Previously published work and individual contributions

This thesis would not have been possible without the direct and indirect contributions of numerous people. This is true of all scientific research, but instrumentation development perhaps more than anything else. Most of this thesis is comprised of previously published work which benefited from strong contributions of different co-authors. As such, I would like to clarify individual contributions to the different chapters of this thesis. I apologize in advance for inadvertent omissions which may have occurred.

The two chapters of Part 1 are both based on previously published work. Chapter 2 was published essentially in its entirety as

[ 1 ] Bottom, Michael, Philip S. Muirhead, John Asher Johnson, and Cullen H. Blake. “Optimizing Doppler Surveys for Planet Yield.” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 125, no. 925 (2013): 240-251.

Chapter 2 is a combination of a paper and a conference proceeding

[ 2 ] Swift, Jonathan J., Michael Bottom, John A. Johnson, Jason T. Wright, Nate McCrady, Robert A. Wittenmyer, Peter Plavchan et al. “Miniature Exoplanet Radial Velocity Array (MINERVA) I. Design, Commissioning, and First Science Results.” Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, Volume 1, Issue 2 (21 April 2015)

Plavchan, Reed L. Riddle et al. “Design, motivation, and on-sky tests of an efficient fiber cou- pling unit for 1-meter class telescopes.” In SPIE Astronomical Telescopes+ Instrumentation, pp. 91472E-91472E. International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2014.

For Chapter 2, John Johnson defined the initial problem and gave guidance on how one might go about solving it. Phil Muirhead had many useful insights on measuring radial velocities, and provided patient help and insight on the astronomical tools available in the IDL programming language. Cullen Blake assisted with the statistical aspects of confirming the existence of planets based on multiple observations, and also had many useful comments on an early draft of the paper. I wrote and performed the numerical simulations, derived the different figures of merit, produced all the figures, and wrote up the work.

Chapter 3 is a large effort of a number of people from many universities, and many talented indi- viduals contributed directly and indirectly. For the initial high-level system design, Philip Muirhead and I combined my results from Chapter 1 to calculate the survey yield and developed hardware requirements with these results, including things like telescope make and model, fiber type, spectro- graph requirements, etc. (The survey yield calculation was subsequently improved by Nate McCrady and Chani Nava, who found results consistent with the initial calculation presented in this work to within the uncertainties.) Phil and I also both worked on the pointing control system, with Phil contributing the initial hardware design and myself responsible for simplification and improvements. The construction, testing, and validation of the pointing control system was done by myself with assistance from a high school summer student (now Caltech undergraduate) Erich Herzig. Kristina Hogstrom and myself set up the original computer control system of the telescope, with invaluable assistance from Kevin Ivarsen of Planewave Instruments. Kristina and Reed Riddle wrote the initial telescope and observatory control code in C++, which was eventually replaced by a Python version. I wrote the original Python control library for the telescopes with assistance from Kevin Ivarsen, which was also vastly expanded and improved by the efforts of Jason Eastman and many capable undergraduates.

The most significant person of all for the development of MINERVA detailed in Chapter 3 was Jonathan Swift, the project manager, who led the following efforts: telescope throughput validation, photometric validation, and site selection. On the throughput validation and photometric validation, we both performed the measurements; Jon analyzed the data and discovered the initial problem with the mirror coatings, and their solution. (I verified his results independently.) Jon led the published MINERVA paper [[ 2]], writing most of it. The text in Chapter 2 is all my own except for the sections I contributed in that publication. We participated equally in the site selection. Without Jon’s leadership and contributions, MINERVA would be far behind where it is today.

With respect to the last four chapters dealing with the Stellar Double Coronagraph and its tangents, all consist of previously published work except the last, which is currently in the process

of being published. The first three were published as

[ 4 ] Bottom, M., J. C. Shelton, J. K. Wallace, R. Bartos, J. Kuhn, D. Mawet, B. Mennesson, R. Burruss, E. Serabyn. “Stellar Double Coronagraph: a multistage coronagraphic platform at Palomar observatory” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, in press

[ 5 ] Bottom, Michael, Jonas Kuhn, Bertrand Mennesson, Dimitri Mawet, Jean C. Shelton, J. Kent Wallace, Eugene Serabyn. “Resolving the delta Andromedae spectroscopic binary with direct imaging”. The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 11 (June 2015)

[ 6 ] Bottom, M., Bruno Femenia, Elsa Huby, Dimitri Mawet, Eugene Serabyn. “Speckle nulling wavefront control for Palomar and Keck” In SPIE Astronomical Telescopes+ Instrumentation, International Society for Optics and Photonics, 2016

[ 7 ] Bottom, M., James K. Wallace, Randall D. Bartos, J. Chris Shelton, Eugene Serabyn “Speckle suppression and companion detection using coronagraphic phase-shifting interferometry”. Sub- mitted to Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

The Stellar Double Coronagraph, the paper comprising Chapter 4, benefited hugely from a very capable team from the Jet Propulsion Lab, led by Eugene Serabyn. Chris Shelton designed the optics and electronics of the SDC; Randy Bartos designed the optomechanics. System assembly and commissioning was done by myself, Chris Shelton, Kent Wallace, and Jonas Kuhn. I was primarily responsible for the initial assembly/alignment of the optics, electronics, and instrument control system, both low and high level, including the closed loop pointing control system to the adaptive optics system. In every single one of my responsibilities, the result was made much better due to input and guidance from Chris and Kent. I was also responsible for running all of the observations, writing the data analysis pipeline (with very much help from Jonas Kuhn), analyzing the data, and publishing all the results.

In Chapter 5, myself, Jonas Kuhn, and Eugene Serabyn performed the observation of the com- panion. Bertrand Mennesson and Eugene Serabyn provided useful guidance on how to interpret the data, and Jonas Kuhn had many comments which improved early drafts, as well as providing one of the final publication-quality images. I performed all the data analysis with code I wrote, and wrote all the text of the published work.

Chapter 6 involves wavefront control software I wrote, with the first version of the code was tested by Elsa Huby and Dimitri Mawet. For the results specific to the TMAS instrument, camera interface software was provided by Jennifer Milburn; Rich Dekany also contributed to the testing on TMAS. Bruno Femenia was immensely helpful in porting the software to the Keck Observatory, and without his resourcefulness, this wavefront control code would never have been able to make it

to the Keck big leagues. The general software design itself benefited greatly from discussions with Chris Shelton, Kent Wallace, Rick Burruss, and Eugene Serabyn.

The work described in Chapter 7 also benefited from many of the same contributors as before. Kent Wallace and Randy Bartos designed the optics and mechanics of the pistoning mirror. Kent and I installed and aligned the interferometer in the SDC. The initial commissioning and debugging was done by me, with help from Kent Wallace and Eugene Serabyn. The controls and calibration system, on-sky observations, data analysis, and interpretation were all done by me. Of course, the paper benefitted from insights of the other co-authors, which improved it and for which I am grateful.

Chapter 2

Part I–Optimizing Doppler

Surveys for Planet Yield

Abstract

One of the most promising methods of discovering nearby, low-mass planets in the habitable zones of stars is the precision radial velocity technique. However, there are many challenges that must be overcome to efficiently detect low-amplitude Doppler signals. This is both due to the required instrumental sensitivity and the limited amount of observing time. In this paper, we examine statistical and instrumental effects on precision radial velocity detection of extrasolar planets, an approach by which we maximize the planet yield in a fixed amount of observing time available on a given telescope. From this perspective, we show that G and K dwarfs observed at 400-600 nm are the best targets for surveys complete down to a given planet mass and out to a specified orbital period. Overall we find that M dwarfs observed at 700-800 nm are the best targets for habitable-zone planets, particularly when including the effects of systematic noise floors. Also, we give quantitative specifications of the instrumental stability necessary to achieve the required velocity precision.

2.1

Overview

One of the most promising methods of discovering nearby, low-mass planets in the habitable zones of stars is the precision radial velocity technique. However, there are many challenges that must be overcome to efficiently detect low-amplitude Doppler signals. This is both due to the required instrumental sensitivity and the limited amount of observing time. In this section, we examine statistical and instrumental effects on precision radial velocity detection of extrasolar planets, an approach by which we maximize the planet yield in a fixed amount of observing time available on a given telescope. From this perspective, we show that G and K dwarfs observed at 400-600 nm are the best targets for surveys complete down to a given planet mass and out to a specified orbital period. Overall we find that M dwarfs observed at 700-800 nm are the best targets for habitable-zone planets, particularly when including the effects of systematic noise floors. Also, we give quantitative specifications of the instrumental stability necessary to achieve the required velocity precision.