1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19:
20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
21:
22: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
23:
24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
25:
26: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
27:
28: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
29: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
30: %% use the longabstract style option.
31:
32: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
33:
34: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
35: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
36: %% the \begin{document} command.
37: %%
38: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
39: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
40: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
41: %% for information.
42:
43: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
44: %%\newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
45:
46: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
47:
48: %% \slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
49:
50: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
51: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
52: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
53: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
54: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
55: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
56:
57: \shorttitle{LGS GLAO at the MMT}
58: \shortauthors{Baranec et al.}
59:
60: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
61: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
62:
63: \begin{document}
64:
65: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
66: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
67: %% you desire.
68:
69: \title{On-sky wide field adaptive optics correction using multiple laser guide stars at the MMT}
70:
71: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
72: %% author and affiliation information.
73: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
74: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
75: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
76: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
77:
78: \author{Christoph Baranec\altaffilmark{1,2}, Michael Hart\altaffilmark{1}, N. Mark Milton\altaffilmark{1}, Thomas Stalcup\altaffilmark{3},
79: Keith Powell\altaffilmark{1}, Miguel Snyder\altaffilmark{1,4}, Vidhya Vaitheeswaran\altaffilmark{1}, Don McCarthy\altaffilmark{1} and
80: Craig Kulesa\altaffilmark{1}}
81: \email{baranec@astro.caltech.edu}
82:
83: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
84: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
85: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
86: %% affiliation.
87:
88: \altaffiltext{1}{Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721}
89: \altaffiltext{2}{now at Caltech Optical Observatories, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125}
90: \altaffiltext{3}{MMT Observatory, Tucson, AZ 85721}
91: \altaffiltext{4}{now at the Department of the Army}
92:
93:
94: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
95: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
96: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
97: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
98: %% editorial office after submission.
99:
100: \begin{abstract}
101: We describe results from the first astronomical adaptive optics system to use multiple laser guide stars, located at the 6.5-m MMT telescope in Arizona.
102: Its initial operational mode, ground-layer adaptive optics (GLAO), provides uniform stellar wavefront correction within the 2 arc minute diameter laser
103: beacon constellation, reducing the stellar image widths by as much as 53\%, from 0.70 to 0.33 arc seconds at $\lambda = 2.14$ $\mu$m. GLAO is achieved by
104: applying a correction to the telescope's adaptive secondary mirror that is an average of wavefront measurements from five laser beacons supplemented
105: with image motion from a faint stellar source. Optimization of the adaptive optics system in subsequent commissioning runs will further improve
106: correction performance where it is predicted to deliver 0.1 to 0.2 arc second resolution in the near-infrared during a majority of seeing conditions.
107: \end{abstract}
108:
109: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
110: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
111: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
112: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
113:
114: \keywords{atmospheric effects --- instrumentation: adaptive optics ---
115: instrumentation: high angular resolution --- telescopes}
116:
117: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
118: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
119: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
120: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
121: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
122: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
123: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
124: %% each reference.
125:
126:
127: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
128: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so by tagging
129: %% their objects with \objectname{} or \object{}. Each macro takes the
130: %% object name as its required argument. The optional, square-bracket
131: %% argument should be used in cases where the data center identification
132: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper. The text appearing
133: %% in curly braces is what will appear in print in the published paper.
134: %% If the object name is recognized by the data centers, it will be linked
135: %% in the electronic edition to the object data available at the data centers
136: %%
137: %% Note that for sources with brackets in their names, e.g. [WEG2004] 14h-090,
138: %% the brackets must be escaped with backslashes when used in the first
139: %% square-bracket argument, for instance, \object[\[WEG2004\] 14h-090]{90}).
140: %% Otherwise, LaTeX will issue an error.
141:
142:
143: \section{Introduction}
144:
145:
146: Until very recently, adaptive optics (AO) systems supporting astronomical observing have used single guide stars to measure atmospheric turbulence.
147: This has limited the best optical correction to a single target, with correction degrading as a function of increasing field angle. By using multiple guide
148: stars, many types of wide field adaptive optics correction can be implemented. The simplest of these, ground-layer adaptive optics (GLAO), was suggested
149: by Rigaut \cite{rigaut} as a way to improve wide field imaging for large telescopes. Wavefront measurements from guide stars located far from each
150: other (2 -- 10+ arc minutes) can be averaged to estimate the turbulence close to the telescope aperture. A partially corrected field over the guide star
151: constellation is produced when only this low-lying turbulence is compensated. Alternatively, single Rayleigh laser guide star (LGS) systems at smaller
152: telescopes such as the 4.2-m William Herschel Telescope\cite{WHT} and planned for the 4.1-m Southern Astrophysical Research\cite{SAM}
153: telescope can produce wavefront compensation over fields of 1.5 and 3 arc minutes respectively. However, a single beacon GLAO implementation
154: will not be effective for larger apertures which suffer from stronger focal anisoplanatism effects that limit the accuracy of the ground-layer
155: turbulence measurements\cite{andersen}. Multiple laser guide stars will also be required for GLAO implementations that achieve full sky coverage
156: on the next generation of extremely large (25+ m) class telescopes.
157:
158: Simulations have predicted that multiple-beacon GLAO will effectively and consistently improve the atmospheric seeing
159: \citep{rigaut, andersen, louarn, tokovinin} and open-loop studies at the 6.5-m MMT and 1.5-m Kuiper telescopes predict that GLAO can reduce
160: wavefront aberration by up to $\sim 45\%$ \cite{apj, spie, ngsglao}. Using simultaneous wavefront measurements of 5 laser guide stars and a stellar
161: source at the MMT, synthetic point-spread-functions (PSFs) have been calculated from the residual wavefront errors of open-loop ground layer correction
162: \cite{opex, spie}. During roughly median seeing conditions ($r_0 = 14.8$ cm at $\lambda = 500$ nm), the full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) of the
163: corrected PSF was calculated to be 0.12 and 0.16 arc seconds in the $K$ and $H$ bands respectively. Azimuthally averaged PSF profiles of both
164: the uncorrected and open-loop ground-layer corrected stellar PSFs are presented in figure 1. During more favorable seeing conditions
165: ($r_0 = 22.6$ cm), the calculated FWHM size of the open-loop ground-layer corrected PSFs were 0.10 and 0.14 arc seconds in the $K$ and $H$ bands.
166: Although the performance of GLAO is affected by both the changing seeing conditions and the relative strength of ground-layer turbulence, it has been found
167: at many sites, including at the nearby Mt. Graham and Mt. Bigelow, that typically one-half to two-thirds of the atmospheric turbulence lies in this ground layer
168: \cite{andersen, avila, egner, tok_cn2a, tok_cn2b, ngsglao, velur}. Further statistics on the strength of the ground-layer at the MMT need to be measured; however
169: it is expected that the GLAO system will be capable of delivering 0.1 to 0.2 arc second resolution in the near-infrared during a majority of seeing conditions.
170:
171: GLAO was first demonstrated on-sky in closed-loop using three bright natural guide stars on a 1.5 arc minute diameter
172: with the Multi-conjugate Adaptive Optics Demonstrator fielded at the Very Large Telescope (VLT) in early 2007 \citep{mad1,mad2}. Strehl ratios
173: from 5 to 22.5$\%$ in $K$ band were observed within the guide star constellation during seeing of $\sim$ 0.7 arc seconds. However,
174: sky coverage and the number of accessible science targets will be limited because there are very few suitably bright natural guide star constellations.
175:
176: The MMT multiple laser adaptive optics system is being commissioned to support wide-field science with GLAO and narrow-field science with laser
177: tomography adaptive optics (where Strehl is maximized at the cost of corrected field-of-view). In February 2008, the system demonstrated an initial
178: GLAO correction where stellar image widths were reduced by as much as 53\%, from 0.70 to 0.33 arc seconds at $\lambda$ = 2.14 $\mu$m. Further
179: commissioning in May 2008 demonstrated wide field aberration compensation of a constellation of stars, and a reduction of the stellar wavefront
180: errors in the control space of the laser wavefront sensor by $38\%$. The observations reported here demonstrate significant image improvement across
181: a 110 arc second field, but not yet at the anticipated resolution of 0.1 to 0.2 arc seconds. At the time of these observations, the GLAO system was
182: affected by several issues in the tip-tilt loop which compromised the overall closed-loop performance. The primary problem were network delays and dropouts
183: between the tip-tilt sensor and real-time reconstructor, responsible for unwanted random control loop delays, causing the system to be unstable at anything other
184: than at very low control loop gain values. The tip-tilt issues have since been diagnosed and corrected; thus future observations should not be affected.
185:
186: \section{Experimental design}
187: \subsection{Instrument description}
188:
189: The MMT's multiple laser guide star AO system comprises a laser launch telescope\citep{stalcup}, an adaptive secondary mirror (ASM)\citep{brusa,wildi},
190: a Cassegrain mounted wavefront sensor instrument \\\cite{opex,apj,spie,baranec}, and a PC based real-time reconstructor computer\cite{pcr}. The laser launch telescope,
191: mounted above the MMT's ASM, projects a constellation of five $\lambda = 532$ nm Rayleigh LGSs on a regular 2 arc minute diameter pentagon with a
192: total on-sky power of 25 W.
193:
194: The Cassegrain wavefront sensor instrument consists of a laser guide star wavefront sensor (LGS WFS), a tip-tilt sensor and a natural guide star wavefront
195: sensor (NGS WFS). The LGS WFS uses dynamically refocused optics\cite{georges} and an electronically shuttered CCD to accumulate photon return over
196: a range of $20-29$ km from the telescope. Shack-Hartmann patterns for each of the five LGSs are created by a prism array\citep{prism} with $60$
197: subapertures in a hexapolar geometry, and captured at a rate of 400 frames per second. An electron multiplying CCD is used to obtain tip-tilt measurements
198: from a natural star within the $2$ arc minute LGS constellation at the same rate. The NGS WFS is a traditional $12 \times 12$ Shack-Hartmann sensor used
199: for system calibration and automatic static aberration correction. The Cassegrain mounted wavefront sensor instrument is designed to accept the current suite
200: of MMT $f/15$ NGS AO science instruments including PISCES\citep{pisces}, Clio\citep{clio}, ARIES\citep{aries} and BLINC-MIRAC\citep{blinc}.
201:
202: The GLAO correction is calculated by reconstructor matrix multiplication in the PC based real-time computer from $300$ LGS slope pairs, $60$ pairs from
203: each of the five laser beacons, as well as a pair of slopes from the fast tip-tilt camera. The reconstructor projects each of the five sets of LGS WFS slope
204: measurements onto an orthonormal basis of disk harmonic (DH) functions\citep{DH} in the telescope's pupil. The five LGS wavefronts are averaged
205: by mode to produce an estimate of the ground-layer contribution to atmospheric seeing. Finally, the GLAO modal estimate is converted to actuator
206: displacements which are transmitted to the ASM at the telescope pupil. In addition to an overall system loop gain, separate gains can be applied to the
207: individual DH modes in the reconstruction for fine tuning of the system response. These are obtained from the measured modal closed-loop system response.
208: Measured scale factors for the
209: individual responses of the ASM actuators are also applied to account for variations in the sensitivities of the associated capacitive sensors. The DH
210: basis functions are used instead of the traditional Zernike polynomials since they provide increased loop stability and a lower RMS error for a given
211: number of controlled modes. Zernike polynomials have large radial derivatives near the edge of the pupil, particularly for high spatial frequency modes.
212: By contrast, the DH functions have zero radial derivatives at the edge of the pupil, placing less stress on actuators at the outer edge of the ASM and
213: resulting in lower actuator currents and greater loop stability.
214:
215: \subsection{MMT seeing measurements}
216:
217: The results of GLAO correction are presented in the context of seeing statistics recorded at the telescope
218: spanning the past 5 years. Measurements of seeing are made by calculating stellar image widths directly as observed by the Shack-Hartmann wavefront
219: sensors used for the active alignment of the MMT's primary mirror with its $f/5$ and $f/9$ secondary mirrors \cite{MMTseeing}. The sensors do not
220: have the temporal bandwidth to resolve the dynamic atmospheric turbulence so the integrated image widths represent the best available estimate
221: of seeing. The wavefront sensors currently operate at a mean wavelength of $\overline{\lambda} = 650$ nm (T. Pickering 2008, private communication)
222: and data comprise $\sim 50000$ individual measurements taken during approximately 800 different nights. Measurements are corrected for airmass
223: (quoted at zenith) and are extrapolated - in an overly conservative way - to infrared wavelengths by a factor of the ratio of wavelengths to the $-1/5$ power.
224:
225: \subsection{Methods}
226:
227: Data were taken to compare seeing limited imaging with that of tip-tilt only and GLAO corrected imaging. The images were captured with the science
228: instrument PISCES, a near-infrared camera with a 110 arc second field of view and a plate scale of 107 milli arc seconds per pixel. Observations comprised
229: consecutive 1 s exposures, with a rate of approximately 14 exposures per minute. During subsequent analysis, exposures were first background subtracted
230: and flat fielded, then averaged to simulate a long exposure. Sky de-rotation was then applied post-facto for images with more than one object. All images were
231: taken with a standard $K_s$ or $\lambda$ = 2.14 $\mu$m narrowband filter. Image widths were calculated using the MOFFAT radial fit tool in the imexam
232: package of IRAF.
233:
234:
235: \section{Observations and analysis}
236: \subsection{February 2008}
237:
238: The first astronomical targets observed on the night of 2008 February 19 were a series of single stars ranging in visual magnitude from 8 to 10, all with a
239: declination of approximately +40 degrees. The stars were located approximately in the center of the laser beacon constellation with tip-tilt sensing done
240: using the target star. Figures 2 and 3 show examples of the stellar PSF during seeing limited, tip-tilt only, and GLAO correction at $K_s$ and $\lambda$ = 2.14 $\mu$m.
241: Each image is an average of approximately 60 one second exposures.
242:
243: Star 1 has a seeing limited FWHM of 0.70 arc seconds, while the closed-loop PSF has a FWHM of 0.33 arc seconds,
244: a reduction of the image width of 53\%, with a factor of 2.3 increase in relative peak intensity. The GLAO corrected PSF shows some asymmetry which
245: is similar in each of the 60 exposures used to create the mean image in Figure 2 indicating that the system was limited by uncorrected non-common path
246: errors. The reduction in image width with GLAO can be compared with the cumulative seeing distribution measured at the MMT as presented in Figure 4.
247: The GLAO correction represents an effective improvement in seeing from somewhat worse than median for the site, at the 58th percentile, to excellent,
248: at the 4th percentile.
249:
250: During observations of star 2, the GLAO correction was modest. A 10\% decrease in image width was observed with tip-tilt only correction; however,
251: with full ground-layer correction, the FWHM of the image is reduced by 35\%, from 0.60 to 0.39 arc seconds. This corresponds to an effective seeing
252: improvement from the 42nd to the 9th percentile.
253:
254: Although the results from the February 2008 telescope run demonstrate successful closed loop GLAO operation, the level of correction did not achieve
255: the final expected system performance of $0.1$ to $0.2$ arc second images in the $K$ band. This is attributable to three factors. Time to implement and test
256: the system for measuring and correcting non-common path and other static aberrations was cut short due to inclement weather. This feature was
257: implemented and initial testing was completed in the subsequent May 2008 run. Second, and more seriously, there were random network transmission delays
258: and dropouts in the tip-tilt control loop, which unbeknownst to us at the time, severely affected loop stability. In addition, the elevation axis servo control system of the
259: MMT telescope was exhibiting technical problems resulting in the amplification of wind-driven oscillations at 2.25 Hz. The AO loop gain had to be significantly
260: reduced in the presence of the latter two factors in order to maintain stable closed-loop GLAO operation, compromising the final level of image correction.
261:
262: \subsection{May 2008}
263:
264: Additional observations were carried out in 2008 May in order to implement and test automated static aberration correction with the NGS WFS and
265: to characterize the uniformity of the GLAO corrected PSF over the $110$ arc second field. Unfortunately, these results were again severely affected by the tip-tilt
266: network issues and continuing problems with the MMT telescope elevation axis servo control system.
267: Automated static aberration correction for the MMT LGS WFS system is achieved by measuring the difference in the long term average open-loop
268: and closed-loop GLAO aberrations of the tip-tilt star with the NGS WFS, similar to the quasi-static calibration with the Keck LGS AO system
269: \cite{keck3}. The change in the mean NGS WFS slopes is reconstructed to produce a modal estimate of the quasi-static non-atmospheric aberrations.
270: These modal corrections are converted to LGS WFS centroid offsets using the LGS WFS influence matrix. Finally, these offsets are used to shift the
271: zero points of the LGS WFS slope calculation during GLAO closed-loop operation.
272:
273: Data were taken of an $m_V$ = 9 star ($20^h01^m16.72^s$, $20^\circ41\arcmin29.8\arcsec$, J2000) with many field stars seen in the 110 arc second PISCES field of view.
274: Figure 5 shows
275: an image of the field, with the brighter stars magnified, shown both uncorrected and with ground-layer correction. The stellar images are rescaled in
276: intensity for clarity. Both corrected and uncorrected data are averages of 70 one second exposures with the narrowband $\lambda$ = 2.14 $\mu$m
277: filter. Tip-tilt signals were obtained from the bright star in the center of the field, which was also used to sense static aberrations. Image improvement
278: was again modest: the tip-tilt star has a measured FWHM of 0.70 arc seconds in open-loop and 0.55 arc seconds in GLAO closed-loop, a decrease
279: of only $21\%$. Over the entire field, both the uncorrected and GLAO corrected PSFs are fairly constant, with a mean seeing limited FWHM
280: of $0.72 \pm 0.01$ arc seconds for the brightest 12 stars in this field and a mean GLAO corrected FWHM of $0.58 \pm 0.03$ arc seconds
281: for the same stars. In contrast to the results from the February run in Figure 2, the corrected PSFs are round, showing the effect of removing the static
282: aberration by reference to the NGS WFS. We expect a substantial overall improvement
283: in the PSF FWHM during future observations now that the vibration issues have been
284: resolved and we are able to increase the GLAO loop gain, however, a decrease in closed-loop PSF uniformity may be seen due to anisoplanatic effects.
285:
286: During these observations, the NGS WFS was passively collecting data in both open- and closed-loop operation of the tip-tilt star at 180 frames
287: per second. These data have been analyzed to evaluate the closed-loop performance in a manner independent of static aberrations. Table 1 shows
288: the RMS modal amplitudes reconstructed from the NGS WFS measurements, grouped by radial order. We show the more familiar Zernike
289: modes rather than the DH modes used in the real-time control. GLAO corrected $42\%$ of the measured total RMS wavefront error, with
290: a reduction in the modes controlled by the LGS WFS (orders 2 through 8) of $38\%$, consistent with
291: previous open-loop studies of GLAO performance at the MMT\cite{spie}. However, the reduction of $43\%$ for the tip-tilt modes
292: is much lower than the $>80\%$ correction obtained in previous analyses and attributable to the low tip-tilt loop gains and the
293: servo oscillations experienced during this run. Note that even though there was a resonance in the telescope's elevation drive, the total power in the
294: orthogonal tilt modes were quite similar during both open- and closed-loop observations, differing by at most $11\%$, and as consequence would not have affected
295: an asymmetry in the stellar PSFs.
296:
297: \subsection{Control system analysis}
298:
299: There were two different control loops used in the closed-loop GLAO system, one for the NGS tip-tilt sensor and the other for the
300: high-order LGS wavefront sensor. Both loops used an integral control law and had a sample rate of 400 Hz.
301: The tip-tilt loop was unfortunately hindered by two technical issues. It was discovered during examination of
302: telemetry data that there were randomly varying network delays and dropouts in the transmission of the tip-tilt data between the tip-tilt sensor and real-time wavefront
303: reconstruction computer. This would cause the tip-tilt control loop to act erratically and not follow the atmospheric tip-tilt signal.
304: In addition, the 2.25 Hz tilt signal produced by the oscillating elevation drive increased the required actuator stroke at the edges of the ASM.
305: With the combination of these effects, the ASM would quickly hit its safety limits for voice coil actuator current at the edges, breaking the loop - for even modest gains in the tip-tilt loop.
306: To maintain closed-loop operation for any appreciable
307: amount of time, the gain was severely reduced, compromising correction.
308: Figure 6 shows the open- and closed-loop power spectra for selected Zernike modes as measured by the NGS WFS. The power spectra show that
309: despite low gain, the GLAO control is removing a significant portion of the aberrations at very low frequencies, below $\sim1$ Hz, for the tip-tilt modes,
310: and even a $46\%$ reduction in the $2.25$ Hz oscillation in elevation. The random network transmission delays however created a large overshoot in higher
311: frequencies, hindering the ability to recover good image quality.
312:
313: The disturbance rejection frequency response of high-order loop, which was not affected by the tip-tilt issues, was modeled at different gain values (Figure 7).
314: At a gain of 0.15, the disturbance rejection
315: bandwidth is $\sim$ 20 Hz with a low frequency slope of 20 dB/decade.
316: To maintain closed-loop operation of the adaptive optics system during observations, the overall system gain was reduced to approximately 0.015. At this gain, the bandwidth
317: is limited, in the range of $3 - 5$ Hz.
318: The power spectra of higher order modes (e.g. for the astigmatism modes shown in Figure 6) show correction out to a higher bandwidth of $\sim2.5$ Hz due to the limited
319: influence from the elevation servo resonance. While it is possible that the bandwidth of the higher order modes could have been improved by
320: taking advantage of the mode dependent gains, a conservative approach to controlling the ASM was adopted, and only the overall system gain was adjusted
321: to achieve loop stability. With the elevation axis servo oscillation issue
322: now resolved, we expect the closed-loop bandwidth during future observations to increase to $\sim 20$ Hz once the loop gain is increased to 0.15 and the modal
323: gains are fine tuned. We intend to also implement a more sophisticated proportional-integral-derivative controller which should further increase the bandwidth of the
324: controller to $\sim30$ Hz, significantly reducing residual wavefront error.
325:
326: \section{Conclusions}
327:
328: The multiple LGS AO program at the MMT is exploring the practical techniques required for wavefront sensing for ground-layer
329: and tomographic correction. Closed-loop GLAO operation was successfully demonstrated in February 2008 where image correction reduced stellar
330: image widths by as much as $53\%$ at $\lambda$ = 2.14 $\mu$m. Wide field,
331: $\sim2$ arc minute diameter, correction was demonstrated in May 2008 upon successful testing of static aberration
332: correction and additional system characterization. Optimization of the system
333: in subsequent commissioning runs in the fall of 2008 will further improve correction
334: performance and is expected to deliver $0.1$ to $0.2$ arc second resolution during a majority of seeing conditions. Additional
335: narrow field PSF characterization will be done in the thermal infrared (3.5 -- 4.8 $\mu$m) where Strehl ratios of $30\%$ to $40\%$
336: are expected using Clio with a plate scale of 48 milli arc seconds per pixels. Imaging with the Clio and PISCES cameras will allow
337: for the exploration of parameters which affect the ground-layer AO correction. In particular, variables such as control gain,
338: reconstruction basis set and the number of controlled modes will be optimized. The effect of observing conditions, such as the
339: brightness and field location of the tilt star, will also be explored to support science programs by anticipating the improved resolution
340: and sensitivity of ground-layer AO correction.
341:
342: Early shared risk scientific programs will focus on seeing improvement with GLAO, taking advantage of existing near infrared
343: instrumentation \citep{mmtsci}, with plans for developing further capability over larger fields of view \cite{loki}. The exploitation of
344: routine near infrared seeing of $0.2$ arc seconds or better over a field of
345: several arc minutes is likely to be very productive, both for imaging and high resolution multi-object spectroscopy where the
346: many-fold improvement in encircled energy within $0.2$ arc seconds will be of particular value.
347:
348: Development of the MMT laser adaptive optics system will lead to a greater understanding of the important factors in designing
349: and operating future multiple guide star adaptive optics systems such as the ones being planned for the 8.1-m Gemini North \citep{gemini1}
350: and Gemini South \citep{gemini2} telescopes, the 8.2-m VLT\citep{ galacsi, vlt, hawki}, the $2 \times 8.4$-m Large Binocular
351: Telescope\\\citep{lbtao, nirvana}, the 10-m Keck\\\citep{keck, keck2} telescopes, the 25.4-m Giant Magellan Telescope \\\citep{gmt},
352: 30-m Thirty Meter Telescope\citep{tmt}, and 42-m European Extremely Large Telescope\\\citep{eelt}.
353:
354:
355: \acknowledgments
356:
357: Observations reported here were made at the MMT, a joint facility of the University of Arizona and the Smithsonian Institution. We are grateful for the continued
358: support of the MMT Observatory staff, particularly M. Alegria, A. Milone and J. McAfee. We would like to thank T. Pickering for providing the MMT
359: seeing data. This work has been supported by the National Science Foundation under grants AST-0138347 and AST-0505369 and by the University of
360: Arizona Technology and Research Initiative Fund.
361:
362: {\it Facilities:} \facility{MMT (LGS, PISCES)}
363:
364:
365: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
366: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
367: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
368: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
369: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
370: %%
371: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
372: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
373: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
374: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
375: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
376: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
377: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
378: %% place of the \cite commands.
379:
380: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
381: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
382: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
383:
384: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
385: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
386: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
387: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
388: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
389:
390: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
391:
392: \bibitem[Andersen et al. 2006]{andersen} Andersen, D., et al. 2006, \pasp, 118, 1574
393: \bibitem[Avila et al. 2004]{avila} Avila, R., et al. 2004 \pasp, 116, 682
394: \bibitem[Baranec 2007a]{baranec} Baranec, C. 2007a, PhD thesis (University of Arizona)
395: \bibitem[Baranec et al. 2007b]{loki} Baranec, C., Lloyd-Hart, M., \& Meyer, M. 2007b in Proc. SPIE Astronomical Adaptive Optics Systems and Applications III, eds. Tyson, R., \& Lloyd-Hart, M. (San Diego)
396: \bibitem[Baranec et al. 2007c]{ngsglao} Baranec, C., Lloyd-Hart, M., \& Milton, N. M. 2007c, \apj, 661, 1332
397: \bibitem[Baranec et al. 2007d]{spie} Baranec, C., Lloyd-Hart, M., Milton, N. M., Stalcup, T., Snyder, M., Vaitheeswaran, V., McCarthy, D. \& Angel, R. 2007d in Proc. SPIE Astronomical Adaptive Optics Systems and Applications III, eds. Tyson, R., \& Lloyd-Hart, M. (San Diego)
398: \bibitem[Boccas et al. 2008]{gemini2} Boccas, M., et al. 2008, in Proc. SPIE Adaptive Optics Systems, eds. Hubin, N., Max, C., \& Wizinowich, P. (Marseille)
399: \bibitem[Bouy et al. 2008]{mad2} Bouy, H., Kolb, J., Marchetti, E., Mart\'in, E. L., Hu\'elamo, N., \& Barrado y Navascu\'es, D. 2008, A\&A, 477, 681
400: \bibitem[Brusa-Zappellini et al. 1998]{brusa} Brusa-Zappellini, G., et al. 1998, in Proc. SPIE Adaptive Optical System Technologies, eds. Bonaccini, D. \& Tyson, R. K. (Kona) 764
401: \bibitem[Casali et al. 2006]{hawki} Casali, M, et al. 2006, in Proc. SPIE Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy, eds. McLean, I., \& Iye, M. (Orlando)
402: \bibitem[Egner et al. 2006]{egner} Egner, S., et al. 2006, in Proc. SPIE Advances in Adaptive Optics II, eds. Ellerbroek, B., \& Calia, D. B. (Orlando)
403: \bibitem[Ellerbroek et al. 2006]{tmt} Ellerbroek, B, et al. 2006, in Proc. SPIE Advances in Adaptive Optics II, eds. Ellerbroek, B., \& Calia, D. B. (Orlando)
404: \bibitem[Freed et al. 2004]{clio} Freed, M., Hinz, P., Meyer, M., Milton, N. M., \& Lloyd-Hart, M. 2004, in Proc. SPIE Ground-based Instrumentation for Astronomy, eds. Moorwood, A., \& Iye, M. (Glasgow) 1561
405: \bibitem[Gavel et al. 2008]{keck2} Gavel, D., et al., 2008, in Proc. SPIE Adaptive Optics Systems, eds. Hubin, N., Max, C., \& Wizinowich, P. (Marseille)
406: \bibitem[Georges 2003]{georges} Georges, J. 2003, PhD thesis (University of Arizona)
407: \bibitem[Gilmozzi \& Spyromilio 2007]{eelt} Gilmozzi, R., \& Spyromilio, J., 2007, ESO Messenger 127, 11
408: \bibitem[Hinz et al. 2000]{blinc} Hinz, P., Angel, R., Woolf, N., Hoffmann, B., \& McCarthy, D. 2000, in Proc SPIE Interferometry in Optical Astronomy, eds. Lena, P. J. \& Quirrenbach, A. (Munich) 349
409: \bibitem[Hubin et al. 2005]{vlt} Hubin, N., Arsenault, R., Conzelmann, R., Delabre, B., Le Louarn, M., Stroebele, S., \& Stuik, R. 2005, C. R. Physique 6, 1099
410: \bibitem[Le Louran \& Hubin 2006]{louarn} Le Louarn, M. and Hubin, N. 2006, \mnras, 365, 1324
411: \bibitem[Lloyd-Hart et al. 2007]{lbtao} Lloyd-Hart, M., Angel, R., \& Green, R. 2007, in Proc. SPIE Astronomical Adaptive Optics Systems and Applications III, eds. Tyson, R., \& Lloyd-Hart, M. (San Diego)
412: \bibitem[Lloyd-Hart et al. 2006a]{gmt} Lloyd-Hart, M., Angel, R., Milton, N. M., Rademacher, M., \& Codona, J. 2006a, in Proc. SPIE Advances in Adaptive Optics II, eds. Ellerbroek, B., \& Calia, D. B. (Orlando)
413: \bibitem[Lloyd-Hart et al. 2006b]{opex} Lloyd-Hart, M., Baranec, C., Milton, N. M., Stalcup, T., Snyder, M., \& Angel, R. 2006b, Optics Express, 14, 7541
414: \bibitem[Lloyd-Hart et al. 2005]{apj} Lloyd-Hart, M., Baranec, C., Milton, N. M., Stalcup, T., Snyder, M., Putnam, N., \& Angel, R. 2005, \apj, 634, 679
415: \bibitem[Lloyd-Hart et al. 2006c]{mmtsci} Lloyd-Hart, M., Stalcup, T., Baranec, C., Milton, N. M., Rademacher, M., Snyder, M., Meyer, M., \& Eisenstein, D. 2006c, in Proc. SPIE Advances in Adaptive Optics II, eds. Ellerbroek, B., \& Calia, D. B. (Orlando)
416: \bibitem[Marchetti et al. 2007]{mad1} Marchetti, E., et al. 2007, The Messenger, 129, 8
417: \bibitem[Martin et al. 2008]{WHT} Martin, O, et al. 2008, in Proc. SPIE Adaptive Optics Systems, eds. Hubin, N., Max, C., \& Wizinowich, P. (Marseille)
418: \bibitem[McCarthy et al. 1998]{aries} McCarthy, D., Burge, J., Angel, R., Ge, J., Sarlot, R., Fitz-Patrick, B., \& Hinz, J. 1998, in Proc. SPIE Infrared Astronomical Instrumentation, ed. Fowler, A. M. (Kona), 750
419: \bibitem[McCarthy et al. 2004]{pisces} McCarthy, D., Ge, J., Hinz, J., Finn, R., \& de Jong, R. 2001, \pasp, 113, 353
420: \bibitem[Milton \& Lloyd-Hart 2005]{DH} Milton, N. M. \& Lloyd-Hart, M. 2005, in OSA Conf. Adaptive Optics: Analysis and Methods, ed. Ellerbroek, B. (Charlotte)
421: \bibitem[Pickering et. al. 2004]{MMTseeing} Pickering, T., West, S., \& Fabricant, D. 2004 in Proc. SPIE Ground-based Telescopes, ed. Oschmann, J. (Glasgow), 1041
422: \bibitem[Putnam et al. 2004]{prism} Putnam, N., Snyder, M., Stalcup, T., \& Angel, R. 2004 in Proc. SPIE Advancements in Adaptive Optics, ed. Bonaccini, D., Ellerbroek, B., \& Ragazzoni, R. (Glasgow), 1138
423: \bibitem[Ragazzoni et al. 2003]{nirvana} Ragazzoni, R., et al. 2003, in Proc. SPIE Adaptive Optical System Technologies II, eds. Calia, D. B., \& Wizinowich, P. (Waikoloa), 536
424: \bibitem[Rigaut 2002]{rigaut} Rigaut, F. 2002. in Proc. ESO Beyond Conventional Adaptive Optics, eds. E. Vernet, R. Ragazzoni, S. Esposito, \& N. Hubin (Garching), 11
425: \bibitem[Stalcup 2006]{stalcup} Stalcup, T. 2006, PhD thesis (University of Arizona)
426: \bibitem[Stuik et al. 2006]{galacsi} Stuik, R., Bacon, R., Conzelmann, R., Delabre, B, Fedrigo, E., Hubin, N., Le Louarn, M., \& Strobele, S. 2006, New Astron. Rev., 49, 618
427: \bibitem[Szeto et al. 2006]{gemini1} Szeto, K., et al. 2006, in Proc. SPIE Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy, eds. McLean, I., \& Iye, M. (Orlando)
428: \bibitem[Tokovinin 2004]{tokovinin} Tokovinin, A. 2004, \pasp, 116, 94
429: \bibitem[Tokovinin \& Travouillon 2006]{tok_cn2a} Tokovinin, A., \& Travouillon, T. 2006 \mnras, 365, 1235
430: \bibitem[Tokovinin 2005]{tok_cn2b} Tokovinin, A., et al. 2005, \pasp, 117, 395
431: \bibitem[Tokovinin et al. 2008]{SAM} Tokovinin, A., Tighe, R., Schurter, P., Cantarutti, R., van der Bliek, N., Martinez, M., Mondaca, E., \& Montane, A. 2008, in Proc. SPIE Adaptive Optics Systems, eds. Hubin, N., Max, C., \& Wizinowich, P. (Marseille)
432: \bibitem[van Dam et al. 2006]{keck3} van Dam, M., et al. 2006, \pasp, 118, 1574
433: \bibitem[Vaitheeswaran et al. 2008]{pcr} Vaitheeswaran, V., Hinz, P., Brusa, G., Miller, D., \& Stalcup, T. 2008, in Proc. SPIE Advanced Software and Control for Astronomy II, eds. Bridger, A., \& Radziwill, N. (Marseille)
434: \bibitem[Velur et al. 2006]{velur} Velur, V., et al. 2006 in Proc. SPIE Advances in Adaptive Optics II, eds. Ellerbroek, B., \& Calia, D. B. (Orlando)
435: \bibitem[Verin et al. 2000]{verin} Verin, J., et al. 2000, Gemini RPT-AO-G0094 ( Hilo: Gemini Obs.), http://www.gemini.edu/documentation/webdocs/rpt/rpt-ao-g0094-1.ps
436: \bibitem[Wildi et al. 2003]{wildi} Wildi, F., Brusa, G., Lloyd-Hart, M., Close, L., \& Riccardi, A. 2003, in Proc. SPIE Astronomical Adaptive Optics Systems and Applications, eds. Tyson, R., \& Lloyd-Hart, M. (San Diego), 17
437: \bibitem[Wizinowich et al. 2008]{keck} Wizinowich, P., et al. 2008 in Proc. SPIE Adaptive Optics Systems, eds. Hubin, N., Max, C., \& Wizinowich, P. (Marseille)
438:
439: \end{thebibliography}
440:
441: %\clearpage
442:
443: \clearpage
444:
445: \input{tab1.tex}
446:
447: \clearpage
448:
449: \begin{figure}
450: \begin{center}
451: \includegraphics[width=4.5in]{f1.eps}
452: \end{center}
453: %\plotone{f1.eps}
454: \caption{Radially averaged synthetic PSF profiles in $K$ and $H$ band calculated from open-loop GLAO correction at the MMT during median seeing\cite{opex}.
455: The seeing-limited PSFs are shown in solid, while the GLAO-corrected PSFs are shown as dashed lines.}
456: \end{figure}
457:
458: \clearpage
459:
460: \begin{figure}
461: \plotone{f2.eps}
462: \caption{Comparison of PSFs for star 1 at $\lambda =$ 2.14 $\mu$m. Without correction, the FWHM of the PSF is 0.70 arc seconds. With GLAO correction,
463: the FWHM is 0.33 arcseconds. The peak intensity of the GLAO-corrected PSF is 2.3 times greater than the peak intensity of the seeing-limited PSF. Each grid point represents 107 milli arc seconds.}
464: \end{figure}
465:
466: \clearpage
467:
468: \begin{figure}
469: \plotone{f3.eps}
470: \caption{Comparison of PSFs for star 2 at $K_s$. Without correction, the FWHM of the PSF is 0.60 arc seconds. With tip-tilt only correction, the FWHM is 0.56
471: arc seconds, with an increase in peak intensity of 8\%. With GLAO correction, the FWHM is 0.39 arc seconds, with an increase of peak intensity over the seeing-limited PSF
472: of 48\%. Each grid point represents 107 milli arc seconds.}
473: \end{figure}
474:
475: \clearpage
476:
477: \begin{figure}
478: \plotone{f4.eps}
479: \caption{A conservative estimate of the MMT's cumulative seeing diagram for $\lambda$ = 2.14 $\mu$m, extrapolated from measurements recorded at visible
480: wavelengths over a five year period. Observations of star 1 are indicated showing the native seeing (dashed line) and during
481: GLAO correction (dotted line).}
482: \end{figure}
483:
484: \clearpage
485:
486: \begin{figure}
487: \plotone{f5.eps}
488: \caption{PISCES field showing 4 $\times$ magnified images of PSFs with and without ground-layer correction. Each box is linearly
489: scaled and normalized to the peak intensity while the background image is logarithmically stretched to give greater visibility of faint field stars.
490: The laser guide stars are located just outside this field on a 120 arc second diameter pentagon.}
491: \end{figure}
492:
493: \clearpage
494:
495: \begin{figure}
496: \plotone{f6.eps}
497: \caption{Power spectra of elevation tilt (upper left), azimuth tilt (upper right), $\pm45^\circ$ astigmatism (lower left), and
498: $0 - 90^\circ$ astigmatism (lower right), during open-loop (solid line) and closed-loop GLAO correction (dashed line).
499: The peak at 2.25 Hz is due to the elevation servo drive oscillation and the small peak at $\sim18$ Hz is a vibrational
500: mode of the secondary hub.}
501: \end{figure}
502:
503: \clearpage
504:
505: \begin{figure}
506: \plotone{f7.eps}
507: \caption{Modeled disturbance rejection frequency response of the high-order modes in the GLAO control system with a sample
508: rate of 400 Hz. System gains of 0.15 (solid line), 0.05 (dotted line), and 0.015 (dot-dashed line) are
509: shown.}
510: \end{figure}
511:
512: \end{document}
513:
514: