Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T12:38:02.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Taipan Galaxy Survey: Scientific Goals and Observing Strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2017

Elisabete da Cunha*
Affiliation:
Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2611, Australia
Andrew M. Hopkins
Affiliation:
Australian Astronomical Observatory, 105 Delhi Rd., North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia
Matthew Colless
Affiliation:
Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2611, Australia
Edward N. Taylor
Affiliation:
Centre for Astrophysics & Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, P.O.Box 218, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia
Chris Blake
Affiliation:
Centre for Astrophysics & Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, P.O.Box 218, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia
Cullan Howlett
Affiliation:
International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia ARC Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO), 44 Rosehill St, Redfern, NSW 2016, Australia
Christina Magoulas
Affiliation:
Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2611, Australia Department of Astronomy, University of Cape Town, Private Bag X3, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa
John R. Lucey
Affiliation:
Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
Claudia Lagos
Affiliation:
International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
Kyler Kuehn
Affiliation:
Australian Astronomical Observatory, 105 Delhi Rd., North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia
Yjan Gordon
Affiliation:
E.A. Milne Centre for Astrophysics, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Kingston upon Hull HU6 7RX, UK
Dilyar Barat
Affiliation:
Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2611, Australia
Fuyan Bian
Affiliation:
Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2611, Australia
Christian Wolf
Affiliation:
Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2611, Australia
Michael J. Cowley
Affiliation:
Australian Astronomical Observatory, 105 Delhi Rd., North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia Department of Physics and Astronomy, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia Research Centre for Astronomy, Astrophysics & Astrophotonics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
Marc White
Affiliation:
Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2611, Australia
Ixandra Achitouv
Affiliation:
Centre for Astrophysics & Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, P.O.Box 218, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia ARC Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO), 44 Rosehill St, Redfern, NSW 2016, Australia
Maciej Bilicki
Affiliation:
Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9513, NL-2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands National Centre for Nuclear Research, Astrophysics Division, P.O. Box 447, PL-90-950 Lodz, Poland
Joss Bland-Hawthorn
Affiliation:
Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Krzysztof Bolejko
Affiliation:
Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Michael J. I. Brown
Affiliation:
Monash Centre for Astrophysics, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria 3800, Australia
Rebecca Brown
Affiliation:
Australian Astronomical Observatory, 105 Delhi Rd., North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia
Julia Bryant
Affiliation:
Australian Astronomical Observatory, 105 Delhi Rd., North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia ARC Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO), 44 Rosehill St, Redfern, NSW 2016, Australia Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Scott Croom
Affiliation:
Sydney Institute for Astronomy (SIfA), School of Physics, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
Tamara M. Davis
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
Simon P. Driver
Affiliation:
International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
Miroslav D. Filipovic
Affiliation:
School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia
Samuel R. Hinton
Affiliation:
School of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
Melanie Johnston-Hollitt
Affiliation:
School of Chemical & Physical Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand Peripety Scientific Ltd., PO Box 11355 Manners Street, Wellington, 6142, New Zealand
D. Heath Jones
Affiliation:
English Language and Foundation Studies Centre, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
Bärbel Koribalski
Affiliation:
CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science, Australia Telescope National Facility, PO Box 76, Epping, NSW 1710, Australia
Dane Kleiner
Affiliation:
CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science, Australia Telescope National Facility, PO Box 76, Epping, NSW 1710, Australia
Jon Lawrence
Affiliation:
Australian Astronomical Observatory, 105 Delhi Rd., North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia
Nuria Lorente
Affiliation:
Australian Astronomical Observatory, 105 Delhi Rd., North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia
Jeremy Mould
Affiliation:
Centre for Astrophysics & Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology, P.O.Box 218, Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia
Matt S. Owers
Affiliation:
Australian Astronomical Observatory, 105 Delhi Rd., North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia E.A. Milne Centre for Astrophysics, University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Kingston upon Hull HU6 7RX, UK
Kevin Pimbblet
Affiliation:
Centre for Extragalactic Astronomy, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
C. G. Tinney
Affiliation:
Exoplanetary Science at UNSW School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Nicholas F. H. Tothill
Affiliation:
Exoplanetary Science at UNSW School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Fred Watson
Affiliation:
Australian Astronomical Observatory, 105 Delhi Rd., North Ryde, NSW 2113, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Taipan galaxy survey (hereafter simply ‘Taipan’) is a multi-object spectroscopic survey starting in 2017 that will cover 2π steradians over the southern sky (δ ≲ 10°, |b| ≳ 10°), and obtain optical spectra for about two million galaxies out to z < 0.4. Taipan will use the newly refurbished 1.2-m UK Schmidt Telescope at Siding Spring Observatory with the new TAIPAN instrument, which includes an innovative ‘Starbugs’ positioning system capable of rapidly and simultaneously deploying up to 150 spectroscopic fibres (and up to 300 with a proposed upgrade) over the 6° diameter focal plane, and a purpose-built spectrograph operating in the range from 370 to 870 nm with resolving power R ≳ 2000. The main scientific goals of Taipan are (i) to measure the distance scale of the Universe (primarily governed by the local expansion rate, H 0) to 1% precision, and the growth rate of structure to 5%; (ii) to make the most extensive map yet constructed of the total mass distribution and motions in the local Universe, using peculiar velocities based on improved Fundamental Plane distances, which will enable sensitive tests of gravitational physics; and (iii) to deliver a legacy sample of low-redshift galaxies as a unique laboratory for studying galaxy evolution as a function of dark matter halo and stellar mass and environment. The final survey, which will be completed within 5 yrs, will consist of a complete magnitude-limited sample (i ⩽ 17) of about 1.2 × 106 galaxies supplemented by an extension to higher redshifts and fainter magnitudes (i ⩽ 18.1) of a luminous red galaxy sample of about 0.8 × 106 galaxies. Observations and data processing will be carried out remotely and in a fully automated way, using a purpose-built automated ‘virtual observer’ software and an automated data reduction pipeline. The Taipan survey is deliberately designed to maximise its legacy value by complementing and enhancing current and planned surveys of the southern sky at wavelengths from the optical to the radio; it will become the primary redshift and optical spectroscopic reference catalogue for the local extragalactic Universe in the southern sky for the coming decade.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Astronomical Society of Australia 2017 
Figure 0

Figure 1. The TAIPAN fibre positioner at the AAO. (a) Top view showing 24 Starbugs installed on the glass field plate that sits at the focal surface of the UKST. The top of the image shows the complex vacuum and high-voltage support systems required for operation. (b) Underside view, showing some of the 24 Starbugs installed on the glass field plate.

Figure 1

Table 1. TAIPAN instrument specifications.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Schematic representation of the TAIPAN focal plane. The background image shows target galaxies as ‘objects of interest’, while Starbugs are the depicted by the white open circles. Starbugs can move independently to put a spectroscopic fibre on any object of interest in the 6° diameter field of view. The right-hand side shows a side view.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Anticipated throughput of the TAIPAN instrument (dashed grey line), and total throughput of the whole system (i.e. instrument+telescope+atmosphere; see also Kuehn et al. 2014).

Figure 4

Figure 4. Measurements of the local value of the Hubble constant, H0, from different methods and datasets. The predictions from CMB measurements are from WMAP (Larson et al. 2011; Komatsu et al. 2011) and Planck (Planck Collaboration et al. 2014), and both are obtained assuming the ΛCDM model. Other measurements are based on local standard candles (Cepheid stars and supernovae) by Riess et al. (2011, 2016) and Freedman et al. (2001, 2012), and geometrical methods: local water masers (Reid et al. 2013), strong lensing (Bonvin et al. 2017), and galaxy clusters (Bonamente et al. 2006). We also show the BAO peak measurement from 6dFGS (Beutler et al. 2011). The forecast precision of the Taipan survey result (at the Beutler et al. 2011 6dFGS BAO value) is also indicated, both after the ~1.5 yrs of observations (Taipan Phase 1, in red) and after the full survey (Taipan Final, in blue). The precision achieved with Taipan will address the current tension between measurements based on the CMB and those using standard candles.

Figure 5

Figure 5. BAO distance-redshift measurements, expressed as DV/rd, the ratio of the volume-averaged comoving distance, and the size of the sound horizon at recombination. Coloured filled squares show the predictions for the Taipan Phase 1 (P1, in red) and Taipan Final (in blue). The other symbols show existing measurements from the 6dFGS (open square; Beutler et al. 2011), SDSS-III BOSS-DR12 (diamond; Alam et al. 2016), SDSS-II MGS (star; Ross et al. 2015), SDSS-II LRG (triangle; Percival et al. 2010; Xu et al. 2012a), and WiggleZ datasets (circle; Kazin et al. 2014). The lower panel shows the measured/predicted BAO scale divided by the BAO scale under the fiducial Planck cosmology, such that points in perfect agreement with Planck Collaboration et al. (2015) would lie on the black line. The black line and surrounding grey regions show the best-fit, 1σ, and 2σ confidence regions for a ΛCDM cosmological model based on the results of Planck Collaboration et al. (2015).

Figure 6

Figure 6. Measurements and predictions for the scale-dependent growth rate (in distinct k-bins) multiplied by the velocity divergence power spectrum for our fiducial cosmology, using only the peculiar velocity samples of 6dFGS and Taipan. For 6dFGS, we plot both the measurements from Johnson et al. (2014) and forecasts as solid and open points. The dashed line shows the prediction from GR. The predictions/measurements are sensitive to the power averaged across each bin (solid horizontal lines), but the placement of the points within each bin is arbitrary. There is some discrepancy between the 6dFGS measurements and forecasts, but in all bins we see significant improvement in Taipan over the 6dFGS predictions, which we expect to translate through to the measurements made with Taipan. Hence, Taipan will allow us to place tight constraints on the scale dependence of the low-redshift growth rate, which is an important test of GR.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Measurements/predictions of the percentage error in the growth rate3 using the peculiar velocity (denoted v) and redshift (denoted δ) samples of the 6dFGS and Taipan surveys separately and in combination. This highlights how a relatively small number of peculiar velocity measurements can be used to improve upon the constraints on the growth rate from redshift surveys alone. Stars are measurements for the 6dFGS from Beutler et al. (2012) and Johnson et al. (2014). All other points are predicted error regions, produced using the method of Howlett et al. (2017) assuming different levels of prior knowledge on any nuisance parameters. The upper edge of each region assumes no prior knowledge, while the lower edge assumes perfect knowledge. The horizontal line corresponds to the uncertainty from Planck Collaboration et al. (2015) at z = 0 assuming ΛCDM and General Relativity. With the Taipan survey, we constrain the growth rate almost as tightly as Planck, but, crucially, without requiring the assumption of ΛCDM.

Figure 8

Figure 8. A comparison of different measurements and predictions of the growth rate of structure, fσ8, as a function of redshift, from various galaxy surveys. Coloured points (filled squares) show the predictions for Taipan Phase 1 (in red) and Final (in blue). Other points are existing measurements from the 6dFGS (open square; Beutler et al. 2012), SDSS-III BOSS-DR12 (diamond; Alam et al. 2016), SDSS-II MGS (star; Howlett et al. 2015), SDSS-II LRG (triangle; Samushia, Percival, & Raccanelli 2012), and WiggleZ datasets (circle; Blake et al. 2011a). The coloured bands indicate the growth rate obtained for different theories of gravity using the parameterisation of Linder & Cahn (2007) and assuming a flat-ΛCDM cosmology based on the results of Planck Collaboration et al. (2015). The value γ = 0.55 corresponds closely to the prediction from General relativity for ΛCDM. This demonstrates that a precise measurement at low redshift such as the one enabled with Taipan will distinguish between different models of gravity.

Figure 9

Figure 9. Comparison between the observed local i-band number counts from the recent compilation of Driver et al. (2016) (blue squares), and the predictions from the galform semi-analytic galaxy formation model (Bower et al. 2006; Lagos et al. 2012; red lines). The solid and dashed lines correspond to lightcones generated from the Millennium 1 (Springel et al. 2005) and Millennium 2 (Boylan-Kolchin et al. 2009) cosmological runs, respectively. The vertical dotted line shows the Taipan magnitude limit, i = 17. The two different Millennium realisations combined provide precise results over a large range of scales (enabled by the significantly better spatial and mass resolution of the Millennium 2 run compare to Millennium 1, which includes a larger volume); this ensures that galaxies are resolved in the full stellar mass range from 106 to 1012 M.

Figure 10

Figure 10. Cumulative number density of galaxy pairs as a function of sky separation. The black lines show the predictions for Taipan (i < 17) based on the galform model (Lagos et al. 2011a, 2012). Poisson errors are of the order of the thickness of the line. The blue and red squares show the number density of pairs detected by GAMA and SDSS, respectively, at 25 and 55 arcsec separations (using the same magnitude limit).

Figure 11

Figure 11. Predicted distribution of the properties of galaxies detected in Taipan (i.e. galaxies with i ⩽ 17; in red) and in WALLABY (i.e galaxies with H i line detections above 5σ ≃ 8 mJy, with σ = 1.592 mJy per 3.86 km s−1 velocity channel; in blue, dashed; e.g. Duffy et al. 2012) from the galform model (Lagos et al. 2011a, 2011b, 2012): (a) redshift; (b) stellar mass; (c) ur (rest-frame) colour; (d) neutral hydrogen mass. The green dot-dashed lines show the distribution of properties of galaxies detected in both surveys.

Figure 12

Table 2. Comparison between Taipan (anticipated) and other recent low-redshift, wide-area spectroscopic surveys.

Figure 13

Figure 12. Predicted redshift distribution of the Taipan Phase 1 (in red) and Final (in blue) BAO sample, compared to 6dFGS (solid black line). The dotted purple line shows the number density needed to balance cosmic variance and shot noise in clustering measurements.

Figure 14

Figure 13. Comparison between the redshift distribution of the original 6dFGS peculiar velocity sample in black (N = 8 877), Taipan Phase 1 in red (N = 33000) and Final in blue (N = 50000; predicted using selections discussed in Section 4.3) velocity samples. The samples are binned in redshift intervals of Δz = 0.01.

Figure 15

Figure 14. Example of fibre allocation by our tiling code in a single tile in the sky, using 150 Starbugs (top) and 300 Starbugs (bottom).

Figure 16

Figure 15. Mock sky distribution of our targets, obtained by applying our selection criteria to the galform mock galaxy catalogue described in Section 3.4, and ensuring that we obtain the correct sky density by comparing to the GAMA survey over a smaller area. The top panel shows the output of our survey simulator at the start of observations (‘night 1’, set on 2017 September 1 for this simulation), and the bottom panel shows the output after the 500th night of Taipan Phase 1 observations. Unobserved targets are colour coded according to which subsample (Section 4.2) they belong to: red—peculiar velocity targets (dark red: 6dF-selected; light red: new early-type targets identified from the redshift survey); yellow—complete magnitude-limited (i ⩽ 17) sample in the KiDS fields for galaxy evolution science; light blue—magnitude-limited (JVega<15.4) BAO targets; dark blue—2MASS-selected LRGs. The top histograms show the target RA distribution and the progress made within each subsample. As the survey progresses, completed targets turn light grey and the histograms become filled. The light grey targets and hashed histograms at the start of the survey represent SDSS sources for which spectra are already available—we do not prioritise re-observing these targets which is why the SDSS footprint can be seen in the sky distribution.

Figure 17

Figure 16. Simulated survey progress in Taipan Phase 1 predicted by our survey simulator (Section 4.4). The different colours refer to different subsamples as described in Section 4.2: red—peculiar velocity targets (dark red: 6dF-selected; light red: new early-type targets identified from the redshift survey); yellow—complete magnitude-limited (i ⩽ 17) sample in the KiDS fields for galaxy evolution science; light blue—magnitude-limited (JVega<15.4) BAO targets; dark blue—2MASS-selected LRGs. Top panel: Number of spectra taken per night. The gaps correspond to random losses due to bad weather, and bright time. Middle panel: Cumulative number of spectra taken (including repeat observations of the same target; thick lines) and targets completed (i.e. redshift success and/or required S/N achieved; thin lines) in each subsample. Bottom panel: Tile scores [f; computing according to Equation (3)] in each night. Each tile is colour-coded according to the subsample from which the majority of its science targets comes from. The survey scheduling prioritises the spectroscopic completion of the magnitude-limited sample in the KiDS fields at the start of the survey when they are overhead, and then moves on to targeting BAO and peculiar velocity sources quasi-uniformly across the hemisphere, giving higher priorities to higher density regions (Figure 15).

Figure 18

Figure 17. Flowchart describing our data processing strategy using the custom Taipan Live Data Reduction (TLDR) pipeline described in Section 4.5.