GeminiFocus April 2015 | Page 14

Once the M1 model was fixed, we still had a somewhat intermediary situation, where elongation was present, but to a lesser extent. After a few simple tests, we determined that the LGSWFS system was the problem, since running GeMS with only the Deformable Mirror (DM) conjugated to 0 km (DM0), used essentially in a ground layer adaptive optics mode, showed no signs of the elongation seen while running in a full MCAO mode with DM at an altitude of 9 km (DM9; Figure 2). This indicated that we had something odd coming from the LGSWFS that was being offloaded to the DM when conjugated to an altitude of 9 km (DM9). During two further runs in 2014 (May and June), we acquired some science data using a software patch that removed a semi-static shape on the DM9. As several optical phenomena could cause this issue, the AO team decided to shutdown the GeMS system in concert with the general telescope shutdown and proceed with a more thorough investigation inside Canopus — the AO bench that is the heart of GeMS. To maximize the effectiveness of this shutdown, we approached previous GeMS AO team members François Rigaut, Benoit Neichel, and Marcos van Dam, all of whom agreed to assist the current AO team in diagnosing and correcting the issue. Figure 1: Example of the elongation issue present on GeMS/GSAOI images. Figure 2: GeMS/GSAOI image using a groundlayer adaptive optics reconstructor. 12 In early 2014, during the first run of Semester 2014A, our team discovered that stars imaged with the Gemini South Adaptive Optics Imager (GSAOI) were elongated especially at the edges of the field, yielding poor performance (up to 250 milliarcseconds). One of the issues uncovered was an incorrect procedure used for saving Zernike coefficients (that control the figure of the Gemini South 8.1-meter primary mirror (M1)). Figure 1 illustrates the image elongation issue. GeminiFocus Finding the Source, and a Solution, for the Elongation During August 2014, we removed Canopus from the telescope and installed it in the instrument laboratory on Cerro Pachón. After several tests, we found that its five field stops were not properly aligned with the rest of the optical train, thus vignetting the beam. The vignetting pattern was different for each of the five WFS, which explained the unusual semi-static pattern on DM9. April 2015