Upload
vanthuy
View
230
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Swift Calibration status On ground & in-flight Experience
Olivier Godet, Andy Beardmore, Giancarlo Cusumanoon behalf the XRT calibration team
Outlines
• Introduction - The Swift mission - The X-ray Telescope (XRT)- Problems in orbit
• The spectral response computation
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
• Current status
• Limiting factors
• Introduction - The Swift mission
The Swift mission(Gehrels et al., 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005)
Localisation of short GRBs - Study of the early GRB afterglow
BAT
XRT
Spacecraft
UVOT
BAT
UVOT
XRT
(0.2-10 keV)
(14-150 keV)BAT trigger (3 arc-minutes, 90%)
Swift automatically slews
NFIs observed after a few 100s (XRT <3 arc-seconds, 90%)
(UVOT < 0.5 arc-seconds, 90%)
Outlines
• Introduction- The Swift mission - The X-ray Telescope (XRT)- Problems in orbit
• The spectral response computation
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
• Current status
• Limiting factors
The X-ray Telescope (XRT)
JET-X mirrors
Focal plane
(Burrows et al., 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 165)
EEV CCD22: same as for the MOS cameras600 x 600 pixels – 2.36’’ per pixel
Effective area 135 cm2 1.5 keV20 cm2 8.1 keV
Spec. Res. (at launch): 140 eV at 5.9 keV
FOV: 23.6 arcmin x 23.6 arcmin
XRT band: 0.2-10 keV
The X-ray Telescope (XRT)4 observation modes (3 spectral modes)
(Hill et al., 2004, SPIE, 5165, 217)
Increasing count rate
Photon Counting(2-D info)
Windowed Timing(1-D info)
Low-rate Photo-Diode(no spatial info)
Readout time2.5 s
Readout time1.8 ms
Readout time0.14 ms
10 ro
ws
200 central pixels
Good events: grades 0-2 Good events: grades 0-5Pattern recognition same as the MOS cameras
Good events: grades 0-12
Outlines
• Introduction- The Swift mission - The X-ray Telescope (XRT)- Problems in orbit
- Loss of the thermo-electronic cooler- Micro-meteorite event- Bright Earth
• The spectral response computation
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
• Current status
• Limiting factors
- Loss of the thermo-electronic cooler- Micro-meteoroid event- Bright Earth
Loss of the Thermo-electronic Cooler
Swift LEO CCD not cooled by passive way like XMM-Newton
TEC to regulate actively the CCD temperature (at -100ºC)XRT
ThermalTests
UVOTActivation
Beginning XRTThermal Control
TEC Power
HeatingCCD
Without control, XRT regularly heats above -50ºC
Passive control of the temperature
The CCD temperature correlated with the Earth elevation angle. Take the dependency of the roll angle allows to optimize the predictions + Avoid to the Sun.
Condition: The XRT CCD temperature needs to stay below -50ºC to ensure good data.
(J. Kennea)
Predictions at +/-2ºC (still large variations depending on the weather ?)
How good is our prediction model?
Outlines
• Introduction- The Swift mission - The X-ray Telescope (XRT)- Problems in orbit
- Loss of the thermo-electronic cooler- Micro-meteoroid event- Bright Earth
• The spectral response computation
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
• Current status
• Limiting factors
Micro-meteorite event on 27th May 2005• Apparition of several bad columns in the central part of the CCD
Raw image
Micro-meteorite event on 27th May 2005
Loss of the LrPD mode
Mask out on-board of the main bad columns (PC, WT)Mask out on-ground of the adjacent bad columns ….
Outlines
• Introduction- The Swift mission - The X-ray Telescope (XRT)- Problems in orbit
- Loss of the thermo-electronic cooler- Micro-meteoroid event- Bright Earth
• The spectral response computation
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
• Current status
• Limiting factors
Bright Earth
Symptoms:• High background rates near Earth limb• Typically affects beginning and end of snapshots• Typically very soft
Start of snapshot Scattered Light approaching Earth Limb End of snapshot
EARTH ANGLE=160 EARTH ANGLE=125 EARTH ANGLE=104
T
Central blob
(C. Pagani)
Bright Earth
Mirrors
TAM
Inner thermal baffle
Outer thermal baffle
Telescope tube
Star tracker
Outlines
• Introduction - The mission Swift- The X-ray Telescope (XRT)- Problems in orbit
• The spectral response computation
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
• Current status
• Limiting factors
• The spectral response computation
Spectral response
Spectral response = ARF * RMF (QE)Spectral response = ARF * RMF (QE)
ARF generates using a Mirror Area ray-tracing code ARF = Mirror response + Filter responseCorrection for the vignetting applied to the ARF
C. Cusumano, ISAF INAF
ARF is tweaked on several calibratorsfor each XRT mode
Spectral response(O. Godet, A. Beardmore, UL)
RMF generates for each mode using a Monte-Carlo code(RMF computes for the central part of the CCD i.e. 200x200 pixels)
Input parameters
Core
OutputsNum
ber o
f eve
nts
to g
ener
ate
- Geometry (depletion layer, …)- Serial and parallel CTE- CCD temperature, EN- Photon energy + number of events- Readout mode (PC, WT and PD)
- Spectrum at a given energy - Response Matrix, QE
Photon interactions in depletion, field-free and substrate regionsSiKα,β fluorescenceCharge loss between Si02 and SiCharge spreadingCharge mappingReadout noiseEvent recognition
1 pixel of theCCD-22
Outlines
• Introduction - The mission Swift- The X-ray Telescope (XRT)- Problems in orbit
• The spectral response computation
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
• Current status
• Limiting factors
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
On-ground calibration
The XRT mirrors were calibrated at Panter (Germany) in 1996 for the JET-X calibration plan and again in 2000 during the XRT end-to-end calibration.
Quantum efficiency measurements of the EEV CCD22 detectors have been made at Leicester University and at the Orsay Synchrotron(from C(0.27 keV) to Cu(8.04 keV)).
On-ground calibration
On-ground calibration
Measured spectrum of the Si Kα and β lines + Bremsstrahlung continuum + OKα background fit by the pre-flight RMF
(K. Murkajee, A. Beardmore, UL)
Quantum Efficiency
27 µm depletion region35 µm depletion region
E (keV)
QE
PC Mode grade 0
Lab measurements of the QE in the PC mode at -80ºC(A. Abbey et al., UL)
(O. Godet, UL)
In-flight calibration sourcesCalibration phase: from Dec. 2004 to April 2005
WT
H1426+428 PC Effective area
Door source Fe55 line shoulder
Inter-calibration with other X-ray instruments (RXTE, XMM)
*
*
*
*
*
*
Outlines
• Introduction - The mission Swift- The X-ray Telescope (XRT)- Problems in orbit
• The spectral response computation
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
• Current status - Gain- PC & WT Low-energy response- Line shoulder- High energy redistribution- Si, O, Al edges- Status of the ARF
• Current status
Gain
The XRT gain as a function of temperature measured in PC mode using emission lines of Si, S, Ar, Ca and Fe from the supernova remnant Cas A.
Outlines
• Introduction - The mission Swift- The X-ray Telescope (XRT)- Problems in orbit
• The spectral response computation
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
• Current status - Gain- Line shoulder- PC & WT low-energy response- High energy redistribution- Si, O, Al edges- Status of the ARF
• Current status
Line shoulder(O. Godet, A. Beardmore)
Fits using the pre-flight RMF (v006)
PC Mode grades 0-12
Spectrum of the door sources
WT Mode grade 0
Spectrum of the door sources
Line shoulderA possible solution: increase artificially the threshold
PC Mode grades 0-12WT Mode grade 0
Spectrum of the door sources
WT and PC RMFs released (v007)
Issues in the RMFs v007Steps in the Quantum Efficiency plot (variations < 5%)
No noticeable consequences to fit the data (GRBs or transients)
Charge cloud RMF
Change of the 2-D Gaussian shape of the charge cloud in the field-free region of the CCD.
Grade 4
threshold
2-D Gaussian
threshold
New 2-D shapewith extended wings
Grade 22
Increasing of the sub-threshold losses
Charge cloud RMF
RMF v007
RMF v009 in development
PC RMF new charge cloud shape
Outlines
• Introduction - The mission Swift- The X-ray Telescope (XRT)- Problems in orbit
• The spectral response computation
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
• Current status - Gain- Line shoulder- PC & WT low-energy response- High energy redistribution- Si, O, Al edges- Status of the ARF
• Current status
Low energy response in the PC mode
RMF v007
Response at low energy
Introduction of a loss function given in Popp et al. (2000) at low energy (E < 2 keV) (already used by EPIC-pn)
=)(zFc
lzBS
+
0
τ/)(1 lzAe −−−
Dz ≥0<z
lz ≤≤0
Dzl <≤
or
where L, S, B, c and τ are free parametersD=280 µm
Response at low energy
RXJ 1856 in PC mode grade 0
Spectral parameters
NH = 4(+6/-3) 1019 cm-2
kT = 62 (+4/-3) eVerg cm-2 s-1
Chandra measurements
NH = 9.5±0.3 1019 cm-2
kT = 63.5±0.2 eVF = 0.99 10-11erg cm-2 s-1
1126.019.0 1081.0 −+
− ×=F
PC RMFs with improvement of the low-energy response released(v008)
Model: wabs*bb
Flux given in 0.2-10 keV band
Outlines
• Introduction - The mission Swift- The X-ray Telescope (XRT)- Problems in orbit
• The spectral response computation
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
• Current status - Gain- Line shoulder- PC & WT low-energy response- High energy redistribution- Si, O, Al edges- Status of the ARF
• Current status
Stratford - XRT Team Meeting – May 16-17th 2006
RMF v008
nH = 5.6 x 1021 cm-2
High energy shelf (WT)
High energy shelf (WT)
Rescale the shelf Need to use several absorbed sources
High energy shelf (WT)
WT g0-2
Model: wabs * (pow+bb)
WT g0
Outlines
• Introduction - The mission Swift- The X-ray Telescope (XRT)- Problems in orbit
• The spectral response computation
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
• Current status - Gain- Line shoulder- PC & WT low-energy response- High energy redistribution- Si, O, Al edges- Status of the ARF
• Current status
Model: vphabs*pow+ Al edge (1.5596 keV) Abund loddersAbund 0, Ne left freeAb(Fe) = 0.456 (fixed RGSvalue) + gain in XSPEC
WT grade 0 RMF v007
Crab
Dip residuals seen in the fits around Si edge. Depend on brightnessof the source.
Si edge
O edge?
WT grade 0-2 RMF v008
Possible energy scale offset?Contamination?RMF problem?
Outlines
• Introduction - The mission Swift- The X-ray Telescope (XRT)- Problems in orbit
• The spectral response computation
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
• Current status - Gain- Line shoulder- PC & WT low-energy response- High energy redistribution- Si, O, Al edges- Status of the ARF
• Current status
Status of the ARF
NH = 0.35 ± 0.04
Γ = 2.10 ± 0.01
Pre-flight ARF v006RMF v007
Status of the ARF
V008: New ARF with a new spider design
v008
v007
Empirical patch for the Si edge
v008
v007
(G. Cusumano, A. Beardmore, O. Godet)
Performance of the WT ARF
Performance of the PC ARF
Systematic uncertainty (0.3-10 keV) ~ 5%Systematic in the absolute flux ~ 10%
Outlines
• Introduction - The mission Swift- The X-ray Telescope (XRT)- Problems in orbit
• The spectral response computation
• On-ground & In-flight calibration strategy
• Current status
• Limiting factors• Limiting factors- Bright Earth- Bias subtraction problems
Energy offsets in PC and WT
PC energy scale offset
PC energy scale offset(A. Beardmore, UL)
Pre-dip dip
Bright Earth or Glint
PC energy scale offset
PC energy scale offset
12 3 45 67 8 9
Corner pixel mean (Abbey, Tyler, Osborne, UL)grade 0 event
Mainly due to Bright Earth and thermally induced charge
Correlation with Bright Earth angle (and temperature)
Grade 0
PC energy scale offset
Dip Pre-dip
Dip
Pre-dip
offsets: -10eV-20eV
Summary •Even if not nominally operates, the instrument is globally well understood and calibrated (astrometry, centroid, psf, boresight, …).
•Still some issues about the spectral response (energy scale offset, difference of the effective area between PC and WT mode, edges)
•Start the planning of long term calibration (mainly the evolution of the low energy response. So far, no change noted)
•Now regular monitoring of the CTE and regular update of the gain file, RMFs
How the CCD will evolve with time and proton damage?
WT energy scale offset
•WT bias row taken during slew. Subtracted on-board.• Last 20 pixels telemetred with each WT pseudo-frame
Example bias row + 10 last 20 pixels
WT energy scale offset
Possible contamination by Bright Earth
WT energy scale offset
30-40eV shift
With bias correction• Computes last 20 pix median value • Apply a column-by-column correction
Comparison of the PC/WT energy scale
Comparison of the PC/WT energy scale
PC/WT ARF differences (A. Beardmore, C. Cusumano, O. Godet)
WT arf is 15-20 % higher than PC at ~ 1 keV, 5-10 % higher at ~5 keVsimilar area at higher energies
G. Cusumano
PC/WT ARF differences
20%
10%
Bad columns & hot pixels
RXJ 0720
Effect of the bad columns
The Burst Alert Telescope (BAT)(Barthelmy et al., 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 143)
5 times more sensitive than BATSE
The UV/Optical Telescope (UVOT)(Roming et al., 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 95)
UVOT “copy” of the Optical Monitor onboard XMM-Newton
UVOT covers the range 170-650 nm
FOV = 17’ x 17’
Photons register on a microchannelplate intensified CCD (MIC)
M101
Micro-meteorite event on 25th May 2005
Conclusion: The rapid evolution in the brightness of the main hot column seen late 2005 has stopped.
Difference in Raw frame, 2005 days 277 and day 355
Difference in Raw frame, 2005 day 358 and 2006 day 124
XDS XDS