Hubble Space Telescope observers are presented with several choices of instruments. In many situations, an observer will have to make a selection between complementary cameras, for example, ACS/WFC and WFC3/UVIS, or complementary spectrographs, COS and STIS.
CTE for ACS/WFC has degraded to the level expected for more than nine years aboard HST. Much effort, both internal and external to the ACS Team, has gone into mitigating the science impact of ACS/WFC charge transfer inefficiency. The ACS Team has focused on developing a pixel-based CTE correction technique described by Anderson & Bedin (
2010, PASP, 122, 1035) to correct for CTE losses. This correction technique has recently been incorporated in the CALACS pipeline. Please consult the
ACS Web page for the latest details. CTE can also be mitigated by positioning a target close to one of the readout amplifiers.
For this cycle, Python Exposure Time Calculators (ETCs) for all instruments are available and can be found at http://etc.stsci.edu/. ETCs use a new computing tool called
PySynphot (that has replaced the STSDAS
synphot software package), and has access to the most up-to-date reference files.
As always, please consult the Cycle 21 Announcement Web page for the latest information on the status of HST instrumentation.
In the far-ultraviolet (λ < 2000 Å) the ACS/SBC is the recommended camera over STIS/FUV-MAMA because it is more sensitive and has a larger number of available filters. For the near-ultraviolet (~2000 Å
< λ < 3500 Å), WFC3/UVIS is generally recommended over STIS/NUV-MAMA because of its larger field of view and superior sensitivity.
Table 4.1 contains a detailed comparison between WFC3/UVIS and STIS/NUV.22
WFC3/UVIS has the highest throughput among HST imaging instrument in the wavelength range extending from its blue cut-off (at 200 nm) to ~400 nm. Beyond that wavelength range, the choice of which
HST instrument is best suited for observations depends on the specific requirements of the science program.
Although the absolute throughput of ACS is higher at optical wavelengths, the excellent WFC3/UVIS efficiency in the range of 400 nm to 700 nm, coupled with its 20% smaller pixels, 50% lower readnoise, relatively small CTE corrections, and much lower dark current can make it the preferred instrument for some types of observations. For instance, WFC3/UVIS would be a better choice over ACS/WFC for primary science observations with
HST that require several orbits to coadd signal from many exposures, in which case WFC3 may be the preferred instrument for even broadband F606W and F814W observations of faint sources. The choice between the two instruments will require careful predictions from the respective ETCs, factoring in detailed observational setup. Of course, WFC3 contains many more filters over its complete wavelength range than ACS/WFC, yet ACS offers a 50% larger field of view, both considerations potentially important for users.
Table 4.2 presents a detailed comparison between WFC3/UVIS and ACS/WFC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Broadband throughput1 @ B,V, I, z
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the near-infrared (8000 Å < λ < 25,000 Å) the WFC3/IR has superior throughput and a much larger field of view than the now-defunct NICMOS. The data obtained with WFC3/IR should be easier to reduce and calibrate due to accurate bias subtraction made possible by the presence of reference pixels. WFC3/IR is currently the only option to perform near-infrared observations with
HST because NICMOS is not be available for observations in Cycle 21.
Table 4.3 provides a comparison between WFC3/IR and three NICMOS channels.
The following four figures present a graphical comparison of the HST imaging detectors with respect to several useful parameters: system throughput, discovery efficiency, limiting magnitude, and extended source survey time.
System throughputs as a function of wavelength are shown in Figure 4.2. The plotted quantities are end-to-end throughputs, including filter transmissions calculated at the pivot wavelength of each broad-band filter.
Figure 4.5 shows the extended source survey time to attain ABMAG = 26 mag in an area of 100 arcmin
2.
For observations requiring resolutions of R > 15,000, COS is more sensitive than STIS by factors of 10 to 30 in the far-ultraviolet (~1150 Å <
λ < 2050 Å) and by factors of two to three in the near-ultraviolet (~1700 Å <
λ < 3200 Å). COS also has a unique but limited capability to observe wavelengths between 900 Å and 1150 Å. However, it does not operate in the optical. Please refer to the
COS Instrument Handbook for important factors concerning COS observations in this wavelength range.
COS is optimized for observing faint point source targets, making it the instrument of choice for such objects. COS has an aperture of 2.5" in diameter. COS/FUV spatial resolution is limited to 1", while COS/NUV spatial resolution is approximately 0.05". However, for sources larger than approximately 1" perpendicular to the dispersion direction, portions of the spectrum may overlap on the NUV detector. Therefore, when spatial resolution is required, STIS is usually the preferred instrument. STIS first order NUV and FUV MAMA modes have a spatial resolution of about 0.05" over a 25" long slit, while STIS CCD spectral modes (1900 Å - 10,200 Å) have a spatial resolution of about 0.1" with a 52" long slit.
STIS high dispersion echelle modes have significantly higher spectral resolution than COS (R ~100,000 vs. R ~20,000), which is essential for some science programs. In addition, the STIS/NUV medium resolution echelle mode, E230M, has a wider wavelength coverage in a single exposure (~800 Å) than does a single COS/NUV medium resolution exposure (100 Å to 120 Å in three discontinuous pieces). Despite the sensitivity advantage of COS in the NUV, when complete coverage of a broad wavelength range is needed, STIS is the more efficient choice. STIS also has a wider variety of apertures than COS; this includes a number of neutral density apertures that makes STIS the preferred instrument for many UV bright objects. Given the low usage of most COS/NUV modes, it is likely that calibrations for comparable STIS/NUV modes will be more robust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Background 2 (counts/sec/resel) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The throughputs of COS and STIS in the ultraviolet, including the effect of the HST OTA, are shown in
Figure 4.6. STIS throughputs do not include slit losses. The effective area of COS modes below 1150 Å is shown in
Figure 4.7.
