1 / 22

In-Orbit vignetting calibration of the XMM-Newton telescopes

In-Orbit vignetting calibration of the XMM-Newton telescopes. Marcus G. F. Kirsch, D.H. Lumb, A. Finoguenov, R. Saxton, B. Aschenbach, P. Gondoin, I. Stewart. XMM-Newton Mirrors. 3 Wolter Telescopes, with 58 concentric mirror shells each focal length: 7.5 m

dsalinas
Télécharger la présentation

In-Orbit vignetting calibration of the XMM-Newton telescopes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. In-Orbit vignetting calibration of the XMM-Newton telescopes Marcus G. F. Kirsch, D.H. Lumb, A. Finoguenov, R. Saxton, B. Aschenbach, P. Gondoin, I. Stewart

  2. XMM-Newton Mirrors • 3 Wolter Telescopes, with 58 concentric mirror shells each • focal length: 7.5 m • angular resolution: 6 arcseconds (FWHM ) • point-spread function: 15 arcsec (HEW)

  3. VIGNETTING • VIGNETTING – the reduction in effective area with off-axis angle • important for: • cluster surface brightness • counts:flux conversions in population study • background normalisation • on-ground the X-ray measurements in Panter were in diverging beam and/or the grating stacks and stray light baffle were installed • in parallel UV beam no measurement of energy dependence • need to confirm the alignments survived thermal relaxation of optical bench, launch, and AIV campaigns • measure energy dependence in orbit D. Lumb

  4. typical Vignetting result • compare vignetting with data in telescope calibration files • unexpected variations (~10%) in rel. vignetting with azimuth in PN • attributed initially to problems in BG correction and/or exposure time correction • but relative variations are correlated with camera orientation • possible misalignment of the telescope axis compared with nominal reference pn, 11 arcmin from nominal boresight

  5. modifying telescope axis • on –ground data had been inconsistent to ~30 arcsec typically • mirror alignment cube either blocked or possibly moved during AIV ? • for each telescope could minimise discrepancies in measured vignetting by positing a telescope axis shift of up to 1 arcmin try to find sensitive method to determine the shift

  6. the 4 methods • source at different position • diffuse background • source elongation • coma cluster 1 2 3 4

  7. 3C58 and G21.5-0.9 D. Lumb M. Kirsch

  8. vignetting: the shift MOS2 G21.5-09(stars) & 3C58 (squares) pn center at DETX=340 DETY=1300 D.H. Lumb

  9. diffuse background • high galactic latitude background data sets compiled for cluster studies • removal of most sources, and co-addition of different fields leaves a very uniform surface brightness which should track the vignetting • modified by the particle background – has different vignetting function (cosmic rays flat, soft protons scatter down mirror system) D.H. Lumb

  10. source elongation • With increasing off-axis angles sources become elongated (in direction tangential to their radius vector) • Plot elongation vs. angle to define centroid via mirror geometric properties R. Saxton

  11. Coma cluster • a repeat observation of the cluster centre was made at new position angle • comparing surface brightness in same sky region reveals under- or over-correction (dotted line) • adjust the centroid of vignetting function to minimise these differences (solid line) A. Finoguenov

  12. position of optical axis detector co-ordinates (0.05 arcsec)

  13. position of optical axis currently under testing in DT SAS

  14. calculate new BS angles • the new optical axis position required a set of new Boresight CCFs which hold for each instrument a triple of three angles describing the misalignment of the respective instrument boresight with respect to the satellite coordinate frame • using the OMC2/3 field new BS misalignment angles for all the three cameras have been calculated • goal: astrometry should not change!!!!!!!!!

  15. astrometry: EPIC-2MASS old optical axis and BS: RA offset: -0.47 arcsec DEC offset: -0.55 arcsec RA offset: -0.15 arcsec DEC offset: -0.15 arcsec RA offset: -0.67 arcsec DEC offset: -0.81 arcsec new optical axis and BS RA offset: -0.95 arcsec DEC offset: -0.58 arcsec RA offset: -0.45 arcsec DEC offset: -0.15 arcsec RA offset: -0.78 arcsec DEC offset: -0.40 arcsec B. Altieri

  16. 3C58 results for MOSs Model: constant[1]*wabs[2]( powerlaw[3] ) ? M. Kirsch • flux variation off axis reduced from ± 10 % down to ± 1-2 % for both MOSs • pn to be checked with Coma/G21.5-09 observations M. Kirsch

  17. missing/finding the gap • in order to recover properly the flux sources should not fall onto CCD gaps • also the condition of the right off axis angle must be taken into account • 8 observations have been optimised for that • ....one not enough

  18. absolute timing accuracy news in Proc. SPIE 5165Timing accuracy and capabilities of XMM-Newton M. G. F. Kirsch1), W. Becker5), S. Benlloch-Garcia4), F. A. Jansen2) , E. Kendziorra4), M. Kuster5), U. Lammers2), A. M. T. Pollock1), F. Possanzini3), E. Serpell 3), A.Talavera1)

  19. th. absolute accuracy OBT 50 s • theoretical upper limit for absolute time uncertainties is <100 s • the limited number of analyses conducted so far indicated in the past that the actual error is larger (~1ms) UTC 30 sorbit prediction 100 s 20 s XMCS EPIC-pn +- 10 s quadrantclocks quadrantclocks quadrantclocks quadrantclocks

  20. a. accuracy: the bug (for details see Kirsch et al. Proc. SPIE 5165) • wrongly corrected CDMU delay (626.17 s) • delay was erroneously subtracted instead of added --> shift of 1252.34 s. • correction will be implemented in new time correlation • work around will be issued on XMM-Newton-SOC pages UTC(OBT) = ERT +(CDMU) - (Flight) - (G/S)

  21. absolute timing with the Crab (for details see Kirsch et al. Proc. SPIE 5165) • absolute timing accuracy: ~300-600 s • in agreement with Crab observations performed by RXTE and Chandra • opportunity to contemporaneously observe the Crab with Chandra and in the optical using an MPE developed fast photometer to get a radio-ephemeris independent phase solution between the optical and X-ray pulses in REV: NRCO scheduled Rev 696 2003-09-28T04:17:05

  22. EPIC data anomalies (for details see Kirsch et al. Proc. SPIE 5165) • pn-AUX data anomalies : • frequency of occurrence is varying • unrelated to camera mode, observing time and/or duration • random negative or positive jumps in FTCOARSE not found occasionally by SAS W. Becker pulse peak broadening, phase shift spurious pulse components M. Kirsch SAS 6.0 (winter 2003 ? ): refined detection/correction algorithm --> all problems will reliably found and corrected

More Related