• DFS meeting 9-10 september at Groningen

Read GeMS first on-sky results (Rigaut+ SPIE 2012) in more detail:
-appears very relevant benchmark (MCAO, 8.1meter telescope, LGS) for MICADO + MAORY 39m E-ELT. Only reality-case I now know off.
-astrometric pipeline in paper simplistic. Yet no indication of hitting intra-night dynamic systematics for relative astrometry downto at least ~400microarcsec.
Not covered in paper:
-inter-night/epoch dynamic systematics
-static systematics: is MICADO calibration mask sufficient to monitor this? On-sky near polar field also needed?
I have emailed Rodrigo Carrasco ( a GeMS instrument scientist) to get to their experience on these. No response yet.
-to do: determine if MAD is another benchmark.

Prezi at: http://prezi.com/2ucz56uxyfjc/edit/#36

• Preliminary programme: http://www.intra.astro.rug.nl/~etolstoy/micado/styled-4/index.html

• Day 2

• MICADO simulated images. Provided by Remko et al.:
  • single chip, single epoch, regular grid of intrinsic star positions PSFs(seeing,zenith angle, field angle(=dist-to-GS), GS=guidestar mag, lambda).

• set 1: sanity check: single PSF over FoV, no ADC effects
• set 2: add varying PSF over FoV
• set 3: add ADC
• Each set N(=1000?) random realizations at fixed exposure time (~few sec?) to verify ”~1/sqrt(time)” effects and measure repeatability/robustness analysis.
• (Somehow) assemble such images from existing material:
  • PSFs from LESIA
  • Remko's ADC distorsion models
  • Atul Deep's images?

• step0: ideal detectors (no detector rotations, pixelscale differences). Ideal MICADO: no geometric distorsion from MICADO optics.
• step1: include distorsions due to ADC (series of ADC designs?)
• step2: add distorsions due to atmosphere
• If not available: more relevance to analyse other set of images:
  • MAD/GeMS: +end-to-end test, -comparison to MICADO?
  • on-axis only: +towards MICADO-like, -assumptions on off-axis behavior?
• Scale astrometric challenge in units PSF/pixelscale
• can be done?
• Build astrometric testbed pipeline to process MICADO simulated images. Provided by Gijs et al.
• quantify source extraction accuracy (Sextractor extraction sufficient? Or starfinder required?): multiple realizations
• first single exposure astrometric solution based on reference exposure or true positions.
  • Quantify distorsions: parameterize or look-up table.
  • Current status: rms=1/10th pixel / 1/20th PSF (exposure-to-exposure) accuracy for real optical/near-IR data from telescope not optimized for astrometry. Accuracy of external catalog folded in.
• next astrom solution based on ensemble of (dithered) exposures (use current astrometric pipeline (SCAMP and/or LDAC))
• output: x,y,ra,dec of stars + parametric fit to systematic distorsions over FoV.

• Austria - NL MICADO meeting 9-10 sep (conflict Gijs)
  • astrom postdoc plan: high-precision astrometry (from local to global)
    • science cases: MICADO (Eline+Koen) + workout AGN
    • instruments: local astrom: MAD, GEMS, HST, MICADO-SIM,
    • global astrom: Euclid-KiDS
    • LDAC
  • Project postdoc/PhD plan on time-line: NL status: funding, HR

• Contact for MAORY perhaps via Roland Bacon (NOVA4 Instrumentation meeting)

See Documentation for MICADO Data Flow

• Sgr A* proper motions with NACO, Schoedel et al 2009
• Matthias Schoeck Developing Performance Estimates for High Precision Astrometry with TMT
• 11:40 Brent Ellerbroek Evaluation of Astrometry Errors due to the Optical Surface Distortions in Adaptive Optics Systems and Science Instruments
• 12:20 S. Mark Ammons On-Sky Pathfinder Tests of Calibrated MCAO Astrometry and Implications for MCAO on ELTs
• 17:00 Sylvana Yelda Astrometry in the Galactic center with TMT
• Deep et al. 2011

• GeMS pages
• ESO messenger 148, June 2012 article on 39m E-ELT design, also containing links to various other documents.
• http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/instruments/micado/micado.php?lang=de
• E-ELT construction proposal
• micado_0024_datareduction_v1.0.pdf
• http://ao4elt3.sciencesconf.org/ AO for ELTs conference 2013, Firenze