SKA Specifications Tiger Team Dish with Focal Plane Array - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 19
About This Presentation
Title:

SKA Specifications Tiger Team Dish with Focal Plane Array

Description:

These are not needed to generate the image. Redundant Fourier components ... John Kot, Christophe Granet. But note that for a given size PAF the FoV ~ 1/F (MK) ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:47
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 20
Provided by: ekersand
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: SKA Specifications Tiger Team Dish with Focal Plane Array


1
SKA Specifications Tiger TeamDish with Focal
Plane Array
  • Ron Ekers Peter Dewdney
  • Manchester, Sep 28 2007

2
Radio Telescope Imagingimage v aperture plane
?
Active elements A/?2
Dishes act as concentrators Reduces FoV Reduces
active elements Cooling possible
Increase FoV Increases active elements
3
Redundancy (1)
1unit 5x 2units 4x 3units 3x 4units 2x 5units
1x 15
n(n-1)/2
1 2 3 4 5
6
4
Redundancy (2)
1unit 1x 2units 1x 3units 1x 4units 1x 5units
0x 6units 1x 7units 1x etc
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8
5
Dynamic Rangesparse or filled arrays
  • Aperture plane arrays can be made sparse
  • They measure redundant Fourier components
  • These are not needed to generate the image
  • Redundant Fourier components improve dynamic
    range
  • Optical telescopes have worse aperture errors
    than Radio
  • So why do they have better dynamic range
  • Its all in the redundant Fourier components
  • Image plane arrays cannot be sparse
  • You miss information
  • Over sampling (many elements/beam) will improve
    dynamic range
  • Compact core of SKA has a lot of redundancy and
    should have good dynamic range

6
Multibeam Dishes or Multiple Dish Arrays
Structural ? signal processing cost
7
Phased Array Feeds
  • Focal plane arrays
  • Phased Array Feeds (PAF)
  • ASTRON Vivaldi
  • ATNF Checkerboard
  • Cluster feeds
  • Parkes Multibeam

8
Some PAF designs
9
Phased Array Feed Dish Solutions
  • Provides mechanism for science-based optimization
    of Ae/Tsys SS independently.
  • A risk mitigator for expensive antennas?
  • Substitutes FoV for Ae/Tsys in survey speed
    equation (Ae/Tsys)2 ?FOV.
  • Success depends on cost of PAFs versus antenna
    cost.
  • Moores Law cost component to beamformer gt
    reduces over time.
  • In the long run may be the only way to get high
    survey speed.
  • Development time could be an issue.
  • Possibly need to future-proof antennas and
    other things to permit substitution, especially
    if Pathfinders develop directly into SKA.
  • More control over feed pattern
  • potentially be able to reduce polarization
    systematics and increase efficiency gt lower
    system costs.
  • Can optimise beam for science (sidelobes v G/T v
    G)
  • Tsys potentially dominant technical problem.
  • Cyro-cooling may be expensive (capital
    operating).
  • At lt1.4 GHz promising uncooled solutions are
    being developed.

10
SPF v PAF Optimised for Survey Speed
  • PAF
  • Tsys35K
  • 3GHz PAF
  • 25GHz dish
  • SPF (18K)
  • Tsys 18K
  • Single Rx
  • Max 25GHz

11
LNSD v PAF Optimised for Survey Speed
  • PAF
  • Tsys35K
  • 3GHz PAF
  • 25GHz dish
  • SPF (18K)
  • Tsys 18K
  • Single Rx
  • Max 25GHz
  • SPF (26K)
  • Tsys 26K

12
PAF cost break down Optimised for Survey Speed
  • SSFOM3.2.108
  • Antenna to 25GHz
  • 3GHz PAF

13
LNSD cost break down Optimised for Survey Speed
SSFOM3.2.108 Antenna to 25GHz
14
Survey Speed or Sensitivity?
15
Sensitivity v Survey Speed for const cost
  • FoV set by
  • 15m dish PAF size
  • SPF dish size
  • Tsys 35K
  • ( for both )
  • SSFoM
  • FoV(A/T)2
  • assumes same bandwidth
  • Calc at 1.4GHz
  • Bandwidth
  • 375 MHz for both
  • Computing
  • 5km imaging

16
Sensitivity v Survey Speed for const cost
  • FoV set by
  • 15m dish PAF size
  • SPF dish size
  • Tsys 35K
  • ( for both )
  • SSFoM
  • FoV(A/T)2
  • assumes same bandwidth
  • Calc at 1.4GHz
  • Bandwidth
  • 375 MHz for both
  • Computing
  • 5km imaging

17
Sensitivity v Survey Speed for const cost
  • FoV set by
  • 15m dish PAF size
  • SPF dish size
  • Tsys 35K, 25K
  • SSFoM
  • FoV(A/T)2
  • assumes same bandwidth
  • Bandwidth
  • 375 MHz for both
  • Computing
  • 5km imaging

18
Challenges for PAFs
19
Dual reflector
  • Inspired by
  • Evidence that FPA wanted F/Dgt0.4
  • Weight for possible cooling
  • Desire for wide fielding to support multiple
    feeds/FPAs
  • Possible large reduction in feed support blockage
    dynamic range
  • Options considered
  • Cassegrain, Schwarzchild, shaped to optimise FOV
  • Problems
  • Sub-reflector blockage - 7
  • Sub-reflector spillover - 7
  • Cf perhaps 10 loss due to FPA with F/D0.4 prime
    focus
  • Multiple reflections are a potential problem but
    seem OK - work proceeding

John Kot, Christophe Granet
But note that for a given size PAF the FoV 1/F
(MK)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com