Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:26:04.054Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

SOWAT: High-resolution imaging with only partial AO correction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Felix Bosco
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie (MPIA), Königstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany email: [email protected]
Jörg-Uwe Pott
Affiliation:
Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie (MPIA), Königstuhl 17, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany email: [email protected]
Rainer Schödel
Affiliation:
Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (IAA-CSIC), Glorieta de la Astronomía S/N, E-18008 Granada, Spain
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Observations of dense stellar systems such as globular clusters (GCs) are limited in resolution by the optical aberrations induced by atmospheric turbulence (atmospheric seeing). At the example of holographic speckle imaging, we now study, to which degree image reconstruction algorithms are able to remove residual aberrations from a partial adaptive optics (AO) correction, such as delivered from ground-layer AO (GLAO) systems. Simultaneously, we study, how such algorithms benefit from being applied to pre-corrected instead of natural point-spread functions (PSFs). We find that using partial AO corrections already lowers the demands on the holography reference star by ∼3 mag, what makes more fields accessible for this technique, and also that the discrete integration times may be chosen about 2–3× longer, since the effective wavefront evolution is slowed down by removing the perturbation power.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
© International Astronomical Union 2020

Footnotes

Fellow of the International Max Planck Research School on Astronomy and Cosmic Physics at the University of Heidelberg

References

Bates, R. H. T. & Cady, F. M. 1980, Optics Communications, 32, 365, 10.1016/0030-4018(80)90261-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosco, F., Pott, J.-U., & Schödel, R. 2019, PASP, 131, 044502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noll, R. J. 1976, Journal of the Optical Society of America (1917–1983), 66, 207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabien, S., Ageorges, N., Barl, L., et al. 2010, Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 7736, Adaptive Optics Systems II, 77360E–77360E–12Google Scholar
Rigaut, F. & Van Dam, M. 2013, Proceedings of the Third AO4ELT Conference, ed. S. Esposito & L. Fini, 18Google Scholar
Rothberg, B., Kuhn, O., Power, J., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, 1070205Google Scholar
Schödel, R. & Girard, J. H. 2012, Messenger, 150, 26Google Scholar
Schödel, R., Yelda, S., Ghez, A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar