurately predict their 160\mum\ flux density for our observing
891: circumstances, we instead rely on the average emission properties
892: of asteroids in the spectral range 24 -- 160\mum\ to allow us to
893: transfer the calibration of our 24 and 70\mum\ channels to the 160\mum\
894: channel. Our 24 and 70\mum\ data from 51 observations (1/2 of the total,
895: the other 51 did not include 24\mum\ data) indicate that asteroid
896: spectral energy distributions are indeed all quite similar at these
897: long wavelengths, providing {\it post facto} support for the strategy.
898: The calibration factor we derive, which converts the instrumental
899: units of the 160\mum\ channel (MIPS160) to surface brightness, is
900: 41.7~MJy/sr/MIPS160, with a formal uncertainty (uncertainty of the mean)
901: of 0.69~MJy/sr/MIPS160. Including the effects of the uncertainties in
902: the 24 and 70\mum\ calibrations, the observed repeatability of 160\mum\
903: measurements of a stellar calibrator and a ULIRG, and allowing for
904: expected uncertainties in aperture and color corrections, and modeling
905: uncertainties, we adopt an uncertainty of 12\% on the 160\mum\ flux
906: determined from an individual measurement of a source. Cross-checks
907: of this calibration against those of ISO measurments of ULIRGS and
908: nearby galaxies, and aginst IRAS measurments of asteroids, show that
909: the MIPS calibration is quite consistent with those earlier missions.
910:
911: \acknowledgements
912: This work is based on observations made with the {\em Spitzer Space
913: Telescope}, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
914: California Institute of Technology under NASA contract 1407. Support
915: for this work was provided by NASA through Contract Number \#1255094
916: issued by JPL/Caltech. Ephemerides were computed using the services
917: provided by the Solar System Dynamics group at JPL. We thank an
918: anonymous reviewer for inputs which improved this paper significantly.
919: And, we acknowledge the wise insight of Douglas Adams, who pointed out
920: over 20 years ago that the answer {\em is} 42.
921:
922: \clearpage
923: \begin{thebibliography}{}
924: \bibitem[]{} Beichmann, C.A. et al. 1985. Infrared Astronomical Satellite
925: (IRAS) Catalogs and Atlases Explanatory Supplement", ed. C. A. Beichman,
926: G. Neugebauer, H. J. Habing, P. E. Clegg, and T. J. Chester.
927: U. S. Government Printing Office.
928: \bibitem[]{} Bowell, E. et al. 1989, in Asteroids II, ed. R. P.Binzel,
929: T. Gehrels, T., \& M. S. Matthews (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press)
930: \bibitem[]{} Campins, H. et al. 1994, AJ 108, 2318
931: \bibitem[]{} Dale, D.A. et al. 2005, ApJ 633, 857
932: \bibitem[]{} Dole, H., et al. 2006, A\&A 451, 417
933: \bibitem[]{} Dale, D.A. et al. 2007, ApJ 655, 863
934: \bibitem[]{} Diolaiti, E. et al. 2000, A\&AS 147, 335
935: \bibitem[]{} Engelbracht, C.W. et al. 2007, this issue
936: \bibitem[]{} Fazio, G. et al. 2004 ApJS 154, 10
937: \bibitem[]{} Fernandez, Y.F. et al. 2002, AJ 123, 2050
938: \bibitem[]{} Fixsen, D.J. et al. 1997, ApJ 490, 482
939: \bibitem[]{} Gordon, K.D., et al. 2007, in prep.
940: \bibitem[]{} Gordon, K.D., et al. 2007, this issue.
941: \bibitem[]{} Gordon, K.D. et al. 2005, \pasp\ 117, 503
942: \bibitem[]{} Gordon, K.D., et al. 2006, ApJ 638, 87
943: \bibitem[]{} Haas, M. et al, 1998, A\&A 338, L33
944: \bibitem[]{} Harris, A.W. 1998. Icarus 131, 291
945: \bibitem[]{} Hauser, M.G. et al., 1998 ApJ 508, 25-43)
946: \bibitem[]{} Hinz, J.L. et al 2004, ApJS, 154, 259
947: \bibitem[]{} Hippelein, H. et al., 2003, A\&A 315, L82
948: \bibitem[]{} Hora, J.L. et al. 2004, SPIE 5487, 77
949: \bibitem[]{} Houck, J.R. et al. 2004, ApJS 154, 18
950: \bibitem[]{} Klaas, U. et al. 2001, A\&A 379, 823
951: \bibitem[]{} Krist, J. 2002, Tiny Time/SIRTF User's Guide (Pasadena: SSC)
952: \bibitem[]{} Lebofsky, L. A, et al. 1986, Icarus 68, 239.
953: \bibitem[]{} Lebofsky, L. A, \& Spencer, J. R. 1989,
954: in Asteroids II, ed. R. P.Binzel, T. Gehrels, T., \& M. S. Matthews
955: (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press)
956: \bibitem[]{} Lebofsky, L.A. et al. 1986, Icarus 68, 1694
957: \bibitem[]{} Lumme, K. and E. Bowell 1981, AJ 86, 1694
958: \bibitem[]{} Mather, J.C. et al. 1999, ApJ 512, 511
959: \bibitem[]{} M\"uller, T.G, and J.S.V. Lagerros, 1998, A\&A 338, 340
960: \bibitem[]{} M\"uller, T.G, and J.S.V. Lagerros, 2002, A\&A 381, 324
961: \bibitem[]{} Neugebauer, G. et al. 1984, ApJ 278, 1
962: \bibitem[]{} Reach, W.T. et al. 2005, PASP 117, 978
963: \bibitem[]{} Rieke, G.H. et al. 2004, ApJS 154, 25
964: \bibitem[]{} Rieke, G.H. et al. 2007, in prep.
965: \bibitem[]{} Schulz, B. et al. 2002, A\&A 381, 1110
966: \bibitem[]{} Stansberry, J.A. et al. 2006, ApJ ~643, 556
967: \bibitem[]{} Stickel, M. et al. 2004, A\&A 422, 39
968: \bibitem[]{} Tedesco, E. F. et al. 2002, \aj ~123, 2056
969: \bibitem[]{} Werner, M.W. et al. 2004, ApJS 154, 1
970:
971: \end{thebibliography}
972:
973: %%% Figure 1: Fig_Images.eps %%%
974: \begin{figure}
975: \epsscale{0.5}
976: \plotone{f1.eps}
977: \caption{MIPS 160\mum\ images of a star (HD 163588, top), an asteroid
978: (471~Papagena, middle), and an STinyTim-based model PSF (bottom).
979: The star image is dominated by the near-IR ghost image (see text),
980: while the asteroid image reveals no measureable contamination from the
981: ghost image. For typical asteroids, the ghost image will be $\gtrsim 2000$
982: times fainter, relative to the 160\mum\ image, than for stars. The
983: circles are centered at the pointing used in each observation. The
984: ghost image is always offset from the nominal pointing towards the
985: array centerline. The slightly different FOV of the two images (note
986: missing data and replicated pixels around the edge of the mosaic of the
987: star) results from the use of a small (3-point) map for the asteroid
988: observation. The mosaics were generated using a pixel scale of 8\arcsec,
989: $\simeq$ 1/2 the native pixel scale of the 160\mum\ array. The model
990: PSF was generated using STinyTim (see text) with a pixel scale of
991: 3.2\arcsec\ and then smoothed using a boxcar 8 pixels (25.6\arcsec)
992: in width, equivalent to 1.6 native pixels. Each image is 6.5\arcmin\
993: across; the circles in the upper panels are 40\arcsec\ across. }
994: \label{} \end{figure}
995:
996:
997: %%% Figure 2: PSF_Comp.eps %%%
998: \begin{figure}
999: \epsscale{1}
1000: \plotone{f2.eps}
1001: \caption{An observed 160\mum\ PSF radial profile is compared to 4
1002: STinyTim model PSF radial profiles. The observed profile (filled
1003: circles) is derived from the observation of asteroid 471~Papagena shown
1004: in Figure~1; error bars indicate the scatter within each radial bin.
1005: The mosaic used to generate the profile has pixels 8\arcsec\ square.
1006: The model PSFs were generated with 3.2\farcs\ square pixels (5x
1007: oversampled). Various smoothings were then applied to the model PSF
1008: to match the shape of the observed PSF. Smoothing with a boxcar
1009: equivalent to 1.6 native pixels (25.6\farcs) results in an
1010: excellent match with the observed PSF. The FWHM of the
1011: observed PSF is 38.3\farcs, and for the model it is 38\farcs2.
1012: }
1013: \label{}
1014: \end{figure}
1015:
1016:
1017: %%% Figure 3: Fig_SED.eps %%%
1018: \begin{figure}
1019: \epsscale{1}
1020: \plotone{f3.eps}
1021: \caption{The spectral energy distribution for asteroid 282~Clorinde is
1022: compared to blackbody and standard thermal model (STM) fits. The measured
1023: SED in the MIPS channels is shown as filled circles with error bars
1024: (the error bars are the root-sum-square of the measurement uncertainty
1025: determined from the images and the calibration uncertainties in each
1026: channel). The small square symbols trace a blackbody fit to the data;
1027: the solid line shows the STM fit. The 160\mum\ point is plotted using
1028: the calibration derived here, but was not used in the fits.
1029: }
1030: \label{}
1031: \end{figure}
1032:
1033:
1034: %%% Figure 4: Fig_Tbb.eps %%%
1035: \begin{figure}
1036: \epsscale{1}
1037: \plotone{f4.eps}
1038: \caption{The color temperature of those asteroids faint enough to be
1039: observed at 24\mum. The color temperature is computed by fitting the
1040: 24 and 70\mum\ photometry with a blackbody. Error bars are computed
1041: by fitting a blackbody to the flux densities $\pm 1 \sigma$. The average
1042: 24:70 color temperature is 251~K, and the standard deviation is 26~K (shown
1043: by the thin dashed lines).
1044: }
1045: \label{}
1046: \end{figure}
1047:
1048: %%% Figure 5: Fig_3cRatio.eps %%%
1049: \begin{figure}
1050: \epsscale{1}
1051: \plotone{f5.eps}
1052: \caption{The ratio of the measured 70\mum\ flux density to the 160\mum\ flux
1053: density predicted from STM fits to the 24 and 70\mum\ photometry for objects
1054: in the 24\mum\ (faint) sample. The average 70:160\mum\ model
1055: color (dashed line) is $3.77 \pm 0.095$, where the uncertainty is computed as the
1056: RMS scatter of the individual predictions. The formal error on
1057: the average color is 0.014, or about 0.4\%.
1058: }
1059: \label{}
1060: \end{figure}
1061:
1062:
1063: %%% Figure 6: Fig_CalFac.eps %%%
1064: \begin{figure}
1065: \epsscale{1}
1066: \plotone{f6.eps}
1067: \caption{The calibration factor for the MIPS 160\mum\ channel vs. the
1068: predicted 160\mum\ flux density of the asteroids we observed. Black plus symbols
1069: represent the objects in the 24\mum\ (faint) sample, which were observed
1070: at 24, 70, and 160\mum. Grey plus symbols represent objects in the 70\mum\
1071: (bright) sample, which was observed at 70 and 160\mum. One-$\sigma$
1072: uncertainties are indicated by thin error bars. Data points that are
1073: circled were excluded from our calculation of the calibration factor
1074: because they are discrepant at or above $1.5\sigma$. Above about 2~Jy
1075: the response of the detectors becomes non-linear, so the points above
1076: that are also excluded: formally, the calibration only applies below
1077: 2~Jy. The heavy long-dashed line shows the weighted-average calibration factor, $CF =
1078: 41.7\pm 0.69$~MJy/sr/MIPS160. The RMS scatter of the data is
1079: 4.82~MJy/sr/MIPS160, as shown by the thin, gray, long-dashed lines. The
1080: short-dashed line shows a linear fit to the data (including points
1081: $>2$~Jy), which yields $CF = 39.2\pm 1.80$~MJy/sr/MIPS160, with a slope
1082: of $2.58\pm0.76$~MJy/sr/MIPS160/Jy. This calibration curve can be used
1083: to approximately calibrate targets with measured flux densities $>2$~Jy.
1084: }
1085: \label{}
1086: \end{figure}
1087:
1088: %
1089: % TABLE 1: Aperture Corrections
1090: %
1091: \input{tab1} %{Table1}
1092:
1093: %
1094: % TABLE 2: Color Corrections
1095: \input{tab2} %{Table2}
1096:
1097: %
1098: % TABLE 3: 24um Sample
1099: %
1100: \input{tab3} %{Table3}
1101:
1102: %
1103: % TABLE 4: 70um Sample
1104: %
1105: \input{tab4} %{Table4}
1106:
1107: \end{document}
1108: