Clélia Robert 1 , Jean-Marc Conan 1 , Damien Gratadour 2 ,

Shack-Hartmann tomographic wavefront reconstruction using LGS:

Analysis of spot elongation and fratricide effect

Clélia Robert1, Jean-Marc Conan1, Damien Gratadour2,

Thierry Fusco1,Cyril Petit1, Jean-François Sauvage1, Nicolas Muller1

11 ONERA, ONERA, 22 Obs. Meudon (LESIA) Obs. Meudon (LESIA)

2

AO

4ELT

Par

is,

June

22-

26 2

009

Expected Noise for LGS-HO-WFS

Turbulence

Sodium ~10 km

~20 km

~90 km

• Backscattering of the laser in the Sodium layer at an altitude of ~90 km

• Laser emission:10 km thickness• Paralax effect on ELT

Spot elongation ~ 10 " @ 42 m• Anisoplanatism effects• Non-uniformity of the Na density profile• Rayleigh scattering

Sodium layer

Detector plane

Pupil plane

3

AO

4ELT

Par

is,

June

22-

26 2

009

Outline

• Modal wavefront tomography & model description

• Central/Edge LGS launching

• Impact of fratricide effect

• Number of reconstructed layers

• Up to 32 m telescope

• Conclusion & perspectives

4

AO

4ELT

Par

is,

June

22-

26 2

009

Multi-LGS wavefront reconstruction

• Model of measurements:

errorswavefront

Wavefront sensor(Shack-Hartmann)

Covariance of the errors (centred)

• Minimum Variance (=MAP): Covariance of the wavefront

• Propagation of multi-LGS slope noise

• Modal matrix-based simulation tool for {tomography + noise} wavefront error (WFE)

Errors correlated on x and y

5

Principle of tomographic simulations

The atmosphere is not scaled vertically!

1:2 scaling

ELT, 42m

6 Sodium LGS: altitude 90km

Science target

21m

6 LGS altitude : 45 km

• Telescope diameter 21 m, 42x42 sous-pupilles, central occultation factor 0.3• No distorsion of Sodium profile•Images = elongated Gaussian, subap. FoV 10x10 arcsec^2, pixscale=0.75 “• Modal (KL) matrix-based MAP wavefront reconstruction with analytical WCoG • Tip/tilt LGS measurement, plane waves (!)

Sketches courtesy R. Myers

10 km LGS thickness -> 5 km,

6

AO

4ELT

Par

is,

June

22-

26 2

009

Downscaled simulation (1:2)•Telescope = 21m & 0.5 m subap

•6 LGS on 1 min ring (MAORY-like) •Medium LGS flux:

500 photons/subap/frame & 3 e- RON

Tomographic performance M1 ≡ M2

about 59 nmEven a small gain for edge launching

Edge launching gives more uniform propagation onto modes !

Impact of launching scheme: Central (M2) vs edge (M1)

[no fratricide effect]

7

AO

4ELT

Par

is,

June

22-

26 2

009

Spot elongation: launch from M1 side… why does it work?

Lowest elongation where the layer is seen only once

Courtesy M. Tallon & al.

Information redundancyfor large elongated spots

Side launchCentral launch

Schematic sketch with 3 LGSs

8

AO

4ELT

Par

is,

June

22-

26 2

009

performed by D. Gratadour (LESIA) based on Gemini code

code has been validated with experimental data (Gemini...)

common activity for MAORY / ATLAS / EAGLE studies

– Currently used for LGS tomography analysis (see next slides) – Will be used for Optimal LGS WFS algorithm definition & WFS design (correlation)

Modeling of fratricide background

Examples of fratricide effects21 m / 6 LGS (launch behind M2)

9

AO

4ELT

Par

is,

June

22-

26 2

009

MAORY-like case with fratricide

Downscaled simulation • Telescope = 21m & 0.5 m subap

• 6 LGS on 1 min ring •Medium LGS flux:

500 photons/subap/frame & 3 e- RON

rms error 20% smaller with edge launching

10

AO

4ELT

Par

is,

June

22-

26 2

009

Summary of fratricide effect impact

LGS

constellation ring diameter xx

MAORY

1 arcmin

ATLAS

2.1 arcmin

EAGLE

3.6 arcmin

Low

LGS flux

RON=0 e-

+ 47 nm

[+ 15 nm]

+46 nm

[+13 nm]

+47 nm

[+12 nm]

Medium LGS flux

RON=3 e-+37 nm

[+11 nm]

+38 nm

[+10 nm]

+36 nm

[+ 8 nm]

Downscaled simulation • Telescope = 21m & 0.5 m subaperure

• 6 LGS on xx arcmin ring

Quite uniform and moderate impact for each LGS asterism (in quadratic difference)Quite uniform and moderate impact for each LGS asterism (in quadratic difference)

11

AO

4ELT

Par

is,

June

22-

26 2

009

Impact of the number of reconstructed layers

ATLAS project

LGS asterism 4.2 arcmin

WFE (nm) 3 layers 5 layers

Centre with elongation

60 58

Edge with elongation

59 56

Without elongation

42 39

WFE stable with 10 reconstructed layers in a 10 m telescope simulation Impact of Cn2 profile uncertainties in altitude and strength ??

12

AO

4ELT

Par

is,

June

22-

26 2

009

Up to 32 m telescope simulation

• Fast & memory efficient developments for 42m simulations • Modal KL matrix-based MAP reconstruction, sparse matrices multiplication and storage• WFE still grows up in a 32 m telescope case: More unseen modes up to 2600 KL involved

Medium LGS flux, 2 reconstructed layers, with spider

Telescope diameter

10 m 16 m 21 m 32 m

Center 41 53 56 69

Edge 42 56 55 71

Not ellong. 31 39 38 49

13

AO

4ELT

Par

is,

June

22-

26 2

009

1. Development of a of a fast & memory efficient modal matrix-based MAPMAP reconstructor using “analytical” WCoG [1,2]

[1] Sandrine Thomas et al, MNRAS 2008, [2] Laura Schreiber et al, MNRAS 2009

2. Edge launching is better than central launchingRMS error 20% smaller when fratricide effect is accounted for

warning: LGS spot anisoplanatism neglected…

3. WFS noise model: “slope equivalent uniform noise”factor 2 reduction in noise variance wrt simplistic single LGS channel + not regularized reconstruction

even with relaxed requirement on photon flux (typically 500 ph/subap/frame with 3 e- RON)

Confirmed on 32m case

4. Pupil segmentation (spider, fratricide effect) has limited effect with regularized reconstruction (MAP)

Conclusion

14

AO

4ELT

Par

is,

June

22-

26 2

009

• Fast modal reconstructor development

• Spherical versus plane waves tomography & comparison with zonal E2E tool & Fourier codes (Cyril Petit presentation)

• LGS tomography activity gives updated “slope equiv. uniform noise” for

Fourier code update of MAORY / ATLAS / EAGLE projects (presentations of Diolaiti, Fusco, Rousset)

• Analysis of LGS spot anisoplanatism (phase and scintillation)[3] Scintillation and phase anisoplanatism in Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensing. Clélia Robert et al. JOSA A, Vol. 23, Issue 3, pp. 613-624 (2006).

Impact through tomographic reconstruction: see Nicolas Muller’s Poster

• Impact of Cn2 profile uncertainties in altitude and strength (presentations of Conan, Fusco)

Perspectives