1: %
2: % editor window character width template:
3: % | | | | | | | |
4: % ------10--------20--------30--------40--------50--------60--------70--------80
5: %
6: % "Crowded-Field Astrometry with the Space Interferometry Mission - II
7: % An Improved Instrument Model"
8: %
9: % R. Sridharan & R.J. Allen
10: %
11: % History:
12: % - initially started in Spring 2007 - Sridhar
13: % - modified in June 2007 - Sridhar
14: % - edits by Ron in July 2007
15: % - final edits and submission by Ron in Nov-Dec 2007
16: % - edits by Sridhar in Feb. 2008 after receiving referee's comments
17: % - edits by Ron in early March 2008 -this line was added by sridhar
18: % - minor edits by Sridhar in early March 2008 after receiving Ron's comments
19: % - final edits by Ron in mid-march 2008
20: %
21: %% preprint style produces a one-column, single-spaced document.
22:
23: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
24:
25: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
26:
27: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
28:
29: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
30:
31: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
32:
33: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
34: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
35: %% use the longabstract style option.
36:
37: \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
38:
39: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
40: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
41: %% the \begin{document} command.
42: %
43: % Ron's new definitions
44: %
45: \newcommand{\note}[1]{\textbf{\textit{(#1)}}} % for notes to authors
46: \newcommand{\muas}{$\mu{\rm as}$}
47: %
48: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
49: %
50: \slugcomment{Submitted to PASP}
51: %
52: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
53: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
54: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
55: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
56: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
57: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
58:
59: \shorttitle{Crowded-Field Astrometry with SIM - II}
60: \shortauthors{R.\ Sridharan \& R.J.\ Allen}
61:
62: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
63: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
64:
65: \begin{document}
66:
67: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
68: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
69: %% you desire.
70:
71: \title{Crowded-Field Astrometry with \textit{SIM PlanetQuest}. \\[0.1in]
72: II. An Improved Instrument Model \\[0.2in]
73: %\note{Version of \today, for private circulation}
74: }
75: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
76: %% author and affiliation information.
77: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
78: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
79: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
80: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
81:
82: \author{\sc{R.\ Sridharan and Ronald J. Allen}}
83: \affil{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive,
84: Baltimore, MD 21218}
85: \email{sridhar@stsci.edu, rjallen@stsci.edu}
86: %\affil{\note{Version 3.1; \today}} % comment out in final
87:
88: \begin{abstract}
89: %
90: In a previous paper we described a method of estimating the single-measurement
91: bias to be expected in astrometric observations of targets in crowded fields
92: with the future Space Interferometry Mission (SIM). That study was based on a
93: simplified model of the instrument and the measurement process involving a
94: single-pixel focal plane detector, an idealized spectrometer, and continuous
95: sampling of the fringes during the delay scanning. In this paper we elaborate on
96: this ``instrument model'' to include the following additional complications:
97: spectral dispersion of the light with a thin prism, which turns the instrument
98: camera into an objective prism spectrograph; a multiple-pixel detector in the
99: camera focal plane; and, binning of the fringe signal during scanning of the
100: delay. The results obtained with this improved model differ in small but
101: systematic ways from those obtained with the earlier simplified model. We
102: conclude that it is the pixellation of the dispersed fringes on the focal plane
103: detector which is responsible for the differences. The improved instrument model
104: described here suggests additional ways of reducing certain kinds of confusion,
105: and provides a better basis for the evaluation of instrumental effects in the
106: future. %
107: \end{abstract}
108:
109: \keywords{Astronomical Instrumentation}
110:
111: \section{Introduction}
112:
113: \textit{The Space Interferometry Mission PlanetQuest} (hereafter SIM) is being
114: designed by NASA/JPL to carry out a program of extremely precise astrometry on
115: stars, thereby contributing to a wide variety of research topics in astronomy
116: including the study of the mass distribution in the Galaxy and the search for
117: earth-like extra-solar planets. A few of these topics involve making precise
118: position measurements of target stars in areas of the sky containing more than
119: $\approx\, 0.4$ detectable stars per square arcsecond. In these
120: ``crowded-field'' cases we have previously shown \cite[hereafter Paper
121: I]{sriron07a} that the individual astrometric measurements made on such targets
122: could be biased by the light from extraneous field stars. In Paper I of this
123: series, we introduced a simplified instrument model for SIM, and used it to
124: evaluate the likelihood of confusion bias on a number of Key Projects to be
125: carried out as part of the SIM science program. In that paper we concluded that,
126: in the small number of cases where confusion bias may be problematic, the
127: likelihood of bias can be reduced by judicious design of the observing program.
128:
129: The measurement model used in Paper I is based on a phasor description for
130: estimating the contributions of all stars in the field of view (FOV). This part
131: of our model is not in question here. However, there were three subsequent
132: simplifications to the instrument model which were suspect: First, the detector
133: in the focal plane was assumed to consist of one large pixel per channel which
134: collected all the light diffracted through the field-stop; second, the details
135: of just how the light is dispersed in wavelength were ignored; and third, the
136: total fringe signal was assumed to be continuously sampled during the scanning
137: of the delay. In this paper we elaborate further on the instrument model to
138: include the following complications: A multiple-pixel detector in the focal
139: plane; spectral dispersion of the light with a thin prism, which effectively
140: turns the instrument into an objective prism spectrograph; and, integration and
141: discrete sampling of the fringe signal during scanning of the delay. We then
142: repeat the computations of confusion bias for a few specific cases already
143: evaluated with the simplified approach of Paper I. In general, the improvements
144: to the instrument model introduced in this paper have only a minor impact on the
145: biases, and come at the cost of significant complication. However, we
146: have not yet implemented a number of instrumental effects which may be present
147: in real SIM data, including pointing errors, delay line jitter, channel
148: band-shape changes, and so on. Besides its pedagogical value, the more complete
149: description of how SIM works which we give here will be useful for such studies
150: in the future.
151:
152: We begin with stepwise description of the operation of SIM, progressively adding
153: complexity at each step. This leads us to the concept of the \textit{fan
154: diagram}, which was introduced in the context of SIM in Paper I as an aid to
155: understanding how SIM works, and which will gain further in importance here. We
156: then use this improved instrument model to re-evaluate the confusion bias for
157: several cases presented in Paper I. Finally, we point out a new possibility
158: related to the pixellation of the focal plane which may be used to further
159: reduce the likelihood of confusion bias from field stars located within the SIM
160: FOV but separated by $\gtrsim 1''$ from the target star.
161:
162: \section{SIM Beam combination, dispersion, and focal plane imaging}
163:
164: We start by
165: considering how the light is processed after the beams from each arm of the
166: interferometer are combined. As described in Appendix A of Paper I (see
167: especially Figure 19), the collimated beams from each collector are passed
168: through the internal delay lines, and the two beams are superposed in the beam
169: combiner. The precise operation of these optical assemblies is not directly
170: relevant to our present goal, so we will not elaborate further on them here. The
171: combined beams then pass through the prism disperser, and are imaged on a
172: fast-readout charge-coupled device (CCD) in the focal plane of the camera.
173: Figure \ref{fig:optics} is a sketch of this optical system.
174: %
175: %-------------------------------------------
176: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
177: \epsscale{1.5}
178: \plotone{f2.eps} % old fig. 2, now fig.1
179: \caption{Schematic of the optics that follow the beam combiner and which are
180: responsible for dispersing and imaging the combined light from the two
181: collectors. The combined beams from the two siderostat collectors enter
182: at the left and proceed through the compressor and field stop to the prism
183: disperser, and are finally imaged on the detector at right. \label{fig:optics}
184: }
185: \end{figure*}
186: %-------------------------------------------
187: %
188:
189: In order to understand the structure of the images which appear in SIM's focal
190: plane, it is useful to proceed in a series of steps of increasing complexity.
191: For the moment, we will assume that SIM's primary apertures are very large, so
192: that star images appear as unresolved dots (this will be rectified later).
193: Figure \ref{fig:focalplane} shows a sketch of the 2-D images which appear in
194: such an ``ideal'' focal plane (at the location of the detector at the right
195: side of Figure \ref{fig:optics}).
196: %
197: \begin{itemize}
198: %
199: \item If one of the siderostats is covered and the dispersing prism removed from
200: the light beam, the image appearing at the focal plane will show the stars in
201: the FOV at their respective positions. In the top panel of Figure \ref
202: {fig:focalplane} we have sketched a field with 3 stars of different spectral
203: types in the FOV: \#\,1 is a G star at the center; \#\,2 an O star to the upper
204: left; and, \#\,3 an M star to the lower right.
205: %
206: \item Next, if we introduce the prism into the light path, the images of the
207: stars will be ``spread out'' in the direction of the dispersion (assumed to be
208: the $+X$ direction in Figure \ref{fig:optics}) in the same fashion as with an
209: \textit{objective prism spectrograph}; the focal plane will consist of
210: ``patches'' of light, each varying according to the SED of its star, as shown
211: schematically in the middle panel of Figure \ref{fig:focalplane}\footnote{The
212: SEDs are shown here as graphs for simplicity; in fact they will appear as
213: elongated patches of light with intensity distributions in $+X$ as shown in the
214: graphs.}.
215: %
216: \item If we now uncover the second siderostat, each star's spectrum will become
217: an \textit{interferogram} consisting of its SED modulated by a complex pattern
218: of fringes depending on the setting of the internal delay and the location of
219: the star on the sky. This modulation pattern can be read off along vertical
220: lines in the \textit{fan diagram} of Figure \ref{fig:FANdiagram} (to be
221: described in the next section).
222: %
223: \item Finally, if we scan the internal delay $\delta$, each star's interferogram
224: will change in a different way, according to location of the star on the
225: $x$-axis of the fan diagram. If the white fringe happens to be positioned
226: exactly at the location of a star, the interferogram of that star will lose its
227: fringes and show simply the stellar SED.
228: %
229: \end{itemize}
230:
231: %-------------------------------------------
232: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
233: \epsscale{1.5}
234: \plotone{f3.eps} % old fig. 3, now fig. 2
235: \caption {Schematic of the ``ideal" focal plane. \textbf{Top:} When the light
236: from one of the siderostats of SIM is blocked and the prism removed from the
237: light beam, the stars will appear as spots of light in this idealization. Stars
238: 2 and 3 are offset from star 1 in this sketch by $\approx 1''$ in each
239: dimension. \textbf{Middle:} The star images will spread into spectra when the
240: prism is introduced into the path of the (single) beam. The three stars 1, 2,
241: and 3 shown for illustration in the field are of spectral type G, O, and M,
242: respectively; note how their SEDs differ. We have adopted the convention that
243: the short-wavelength end of the spectrum appears to the left (small $X$), and
244: the wavelength increases with position $X$ to the right; this is otherwise
245: arbitrary, and depends on the design of the instrument. For this sketch we have
246: further assumed that the relation between $X$ and $\lambda$ is simply linear.
247: \textbf{Bottom:} When the beam from the second siderostat is added, the spectra
248: will be modulated with a complicated fringe pattern, as described in the text.
249: If the white fringe of the instrument happens to coincide with one of the stars
250: (assumed to be star 1 here), the interferogram of that star will show no
251: fringes, but will reproduce the spectral energy distribution of the star. Stars
252: 3 and 2 are at delay offsets of $\pm 43\, \mu$m from star 1, respectively.
253: \label{fig:focalplane}}
254: \end{figure*}
255: %-------------------------------------------
256:
257: As an aid to understanding the final \textit{point spread function} for SIM
258: which results from the steps described above, we recall the concept of the
259: \textit{fan diagram} which was introduced in Paper I.
260:
261: \section{The Fan diagram}
262: \label{sec:fan_diagram}
263:
264: The response pattern $P(\delta, \theta, \overline{k})$ of SIM's astrometric
265: (Michelson) interferometer in a quasi-monochromatic channel can be written as
266: (cf.\ Paper I):
267: %
268: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:SIMresponse}
269: P(\delta, \theta, \overline{k}) = P_{0} \{ 1 +
270: A \sin ( 2 \pi \overline{k} [\delta - B \theta ] ) \},
271: \end{equation}
272: %
273: where $P_0$ is the total power, $A$ is the resultant fringe amplitude,
274: $\overline{k}$ is mean wavenumber of the channel, $\delta$ is the
275: \textit{internal path delay}, and $B \theta$ is the \textit{external path delay}
276: where $B$ is the projected baseline length and $\theta$ is an angle on the sky
277: measured from the direction perpendicular to the projection of the
278: interferometer baseline. A contour plot of this response pattern as a function
279: of the \textit{optical path difference} (OPD) $\Delta = \delta - B \theta$ and
280: $\lambda = 1/\overline{k}$ is shown in Figure~\ref {fig:FANdiagram}. It has the
281: appearance of a hand-held collapsable fan, and hence the name \textit{fan
282: diagram}\footnote{In their paper on observing binary stars with SIM,
283: \cite{dalalgriest01} introduce the ``channeled spectrum'', which is related to
284: the fan diagram defined here.}.
285: %
286: %-------------------------------------------
287: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
288: \epsscale{1.5}
289: \plotone{f1.eps} % old figure 1, now figure 3
290: \caption {The ``fan diagram'', a contour plot of SIM's astrometric
291: interferometer response (the ``point spread function'', or PSF) as a function of
292: two variables: The optical path difference (OPD) $\Delta = \delta - B\theta$
293: between the internal and the external path delays, and; the wavelength
294: $\lambda$. The fringes appear to `fan out' at longer wavelengths, hence the
295: name. The point of (anti-)symmetry on the x-axis is called the \textit{white
296: fringe}. The vertical line at $\Delta =\delta - B\theta = +1 \, \mu$m traces the
297: interferometer's spectral response to a star located in the FOV at an angular
298: offset of $-0.023''$ from the white fringe. Scanning the internal delay $\delta$
299: will result in moving the location of this vertical line along the $x$ axis. An
300: ``astrometric delay'' measurement with SIM begins by adjusting $\delta$ until
301: the star is situated at the white fringe. The dotted, solid and dashed contours
302: represent contour levels of 0, 1 and 2 respectively.
303: \label{fig:FANdiagram}
304: }
305: \end{figure*}
306: %-------------------------------------------
307: %
308: The fan diagram is a convenient and compact way of displaying the response of
309: SIM's interferometer in terms of delay and wavelength. Although it is not itself
310: a ``picture'' of SIM's focal plane, as we shall see it is an aid in constructing
311: such a picture for an arbitrary ensemble of target and field stars. A few
312: salient features of the fan diagram are:
313: %
314: \begin{enumerate}
315: \item It is an intrinsic property of the instrument; it describes the \textit
316: {theoretical point spread function} of SIM, i.e.\ the idealized response to a
317: point source at position $\theta$ at mean wave-number $\overline{k}$ and setting
318: $\delta$ of the internal delay.
319: %
320: \item A horizontal profile through the diagram shows a single fringe with a
321: period which increases gradually from short to long wavelengths.
322: %
323: \item The diagram shows an (anti-)symmetry about the zero point on the $x$ axis.
324: At this OPD, the fringe position is the same at all wavelengths, hence this
325: position is called the \textit{white fringe}. At larger $x$ offsets, the fringes
326: are increasingly tilted, and the ``blades of the fan'' become more and more
327: horizontal.
328: %
329: \item A star in the FOV is represented by a vertical line in the fan diagram. We
330: may think of this vertical line as shifting along the $x$ axis as the internal
331: delay $\delta$ is changed. The basic astrometric measurement procedure on a
332: single target star involves adjusting the internal delay $\delta$ until the
333: white fringe coincides with the target delay position, i.e.\ until the vertical
334: line is shifted to $\Delta = 0$.
335: %
336: \item The presence of multiple stars in the FOV will lead to a complicated
337: response as stars at different values of $\theta$ each contribute different
338: fringe patterns. The total response is the sum of all these patterns.
339: %
340: \end{enumerate}
341:
342: \section{Modeling the real focal plane}
343:
344: The real focal plane of SIM differs from the idealized model we have just
345: presented in a number of important ways: First, owing to diffraction by the
346: finite size of the collector, the images of stars will be large and will grow
347: (in size) with increasing wavelength. Second, the dispersion by the prism may
348: result in overlap of the diffracted images of different stars in a crowded
349: field, and these images will not overlap at the same wavelengths. Third, the
350: pixels of the CCD detector are much larger than those of our ideal model.
351: Finally, the outputs in each CCD pixel are binned as the internal delay is
352: scanned in order to measure the fringe parameters (total power, amplitude and
353: phase) in each wavelength channel. In this section we consider each of these
354: additional complications in turn.
355:
356: To begin, we shall need a numerical model of the ideal focal plane which will
357: allow us to adequately represent the various smoothing and overlaps described
358: above. This model involves adopting a 2-D grid of data points with adequate
359: resolution in each direction. The various considerations which go into this
360: choice are discussed in Appendix \ref{app1}; we have settled on an array of size
361: $2112 \times 192$, and taken each element to represent the brightness in an area
362: of $1 \times 1 \, \mu$m in the focal plane, corresponding to a square of side
363: 1/12 arcsec on the sky for scale expected to be adopted in SIM's camera.
364:
365: \subsection{Diffraction}
366:
367: SIM's siderostat collectors will have effective outer and inner diameters of
368: 304.5~mm and 178~mm, respectively. The point spread function will therefore be
369: approximately an Airy function with a full width at half maximum which increases
370: from $\approx$ 0.3\arcsec\ at 400~nm to $\approx$ 0.7\arcsec\ at 1000~nm. The
371: field of view (FOV) of the sky which appears on the detector is limited by the
372: field stop (Figure \ref{fig:optics}); the stop size is expected to be equivalent
373: to a circle of diameter $3''$ in the camera focal plane. Our model includes
374: light diffracted through this stop from all stars lying within a circle of
375: diameter 6\arcsec.
376:
377: \subsection{Dispersion}
378: \label{subsec:dispersion}
379:
380: Next we must specify the prism dispersion, i.e.\ the relation between $\lambda$
381: and $X$. For a star at the center of the FOV, the prism used in SIM has a
382: measured dispersion as shown in the left panel of Figure \ref{fig:DispThruput}.
383: This relation can be closely approximated with a polynomial; the coefficients
384: are given in Appendix B of Paper I. It is likely that these coefficients will be
385: somewhat dependent on the location of the target star in the field of view;
386: however, these details are unknown at present, so this effect has not been
387: included in our models.
388: %
389: %-------------------------------------------
390: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
391: \epsscale{2.4}
392: \plottwo{f4a.eps}{f4b.eps}
393: \caption {\textbf{Left:} Experimentally-measured dispersion data for the
394: current design of SIM's prism disperser. The dotted line is for wavelength
395: (right axis) and the solid line for wavenumber (left axis). Note that the
396: dispersion is a non-linear function of wavelength $\lambda$, but close to a
397: linear function of wavenumber $k$. \textbf{Right:} Estimated throughput
398: of the entire instrument including reflectivity of the optics and the detector
399: response. The dotted curve is a convenient polynomial fit to the measured values
400: (solid curve). \label{fig:DispThruput}
401: }
402: \end{figure*}
403: %-------------------------------------------
404: %%
405: %-------------------------------------------
406: \begin{figure*}[!t]
407: \epsscale{2.2}
408: \plotone{f5.eps}
409: \caption {Model of the ``ideal'' image in the focal plane of SIM for a single
410: target star, showing the combined effects of diffraction and dispersion. Note
411: that the size of the PSF increases as the wavelength increases in the $+X$
412: direction (horizontally to the right). The intensity has been displayed on a
413: logarithmic scale in order to show the ``Airy rings'', which are no longer rings
414: at all, but long horizontal features which spread out with increasing
415: wavelength. For simplicity, a flat SED has been used in this illustration and
416: hence the intensity variation in the $+X$ direction mimics the throughput
417: variation. \label{fig:psf_variation}
418: }
419: \end{figure*}
420: %-------------------------------------------
421:
422: The combined effects of diffraction and dispersion in SIM's focal plane are
423: shown in Figure \ref{fig:psf_variation}. Note that one result of this method of
424: dispersing the fringes is that each point in the focal plane receives photons
425: from a range of wavelengths of the target. The intensity at a given position in
426: the focal plane will change, as will the nominal wavelength associated with that
427: position, and the extent of this change will depend on the SED of the target.
428: This will also lead to small changes in the estimated fringe phase. Note further
429: that this effect is always present, even if there are no other stars within the
430: FOV of SIM; it is a ``self-confusion'' effect. We will quantify this effect for
431: SIM later in this paper.
432:
433: \subsection{Throughput and fringe modulation}
434:
435: There are two remaining modifications to the distribution of intensity in the
436: focal plane. The first is caused by the variation in the overall throughput of
437: the system as a function of wavelength, including the reflectivity of the optics
438: and the sensitivity of the CCD detector in the focal plane. The current best
439: estimate of this throughput is shown in the right panel of Figure
440: \ref{fig:DispThruput}. A polynomial fit to this function is given in Appendix B
441: of Paper I. As with the wavelength dispersion, the throughput is also expected
442: to be weakly field-dependent, but as yet we do not have sufficient knowledge to
443: model this effect.
444:
445: The final (and in many ways most important) effect to include is the modulation
446: of the spectra by the fringe modulation function. This is \textit{strongly field
447: dependent}. This function will differ for each star in the FOV, and is given by
448: the fan diagram of Figure \ref{fig:FANdiagram}, which depends on the baseline
449: length $B$, the location $\theta$ of the star in the FOV, and the position of
450: the internal delay $\delta$.
451:
452: A few clarifying remarks on the geometry are in order here. The relative angular
453: location of each star in the FOV is measured as \textit{projected} onto the
454: interferometer baseline; see Figure 3 in Paper I for a sketch. The prism
455: disperser in SIM's optical train is oriented such that the direction of
456: dispersion is parallel to the projection of the baseline on the sky\footnote{It
457: could as well be perpendicular to the baseline, or at any other arbitrary
458: orientation.}, and the camera CCD is oriented such that the $+X$ pixel grid
459: direction is also aligned with the baseline projection. Both of these latter
460: choices are a matter of convenience and not of necessity. We have used them here
461: as well, since they simplify the model calculations.
462:
463: %-------------------------------------------
464: \begin{figure*}[!t]
465: \epsscale{2.2}
466: \plotone{f6.eps}
467: \caption {A portion of the image in the ideal focal plane of SIM including all
468: effects discussed in this paper: diffraction, dispersion, throughput, fringe
469: modulation, and confusion. The FOV includes two stars, a G-type ``target'' star
470: at the center, and an M-type ``field star'' offset by 1.5\arcsec\ towards the
471: upper left corner of the FOV. In this simulation, $\Delta=0$ on the target star,
472: so we see only the SED of this star (times the throughput, which falls off at
473: either end of the spectrum). The (faint) widely-spaced dark bands in this
474: spectrum are spectral features of this star. Above this G star is the spectrum
475: of the field M star which is shifted $\approx 1''$ vertically upwards and
476: $\approx 1''$ horizontally to the left of the target star and, since it is
477: offset substantially from the white fringe, it is also modulated by fringes
478: determined from the fan diagram.
479: \label{fig:dispersed_spectra}}
480: \end{figure*}
481: %-------------------------------------------
482:
483: Figure \ref{fig:dispersed_spectra} shows the ideal focal plane for two stars
484: separated by $\approx 1.5''$ and includes all effects discussed so far;
485: diffraction, dispersion, throughput, and fringe modulation. There is one aspect
486: of this figure (and also Figure \ref{fig:hrfocal_plane}) that may appear
487: paradoxical, and so deserves some clarification: We would expect the fringe
488: period (measured e.g.\ in microns) will be larger at the longer wavelengths,
489: which means that the fringes should become progressively more ``stretched out''
490: at larger $X$. However, it is clear that the fringes in Figures \ref
491: {fig:dispersed_spectra} and \ref{fig:hrfocal_plane} are actually more ``bunched
492: up'' at large $X$. The reason for this can be found in the dispersion curve of
493: Figure \ref{fig:DispThruput}; this curve shows that the same interval in $X$
494: covers a much larger range in wavelength at the red end of the spectrum than it
495: does at the blue end. The results are clear from the labelling of the $x$ axes
496: in Figures \ref{fig:psf_variation} and \ref{fig:dispersed_spectra}. For
497: instance, the $500\, \mu$ interval in $X$ from $0 \leq X \leq 0.5$ mm covers a
498: 50 nm wavelength interval from $\approx 400 - 450$ nm at the blue end (left),
499: whereas the same interval from $1.5 \leq X \leq 2.0$ mm covers a wavelength
500: interval that is $\approx 6$ times larger at the red end (right), from $\approx
501: 700 - 1000$ nm. It follows that in these figures the fringes will appear to
502: bunch together at large $X$, even though the intrinsic fringe period is a factor
503: of $\approx 2.5$ greater there.
504:
505: \subsection{Delay scanning}
506:
507: As described in Paper I, the fringe measurement process for SIM consists first
508: of mechanically adjusting a coarse component of the delay in order to position
509: the white fringe near to the target. The internal delay $\delta$ is then scanned
510: over a small range, typically $\pm 1 \lambda$, and data recorded at the various
511: wavelengths. This scanning of the delay leads to changes in the dispersed images
512: owing to the varying modulation of the fringe function.
513: %
514: %-------------------------------------------
515: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
516: \epsscale{1.5}
517: \plotone{f7.eps}
518: \caption {Focal plane intensity distribution for three different values of the
519: internal delay. Only the central profiles in $X$ of the target and the field
520: star have been plotted. As the scanning progresses, both the target and the
521: field star show variations at differing rates, depending on their
522: (baseline-projected) locations in the FOV and the value of the internal delay.
523: The throughput and the dispersion have been included, but not the diffraction
524: (which will reduce the fringe contrast, especially on the field star).
525: \label{fig:hrfocal_plane}}
526: \end{figure*}
527: %-------------------------------------------
528: %
529: Figure \ref{fig:hrfocal_plane} shows the dispersed images of the ``target'' and
530: the ``field star'' in Figure \ref{fig:dispersed_spectra} at 3 settings of the
531: internal delay, from -500 to +500 nm. For this simulation, the target star is
532: assumed to correspond to OPD = 0, so that the middle panel shows the SED of this
533: star. At the extremes of the internal delay, slow changes in the spectrum of the
534: target star are present, whereas the general appearance of the field star does
535: not seem to vary much. However, the resolution in the focal plane ($24 \, \mu$m,
536: see next section) is sufficiently fine that rapid variations can sometimes be
537: seen from one wavelength channel to the next.
538:
539: \subsection{Binning}
540:
541: The final step in our model of the ``real'' focal plane is to account for the
542: size of the CCD pixels, and for the integration in each CCD pixel during
543: scanning of the internal delay. Both these steps amount to \textit{binning}
544: during the acquisition of the data.
545:
546: \subsubsection{Pixellation in the focal plane}
547:
548: The CCD in the focal plane will have $24 \times 24 \, \mu$m pixels, which we
549: model by binning the $1 \, \mu$m pixels of our idealized focal plane simulation.
550: The camera optics are such that the scale in the focal plane will be $2''$ per
551: CCD pixel of $24 \, \mu$m. Figure \ref{fig:detp} shows the mapping between the
552: intensity in the region of the $3''$ field stop and the CCD detector plane. The
553: idealized focal plane is binned to $3 \times 80$ pixels, which is the effective
554: sensitive area of the SIM CCD to be used for analysis of the fringes. The
555: current default is to carry out a summation of the data in rows 1, 2, and 3 for
556: each of the 80 channels, and to provide for a series of on-board binning
557: patterns of the data in the ``channel'' direction. A different approach of
558: reading out each row separately may confer an advantage in crowded fields; we
559: will have more to say about this later in this paper.
560: %
561: %-------------------------------------------
562: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
563: \epsscale{1.5}
564: \plotone{f8.eps}
565: \caption {Correspondence between the ideal focal plane, the field stop, and
566: the CCD pixels in the FOV. \textbf{Left:} The dashed circle shows the $3''$
567: FOV, covered with 2\arcsec \ CCD pixels. \textbf{Right:} The diffracted image
568: is dispersed in the $+X$ direction over 80 pixels. \label{fig:detp}
569: }
570: \end{figure*}
571: %-------------------------------------------
572:
573: \subsubsection{Integration of the fringe signal}
574:
575: In addition to the pixellation introduced in the previous section, the fringe
576: signal of our idealized focal plane is integrated over a finite delay range (and
577: time) in order to simulate the operation of the fringe detector. This
578: integration occurs during scanning of the internal delay. The scanning involves
579: moving a dither mirror back and forth with an amplitude of $1 \, \mu$m on top of
580: an additional fixed delay following a triangular-shaped wave with a nominal
581: frequency of 250 Hz\footnote{The integration time of the fringe detection system
582: can be lengthened simply by decreasing the scanning frequency. This facilitates
583: observations of faint targets with SIM.}, and simultaneously recording eight or
584: sixteen exposures of $250 \, \mu$s in each of all 80 channels. The total power
585: $P_0$, the resultant fringe amplitude $A$, and the resultant fringe phase $\phi$
586: are then determined for each channel using a least squares method. In our
587: simulation of this process we calculated idealized focal plane intensity
588: distributions for every nanometer over the internal delay range of $ -0.5 \leq
589: \delta \leq +0.5 \mu$m and binned them to obtain 8 samples, each corresponding
590: to a delay step size of exactly 125 nm. We then used the on-board algorithm
591: \citep{milbas02} in order to calculate the fringe parameters.
592:
593: \section{A comparison of the models}
594:
595: In Paper I, we applied our simplified model to a number of SIM Key Projects and
596: estimated the expected single-measurement astrometric bias arising from
597: confusion. In that paper, we also tabulated the differences with the results
598: using the improved model of the present paper for several representative cases.
599: Table \ref{table:comparisons} reproduces those results here for convenience.
600: We have already noted that the differences are not significant, so that
601: a good estimate of the presence and magnitude of the confusion bias can be
602: obtained without the additional complexity of the improved instrument
603: model. In this section we discuss the comparison between the two models
604: in more detail.
605:
606: In Paper I we found that the magnitude of the confusion bias depends on several
607: factors: the relative brightnesses of the field stars with respect to the target
608: star (including any vignetting by the entrance aperture); the SEDs of the target
609: and field stars; and the separation of the field stars from the target star as
610: projected along the interferometer baseline. Since these parameters have not
611: changed with the advent of the improved instrument model, and since the
612: calculations have been carried out without the addition of any noise sources,
613: the results ought to be identical. However, closer inspection of Table
614: \ref{table:comparisons} shows small but systematic differences, as follows:
615: %
616: \begin{itemize}
617: %
618: \item The total confusion biases we give in Table \ref{table:comparisons}
619: for the sample fields computed using the improved model (column 4) are all
620: \textit{smaller} than those of the simple model (column 3), except for case 5
621: (where the difference is zero), and case 7 (where the improved model is worse by
622: 2 \muas).
623: %
624: \item The largest (absolute) differences (column 5) occur for cases 2, 4,
625: and 1, in that order. Case 2 involves a blue Z=0 quasar and a very red field
626: star of type M. Case 4 has all the same instrument parameters as case 2, and
627: also involves a very red M field star, but the quasar is now at Z=2, i.e. it is
628: less blue. Case 1 is identical to case 2, but now the field star is a less-red
629: type A.
630: %
631: \end{itemize}
632:
633: To summarize, the improved model generally predicts smaller astrometric biases
634: than does the simple model, and the largest differences between the models
635: appear to occur for cases involving the reddest field stars. We now look for
636: the explanation of these effects in the differences between the models.
637:
638: \subsection{Differences in the models}
639:
640: The improved model uses the same phasor description as the simple model, and
641: consideration of this description provides a basis for understanding the origin
642: of the differences. Figure 6 of Paper I shows an example of a confused field. In
643: that figure, the target phasor is shown as the thick black arrow pointing along
644: the +X (real) axis, and 10 additional faint confusing stars are scattered over
645: the field. The resulting phasor no longer points along the +X axis, but has
646: small errors both in amplitude and phase compared to the target. The phase error
647: causes the astrometric confusion bias. Now suppose we have just one confusing
648: field star; the only way to reduce the amount of the bias $\phi$ in that case is
649: to reduce the amplitude of the phasor representing that field star. So we must
650: look for any differences in the improved model which might result in reducing
651: the fringe amplitude of the field star.
652:
653: The first, and perhaps most obvious, way of reducing the contribution of the
654: field star is to reduce the size of the pixels. The improved model effectively
655: has $2'' \times 6''$ square pixels, which is a factor 1.7 larger than the $3''$
656: round pixels of the simple model, so this unfortunately goes the wrong way.
657: However, with the exception of case 6, the angular separation between the target
658: and the field star is a small fraction ($\approx 50/300 = 0.17$) of the
659: collector PSF, so this effect is unlikely to contribute much. The exception is
660: case 6 in Table \ref{table:comparisons} (angular separation $1.5''$), but this has
661: the faintest field star (at 3 mag below the target) of all the cases in Table,
662: so its bias effect was negligible to start with\footnote{We will return later to
663: the suggestion that reducing the (effective)pixel size on the CCD detector can
664: be a way of reducing the confusion bias for some special cases.}.
665:
666: The next difference between the models to consider is that part of the
667: ``binning'' which involves integration of the fringe signal during the delay
668: scanning. However, this refinement is unlikely to have any effect at all, for
669: the following reason: The simple algorithm modeled the fringe as a
670: densely-sampled sinusoid, while the improved model uses a much coarser binning
671: of the fringe into eight segments. However, the algorithm used to compute the
672: fringe parameters is the same for both models; it is a standard approach which
673: explicitly accounts for the time binning using the fact that the signal is a
674: sinusoid of known period (e.g.\ \cite{milbas02}, \cite{catmil02}). This
675: refinement of the improved model should therefore have no effect.
676:
677: Finally, there is the binning of the dispersed fringes which occurs owing to the
678: pixellation of the CCD in the focal plane. This remaining effect appears capable
679: of accounting for the differences we have observed. The situation can perhaps be
680: best understood by referring to Figure \ref{fig:hrfocal_plane}. This figure
681: shows that the period of the dispersed fringes is very long for the target star,
682: but much shorter for field stars. The example shown in this Figure is an extreme
683: case of course, with a projected separation of $\approx 1''$. After pixellation
684: by the CCD, the amplitude of the target star fringe which will be recorded in
685: any given pixel (channel) as the delay is scanned will hardly be affected,
686: because the period of the dispersed fringes is many dozens of pixels (of order
687: 80 if the target is at the white fringe). But the periods of field stars are
688: shorter, and the extreme example shown in this figure has a period of about 1
689: pixel near the middle of the CCD. It's clear that the fringe amplitude measured
690: on this field star as the delay is scanned will be greatly reduced, indeed,
691: essentially zero in this example. Field stars not as distant from the target
692: will be less affected, but the amplitudes of their phasors will nevertheless be
693: smaller, leading to a reduction in the confusion bias they contribute. Note that
694: this effect will never lead to an increase in the amount of the confusion bias,
695: only a decrease, as is observed in Table \ref{table:comparisons}. To conclude
696: the argument, we note that the period of the dispersed fringes on the CCD (cf.
697: Figure \ref{fig:dispersed_spectra}) is larger at the blue end of the spectrum
698: (about 2 pixels in this example) than it is at the red end (about 0.8 pixels).
699: The smoothing effect of pixellation on the CCD will therefore be most severe for
700: the reddest field stars, as is also observed in Table \ref{table:comparisons}.
701: We conclude that it is the pixellation by the CCD in the focal plane which is
702: responsible for the reduction in the level of confusion bias recorded with the
703: improved instrument model described in this paper.
704:
705: %\note{Sridhar's text follows ...}
706: %
707: %Now, it is quite natural to ask the question: why are the
708: %results from the more elaborate model not significantly different from those of
709: %simplified model presented in Paper I? In order to answer this question, we need
710: %a detailed comparison between the ``improved instrument model" presented in this
711: %paper and the simplified model presented in Paper I. At the outset, it should be
712: %noted that confusion is estimated from the fringe parameters exactly in the same
713: %manner (i.e., based on a phasor description) in these two models; All the
714: %improvements presented in the elaborate model are related to the spatial
715: %distribution of light in the focal plane and the extraction of fringe parameters
716: %(total power, amplitude, and phase) from that distribution with appropriate
717: %temporal binning. Thus, it is essential to see whether the fringe parameters are
718: %modified significantly in the measurement process implemented in the elaborate
719: %model, to cause a consequent change in the single measurement confusion bias. In
720: %what follows, we elaborate on the additional effects included in this paper and
721: %their implication for estimated fringe parameters.
722: %
723: %In the simplified model, the total light within the 3\arcsec\, diameter field
724: %stop was estimated (cf. Figure 20, Paper I) by appropriately accounting for the
725: %spatial location of the (field) stars (although limited by the accuracy with
726: %which it was known). The spatial distribution of the light at the focal plane
727: %was ignored. The flux in each channel was estimated as if there were as many
728: %distinct spectral filters (with appropriate bandwidth) as the number of
729: %channels. In the elaborate model, the intensity distribution at the focal plane
730: %is estimated numerically (cf. Equation 2, Paper I), accounting for the
731: %two-dimensional shape of the collector point spread function and the expected
732: %relative shift between the spectra (interferograms, to be more specific) of the
733: %field stars and the target. The distributed light intensity is first spatially
734: %integrated over the area of a pixel in $X$ direction and then temporally
735: %integrated over a finite interval of time. The fringe parameters are estimated
736: %for each channel from the sum of intensities of three rows in Y direction.
737: %
738: %Now the question to ask is: Can the total intensities thus derived be similar
739: %in both the models? If so, is the role of the prism dispersion insignificant?
740: %To answer this question, let us recall the most subtle effect incorporated (or
741: %realized) in the elaborate model, namely, the fringe modulation.
742: %We have shown that the fringe modulation is strongly field dependent. From
743: %the dispersion relation (cf. Figure \ref{fig:DispThruput}), and
744: %the spatial and temporal snapshots of the folal plane (Figures \ref{fig:dispersed_spectra}
745: %and \ref{fig:hrfocal_plane}), it is clear that the interferogram of the confusing
746: %star is overwhelmed by the fringe modulation characteristic of its offset
747: %from the white fringe (or projected separation from the target in our simulations,
748: %as we have assumed the target to be on the white fringe) than by its characteristic spectrum.
749: %On top, it is spatially shifted as a whole by an amount equal to the
750: %projected separation expressed in linear scale along the direction of
751: %dispersion. Further, it is more compressed at the red than the
752: %blue end, due to the dispersion. In addition to all these, there
753: %are spatial and temporal smoothings in the form of pixellation and integration.
754: %
755: %If a field star has a projected separation of $x$ arc-seconds, its
756: %interferogram is expected to be shifted by $0.012x$ mm (for a 2\arcsec\, square pixel
757: %with 24 micron linear size) from that of the target. If $y$ is the dispersion
758: %(in units of nm/mm), it can be argued that as long as the bandwidth is more than
759: %$0.012xy$ nm, the total light flux integrated over a channel (or pixel) will not
760: %be significantly different from that of the simplified model. For instance,
761: %consider a case when $x=1\arcsec$. The interferogram of the field star will be
762: %shifted by 0.012 mm (half a pixel). This spatial shift corresponds to wavelength
763: %range of 1.2 nm in the blue end and 12 nm in the red end, owing to the fact that
764: %the spectral dispersion $d\lambda/dx$, expressed in nm/mm, varies from $\sim$100
765: %at the blue end to $\sim$1000 at the red end. And, this wavelength range is
766: %smaller than the bandwidth which varies from 1.8 nm at the blue end to 25 nm at
767: %the red end. If the SED of the field star is such that there isn't any significant
768: %change in its shape within 1.2 nm in the blue and 12 nm in the red, the total
769: %intensity is unlikely to be significantly different from that estimated in the
770: %simplified model. Given that the wavelength dependence of the diffraction
771: %pattern (or the size of the Airy disc) of the collectors, the number of spectral
772: %channels and their bandwidths and band-shapes, are all common to both (simplified
773: %and detailed) the models, and that the least square method of estimating fringe parameters is a well
774: %established technique to account for temporal sampling, it is not surprising that the estimated fringe parameters
775: %and hence the single measurement confusion bias are almost identical.
776: %
777: %Even if one considers a situation in which intensity variations caused by spectral
778: %features are more rapid than that caused by the fringe modulation (this will the case
779: %when the confusing source is very close to the target and has a rapid fluctuation in its
780: %spectrum), the intensity is likely to be different only in one or two channels; after all, the
781: %fringe modulation is present throughout the interferogram but the spectral fluctuations
782: %are unlikely to be spread over the entire wavelength range. In summary, owing to the
783: %fringe modulation and pixel smoothing (or low spectral resolution), the effect of
784: %dispersion becomes insignificant.
785: %
786: %Of course, depending on the location of the confusing star, the results will differ, if
787: %pixellation in Y direction is taken into account, as will be shown in the next section.
788: %We expect that total pixel intensity estimated from the more elaborate model will be
789: %closer to the real SIM observations than that from the simplified model. The
790: %impact of such an elaborate model will be felt when the signal-to-noise ratio is
791: %taken into account; Unfortunately, so far we have ignored noise in our
792: %simulations. It might as well be the case that there are significant differences
793: %in the estimated fringe parameters when the simulations are repeated with
794: %appropriate model for the noise.
795: %
796: %\note{End of new text.}
797:
798: %
799: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
800: \tablecaption{Comparison of the single-measurement astrometric bias obtained
801: with the improved instrument model to the results of the simplified model of
802: \citet{sriron07a}.\label{table:comparisons}}
803: \tablewidth{0pt}
804: \tablehead{
805: \colhead{Case} & \colhead{Model} & \colhead{Simple} & \colhead{Improved} &
806: \colhead{$\mid$Difference$\mid$} \\
807: %:
808: \colhead{Number} & \colhead{parameters} & \colhead{(\muas)} & \colhead{(\muas)}&
809: \colhead{(\muas)}
810: }
811: \startdata
812: 1 & Q(z=0), A1V, 2, 50, 5, 90 & 442 & 431 & 11\\
813: 2 & Q(z=0), M6V, 2, 50, 5, 90 &1072 &1036 & 36 \\
814: 3 & Q(z=2), A1V, 2, 50, 5, 90 &224 & 215 & 9 \\
815: 4 & Q(z=2), M6V, 2, 50, 5, 90 &614 & 592 & 22 \\
816: 5 & Q(z=2), M6V, 2, 50, 5, 10 &-46 & -46 & 0 \\
817: 6 & A1V, B1V, 3, 1500, 10, 90 &-1 & 0 & 1 \\
818: 7 & A1V, M6V, 2, 50, 90, 90 &-59 &-61 & 2 \\
819: 8 & A1V, M6V, 2, 25, 90, 90 &-53 & -46 & 7 \\
820: \enddata
821: \tablecomments{In column 2, Q(z=2), A1V, 2, 50, 5, 90 refers to a model with
822: a redshift 2 target quasar and an A1V field star with $\Delta$m = 2, located
823: 50 mas distant in PA = 5\degr. The baseline orientation is 90\degr.
824: Cases 1-5 are taken from the Quasar Frame Tie key project (cf. Paper I).
825: Cases 6-8 are taken from a selection of binary models.}
826: \end{deluxetable}
827:
828: \section{Discussion}
829:
830: A number of issues have been uncovered during the course of this work which
831: deserve further scrutiny, but for which there is insufficient space in this
832: paper to deal with properly. We briefly mention several of these remaining
833: issues.
834:
835: \subsection{Separate row readout}
836:
837: As explained earlier, (cf. Figure~\ref{fig:detp}), there will be three rows of
838: 80 pixels on the detector devoted to collecting the dispersed fringe photons.
839: The nominal SIM design is to sum the charge from all 3 rows on board to form a
840: single row of 80 pixels; the fringe parameters will be estimated from these data
841: as the internal delay is scanned. Here we show that, in crowded fields, it may
842: be useful to read the rows out separately, and to estimate three sets of fringe
843: parameters, one from each row. For example, consider a field consisting of a
844: binary in which one of the stars (which we designate as the ``target'') is in
845: the middle pixel, and the other star (the ``field'' star) is in the upper pixel.
846: The field star in this simulation is fainter by 2 magnitudes, and located at a
847: radial distance of 1.4\arcsec\ at a position angle of 2\degr. The projected
848: separation (along the interferometer baseline) is about 50 mas.
849: Figure~\ref{fig:row_wise_readout1} shows the signal spectrum on the detector
850: with and without the field star. This suggests that the astrometric bias arising
851: from confusion would be significantly reduced if only the central row of pixels
852: is used to compute the fringe parameters.
853: %
854: %-------------------------------------------
855: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
856: \epsscale{1.5}
857: \plotone{f9.eps}
858: \caption {T(MR) (solid line); signal spectrum when only
859: a single target star is present at the delay center in the FOV, and only the
860: middle row of pixels is used. T+FS(MR); as previously, but with the field star
861: present. T+FS(AR); as previously, but adding the signal in all 3 rows. Note how
862: the contribution from the field star has grown in the last plot, dominating the
863: signal around channels 30 and 55. \label{fig:row_wise_readout1}
864: }
865: \end{figure*}
866: %-------------------------------------------
867: %
868: A comparison of the phase spectrum computed for each case confirms this
869: suggestion, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:row_wise_readout2} (See Paper I for the
870: definitions and a discussion of the phase and delay spectra). The phase spectrum
871: computed using only the central row of pixels shows the least perturbation, and
872: the resulting bias in the astrometric delay caused by this field star is small
873: (0.17 nm). However, using all 3 rows results in a significant delay bias which
874: is almost 4 times larger. Clearly, in this case the best strategy would be to
875: use only the central row of pixels. In fact, looking for consistency in the
876: fringe parameters calculated from each row separately may be a useful indicator
877: of the presence of confusion, especially if the details of the distribution of
878: field stars is not known ahead of time. This subject clearly warrants a more
879: detailed discussion; it is possible that the advantages of reading out the data
880: for each row separately may outweigh any signal-to-noise penalty. In Paper I we
881: concluded that modeling and removing the astrometric bias arising from confusion
882: in SIM measurements is not likely to be feasible owing to the lack of
883: sufficiently-detailed SEDs and accurate positions of all the relevant stars in
884: the FOV. However, whatever level of bias may be present in the data, it is quite
885: possible that this bias can be further reduced by using the additional
886: flexibility offered by separately analyzing the 3 rows of the CCD detector.
887:
888: %-------------------------------------------
889: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
890: \epsscale{1.5}
891: \plotone{f10.eps}
892: \caption {Phase spectrum obtained separately from each of the three rows of
893: the CCD detector for the binary target described in the text, and finally
894: from the summed signal. In all 4 cases the bias in the astrometric delay
895: caused by the presence of the field star is included. The bias obtained
896: from adding the intensities of all the three rows (0.64~nm) is higher than
897: that determined using only the middle row(0.17~nm).
898: \label{fig:row_wise_readout2}
899: }
900: \end{figure*}
901: %-------------------------------------------
902:
903: \subsection{Self-confusion}
904:
905: A description of how SIM can in principle `confuse itself' was given in \S
906: \ref{subsec:dispersion}. The basic problem here is that, even when there is only
907: one star within the FOV, the effective wavelengths of the channels will be
908: affected by photons diffracted into that channel from neighboring channels. This
909: effect will clearly depend on the spectrum of the target star, including e.g.\
910: absorption features. We find that there could be a maximum of 0.5\% change in
911: the effective wavelength of a given channel both for A and M type stars.
912: Accordingly, we estimated the fringe phase first with the actual wavelengths of
913: each channel, and then with a random perturbation of those wavelengths by 0.5\%.
914: The differences in the astrometric delay are 0.2~nm for an A type star and
915: 0.35~nm for an M type star. The corresponding single-measurement bias in the
916: position measurement is $\approx 8 \mu$as, which is likely to be negligible in
917: most cases.
918:
919: The question arises as to just how the effective wavelength of each channel will
920: be calibrated in orbit. If a bright star is used for this purpose, the effects
921: of `self-confusion' described above will be included in the calibration.
922: However, it is also clear that the results of such a calibration will be
923: dependent on the SED of the calibrating star, so this choice will have to be
924: made carefully.
925:
926: There is a variant on this problem when the FOV includes field stars as well as
927: the target star. In this case it is clear that the effective wavelength of the
928: sum of all the photons arriving at any position in the focal plane will depend
929: on the SEDs of all the field stars as well as that of the target star. Our
930: simulations indicate that this problem is slightly more severe than the
931: `self-confusion' described above, and in general the change in wavelength
932: arising from the presence of multiple sources is greater in the longer
933: wavelength channels. We have estimated this effect in a few test cases and find
934: the biases to be in the range of 1-10~nm (20-200~\muas) at short wavelengths,
935: and slightly more at long wavelengths. The pixellation of the focal plane tends
936: to smooth out this change in effective wavelength to some extent. Again, one way
937: at least to identify the presence of a possible problem is to estimate the
938: fringe parameters in each row separately; if they are inconsistent, it may help
939: to ignore the red end of the phase spectrum.
940:
941: \cite{milcattur02} have modeled the path-delay error for SIM arising from
942: wavelength errors and shown it to be small. However, their analysis did not
943: include the diffraction effects we have described above.
944:
945: \subsection{Loose ends}
946:
947: Finally, we note that even our ``improved'' instrument model contains numerous
948: idealizations which deserve further scrutiny. For example, our model for the
949: pixellation of the focal plane assumes there is no space between the CCD
950: pixels, and the response across these pixels is uniform. Similarly, variations
951: of parameters across the FOV such as the throughput and the dispersion have
952: been ignored.
953:
954: \section{Conclusions}
955:
956: We have developed an improved instrument model for SIM which includes a number
957: of important effects that were not considered in our first paper. The additional
958: features included here provide a much more detailed understanding of just how
959: SIM works. We note that this significantly-more-complicated model does not lead
960: to any major changes in our initial estimates of the astrometric bias arising
961: from extraneous field stars in the field of view (cf.\ Paper I), and the small
962: differences which have appeared for the sample fields we have calculated can be
963: explained as a consequence of smoothing by the pixellation of the images on the
964: CCD in the focal plane of the camera. Besides the obvious pedagogical value of
965: the improved model, it is likely to be a useful point of departure for future
966: investigations of even more subtle instrumental effects which may be present in
967: real SIM data.
968:
969: \acknowledgments
970:
971: We are grateful to our colleagues in the SIM Science and Engineering Teams for
972: discussions about the potential effects of confusion on SIM astrometry. Special
973: thanks go to Mike Shao for sharing his detailed knowledge about the design of
974: SIM, and to him and Steve Unwin for their encouragement to include the effects
975: of the measurement process discussed here into our modeling of confusion as
976: described initially in Paper I. We have especially appreciated the constructive
977: criticisms of the referee on an earlier version of this paper. This work was
978: funded by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory under contract \#1268384, and carried
979: out at the Space Telescope Science Institute. We thank the Institute director
980: for providing additional financial support to permit the timely completion of
981: this project and publication of the results.
982:
983: For queries on the IDL code developed for these studies please contact the
984: authors.
985:
986: \appendix
987: % Appendices follow:
988: \section{Modeling the SIM focal plane}
989: \label{app1}
990:
991: We have chosen to model the ideal focal plane with a $X,Y$ rectangular grid of
992: $2112 \times 192$ elements, based on the following considerations:
993:
994: \begin{enumerate}
995: %
996: \item The spatial sampling at the focal plane was chosen for convenience to be
997: 1$\, \mu$m. The CCD camera will have $24 \times 24 \, \mu$m square pixels, each
998: of angular size $2'' \times 2''$ on the sky. The linear size of each array
999: element in our model of the focal plane therefore corresponds to an angular size
1000: of $1/12''$.
1001: %
1002: \item In order to include the diffracted light from a star located as much as
1003: $3''$ from the center of the FOV, its point spread function was simulated with a
1004: separate array of grid size $120 \times 120$ elements, corresponding to a total
1005: angular size of $10'' \times 10''$.
1006: %
1007: \item We have required that the light from all the stars within a circle of
1008: diameter 6\arcsec\ centered on the FOV be included in the simulation. This
1009: implies that the minimum size of the simulated FOV should be $6'' \times 6''$.
1010: Accounting for the size of the point spread function, the required simulation
1011: area grows to $16'' \times 16''$. The simulated focal plane must therefore be
1012: $16 \times 12 = 192$ elements in size along the direction normal to that of the
1013: dispersion (the Y-direction).
1014: %
1015: \item The design of the camera was such as to provide 80 wavelength channels,
1016: i.e.\ 80 CCD pixels along the direction of the dispersion. This corresponds to a
1017: linear size of 1920 microns.
1018: %
1019: \item The spectra of stars not at the center of the FOV will be shifted along
1020: the direction of dispersion. This may require as much as an additional $\pm 36$
1021: elements in order to include all the relevant stars within the circle of
1022: diameter 6\arcsec. Thus, the required number of array elements along the
1023: direction of dispersion in $+X$ is $1920 + 2 \times 36 + 120 = 2112$.
1024: %
1025: \end{enumerate}
1026:
1027: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1028: \input{references.tex}
1029: \end{thebibliography}
1030:
1031:
1032: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text
1033: %% that appears after it.
1034:
1035: \end{document}
1036:
1037: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
1038: