The NuMOIRCS Project: Detector Upgrade Overview and
Early Commissioning Results
Josh Walawendera,b , Matthew Wunga , Maximilian Fabriciusa , Ichi Tanakaa , Nobuo Arimotoa ,David Cooka , Brian Elmsa , Yasuhito Hashibac , Yen-Sang Hud , Ikuru Iwataa , Tatsuo
Nishimuraa , Koji Omataa , Naruhisa Takatoa , Shiang-Yu Wangd , and Mark WeberaaSubaru Telescope, NAOJ, 650 N. Aohoku Pl., Hilo, HI 96720, USA
W. M. Keck Observatory, 65-1120 Mamalahoa Hwy., Kamuela, HI 96743, USAc
Department of Complexity Science and Engineering, Graduate School of Frontier Sciences,
The University of Tokyo Kiban-tou, 5-1-5 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8561, Japand
Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Academia Sinica, 11F of AS/NTU
Astronomy-Mathematics Building, No.1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Rd, Taipei 10617, Taiwan, R.O.C.
b

ABSTRACTIn 2014 and 2015 the Multi-Object InfraRed Camera and Spectrograph (MOIRCS) instrument at the Subaru
Telescope on Maunakea is underwent a significant modernization and upgrade project. We upgraded the two
Hawaii2 detectors to Hawaii2-RG models, modernized the cryogenic temperature control system, and rewrote
much of the instrument control software.
The detector upgrade replaced the Hawaii2 detectors which use the Tohoku University Focal Plane ArrayController (TUFPAC) electronics with Hawaii2-RG detectors using SIDECAR ASIC (a fully integrated FPA
controller system-on-a-chip) and a SAM interface card. We achieved an improvement in read noise by a factor
of about 2 with this detector and electronics upgrade.
The cryogenic temperature control upgrade focused on modernizing the components and making the procedures for warm up and cool down of the instrument safer. We have moved PID control loops out of the instrument
control software and into Lakeshore model 336 cryogenic temperature controllers and have added interlocks on
the warming systems to prevent overheating of the instrument.
Much of the instrument control software has also been re-written. This was necessitated by the different
interface to the detector electronics (ASIC & SAM vs. TUFPAC) and by the desire to modernize the interface
to the telescope control software which has been updated to Subaru’s ”Gen2” system since the time of MOIRCS
construction and first light. The new software is also designed to increase reliability of operation of the instrument,
decrease overheads, and be easier for night time operators and support astronomers to use.
Keywords: MOIRCS, NuMOIRCS, Subaru Telescope, Hawaii2, TUFPAC, Hawaii2-RG, Lakeshore, Alpha Particles

1. INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATIONThe Multi-Object InfraRed Camera and Spectrograph (MOIRCS) instrument1, 2 at the cassegrain focus of the
8.2 meter Subaru Telescope operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ) saw first lightin September 2004. MOIRCS operates as both a JHK imager using two 2k x 2k HAWAII2 detectors providing a
4 by 7 arcminute field of view at a pixel scale of 0.117 arcseconds per pixel and as a multi-object spectrographutilizing a separate Dewar for a cryogenic slit mask exchanger system which allowed installation of 23 different
slit masks which can be exchanged in a few minutes by the robotic slit mask exchange mechanism.
MOIRCS was the first near-infrared MOS instrument offered for open use on an 8 meter class telescope. As
a result, it has been a popular instrument on Subaru. MOIRCS has been used for wide variety of science, from
Further author information: (Send correspondence to J.W.)
J.W.: E-mail: jwalawender@keck.hawaii.edu, Telephone: 1 808 881 3866

solar system objects to distant galaxies. Some of its science highlights include identification of the most distantgalaxies,3–7 the discovery and characterization of proto-clusters at the cosmic-high noon era,8–12 and a survey ofthe low-mass brown dwarfs in star-forming regions.13–16 Using the data from MOIRCS nearly 200 papers havebeen published to the refereed journals, including 3 Nature papers.4, 17, 18
Detector technology has advanced since the time of the MOIRCS design. Newer Hawaii2-RG detectors are
now available. When combined with newer readout electronics, it became possible to significantly improve thesensitivity (primarily the read noise) and the cosmetics of the detector. A project was begun in 2011 to update
the MOIRCS detectors and readout electronics. New detectors and electronics also enable the possibility of new
operational modes. In particular ”up the ramp” sampling and on chip guiding.
Because the cost of the telescope and enclosure are a ”sunk cost”, the scientific productivity of an observatory
are strongly influenced by the quality of the instrumentation used on the telescope.19 When combined with thehigh cost of new instrumentation, upgrading an instrument can be a far more cost effective way to boost scientificoutput of an observatory than replacing that instrument with something new. In a study of the scientific output
of instrumentation at the two 10 meter W.M. Keck Observatory telescopes, Ref. 19 found that ”instruments
which have not undergone significant upgrades achieve a peak [in productivity] between five to eight years aftercommissioning.” He also finds that upgrades to instruments can maintain their productivity, so that rather than
dropping after 6-8 years of life, the instrument can maintain a ”plateau” of productivity over an additional 5-10
years∗ . With this in mind, a project to upgrade MOIRCS was begun in 2011. Funding support was though a
KAKENHI (23224005) Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (S) thorough the Japan Society for the Promotionof Science (JSPS) (PI: Nobuo Arimoto).
In this paper, we describe the upgrades to the instrument’s temperature control system in §2, the new
instrument control software in §3, including a discussion of further upgrades made possible by the new hardware
and software in §3.1, and a brief summary of the ongoing commissioning in §4 of the upgraded instrument. A
detailed description of the upgrades to the detectors and their control electronics is available in Ref. 20 also inthis proceedings.

2. TEMPERATURE CONTROL SYSTEM
In addition to the detector and readout electronics upgrade, it was decided to improve the temperature control
system on MOIRCS. The existing system used two Lakeshore model 340 temperature controllers to modulate
heaters mounted near the detectors to maintain them at an operational temperature of 77 K. The Dewar is
initially cooled by a liquid nitrogen automatic pre-cool system (APS21 ) and the temperature is maintained by
two two-stage closed cycle Sumitomo Heavy Industries RDK-408S cryocoolers, one connected to the main Dewar(which contains the detectors, camera optics, filter wheels, and collimator optics) and one connected to the
carousel Dewar which contains the cryogenic slit mask carousel and the slit mask exchange mechanism.
The optical bench in the main Dewar of MOIRCS floats in temperature at 100-120 K ±5 K. It is connectedto the first stage of the main Dewar cryocooler.
To warm up the main Dewar to ambient, a pair of resistive heaters were mounted on the optical bench. These
heaters were controlled from two separate 100 W power supplies mounted on the exterior of the instrument. Eachoutput of the power supplies was controlled via serial commands issued by a warm up script running on both of
the instrument control computers.
This warm up script was designed to automatically shut off the heaters when the temperature reached atarget (presumably near ambient), however in practice this process was not reliable. The script would often
overshoot the target temperature placing the instrument at risk of overheating and potentially damaging theinterior components if the system became too hot. As a result, the main Dewar warm up process required thatobservatory personnel monitor the system during a warm-up and be prepared to shut off the heaters manually
to mitigate the risk to the instrument.
The warm up heater power supplies were also configured to provide power to a warm-up heater located in the
carousel Dewar which could be used to warm up the carousel or to bake the carousel getter. A relay, controlled∗

See Ref. 19 for a detailed discussion of the meaning of ”productivity” in this context.

by activating power on a particular port on a switched remote power strip, could be used to toggle the outputof the power supplies between the main Dewar heaters and the carousel heaters.
The risk imposed by the unreliable shut off of the main Dewar heaters and the complexity of the system led
us to redesign the temperature control system with the primary goal of making main Dewar warm-up process
safer for the instrument and to make it truly automatic, so that no constant monitoring was required.
The new control system is based around two Lakeshore model 336 cryogenic temperature controllers. These
have direct network interfaces which removed the need for a serial connection to one of the control computers on
the instrument or to a terminal server. Each Lakeshore model 336 has two heater outputs (configured to provide
a maximum of 100 W and 50 W respectively) and two auxiliary outputs which send an analog signal which canbe used to control the output of an external power supply.
We connected the 100 W heater output of each Lakeshore to the detector module (which contains the detector,
ASIC electronics, and detector focus mechanism, see Ref. 20 for more details on the detector upgrades) and the
50 W output to the detector mounting plate itself. Each 100 W module output on the Lakeshores was configured
to maintain a temperature of 76 K while the 50 W detector outputs were programmed to maintain a temperatureof 77 K. This meant that the larger thermal mass of the module would pull the temperature of the detectors
down slightly through the thermal coupling of the mounting and allow the PID control loop of the 50 W detector
output to hold the detectors at a precise 77 K temperature.
Only at one place we add an additional software control loop to the temperature control system: During the
instrument precool with liquid nitrogen, the detectors must remain warmer than the optical bench to prevent
condensation onto the detector surfaces. However, their temperature must be ramped down in a controlled
fashion to avoid overpowering the detector and the module heaters. While the Lakeshore controller does provide
temperature ramping functionality, it does not allow to track another temperature with a certain offset. We
therefore implemented a simple control loop which updates the detector and module setpoints every five minutes
to 10 K above the optical bench temperature during precool. Once the precool is completed and the coldheads
are turned on, they become effective cryopumps. At that point it is safe to ramp to temperature of the detectors
and modules down to their operation temperatures of 77 K and 76 K respectively.
To control the main Dewar warm up process we used the two additional analog outputs of the Lakeshores tomodulate the output of an Agilent Technologies N5747A power supply connected to the main Dewar heaters. The
warm up process does not need to be tightly controlled. We empirically determined, based on experience fromthe original control system, that providing 100 W (the maximum rating) to each of the resistive heaters led to awarm up rate of 4-5 K/hr which was our maximum allowed target (that rate was based on documentation fromthe original instrument builders). Thus a true PID control loop for this output was unnecessary and the ”warmup heater” mode of the Lakeshore analog control was sufficient because it could be turned on to a particularsetting (percent of maximum power) and the output could be linked to a particular temperature sensor in themain Dewar and the Lakeshore would automatically turn off the heaters once a maximum allowed temperature
was reached. Our experience with other Lakeshores suggested that this Lakeshore based control would be much
more reliable (and thus safer for the instrument) than the software based control loop we had been using.
The carousel heater is configured in a very similar fashion to the main Dewar heater. Because it heats asmaller thermal mass, we use a smaller power supply (a model N5743A), but it is otherwise controlled identicallyto the main Dewar and has the same safety systems configured to prevent over heating.

3. INSTRUMENT CONTROL SOFTWARE
Initially we had hoped to modify the existing instrument control software (TLECS; Ref. 22) to control the newdetector control electronics (SAM and ASIC, see Ref. 20 for more details). After further examination, however,
we chose to rewrite most of the instrument control software. This was motivated by several factors.
First, due to schedule and budget constraints, we chose to use the Teledyne provided control software rather
than build a customized controller. The system runs in a Windows based computer connected directly to thereadout electronics via USB connection. The Teledyne software provides a socket interface for external control
via a supported command set. The interface for the previous control electronics (TUFPAC) had the control

software sending commands to both start and end the exposure, while the command set for the new controller
handled the timing internally and only required a single command to start the exposure. As a result the basic
sequencing of the exposure commands would change meaning that altering the existing software would include
modifications to the sequencer and not just a command translator as we had hoped.
Second, the old instrument control software was built to interface with the Subaru’s first generation telescope
control software. The current second generation telescope control software uses a different Python based interface
to the instruments. MOIRCS was using an additional software layer to provide compatibility between the oldsystem and the new. Because of a desire to phase out the old interface (to minimize effort needed to support
that software), there was motivation to upgrade the MOIRCS instrument control software to use the new Python
based interface.
Thirdly, the control system for the instrument mechanisms other than the detectors used a software package
called Cassegrain Instrument Automatic Exchanger (CIAX). This package was already well along on an upgrade
to a new version† with significant changes to the API. The existing instrument control software would have to
be modified if we wanted to use the upgraded CIAX control software.
Based on the above points, it was decided that modifying the existing instrument control software would
involve comparable effort to writing a new instrument control software package from scratch because almost allof the components of the old software would need modification. We thus opted to write new software.
The new instrument control software runs on a single instrument control computer located in the summit
control building and communicates with hardware via network connections: a TCP socket interface to thedetector control computers mounted on the instrument, a standard TCP connection to the Lakeshore temperature
controllers, and using a Digi terminal server to communicate with most other hardware components via serial
communications protocol (e.g. RS232).
One advantage of the new instrument control software over the old is that it has a simpler architecture. Itruns on only a single computer rather than being installed on multiple computers. It queries instrument status
and telescope status values in real time as needed rather than storing them in an SQL database and querying thedatabase for information. This eliminates one of the control computers needed. The architecture of the control
software is shown in Fig. 1.
The user controls the instrument from the telescope control system (Gen2) interface (seen at the upper rightof Fig. 1) which is common to all facility instruments at Subaru. The g2cam software is the interface between
Gen2 and the instrument. It is simply a set of Python functions and methods which map to Gen2 commands
which the user can invoke as part of their ”OPE” file which they prepare in advance of an observing run.
For non-detector components, the functions and methods in g2cam call CIAX to query status (via httprequests) or to command the sub-components (via a UDP command). The CIAX software provides a standardized
interface (via HTTP and UDP calls) to the various hardware components and it abstracts away their individualcommand protocols (e.g. RS-232, RS-485, etc.).
To control the detector, the functions and methods in g2cam use the socket interface to communicate with theTeledyne software running on one of two detector computers (one for each Hawaii2-RG detector). Much of thedetailed detector control logic and FITS file handling are called by the g2cam python code, but are implemented
in C.
To minimize heat dissipation in the dome, we chose small, relatively low power consumption computers (Intel
NUCs) to be the detector computers mounted on the instrument itself. These machines run Subaru’s standard
Cent-OS Linux install and they host a Windows virtual machine to run the Teledyne detector control software.
This allows us to sandbox the Windows machines for additional security and to keep backups of them using ourstandard backup system for our Linux computers.
Observers can also view instrument specific status via a GUI which is part of the instrument control software.
The GUI is written in Python using a Qt based graphical user interface. The GUI runs on the instrument
computer, but can be viewed from other machines using an ssh connection and X forwarding or a VNC connection
to the instrument computer.
†https://github.com/ciax/ciax-xml

Figure 1. Graphical overview of the MOIRCS instrument control software. See text for details.

There is also a web based instrument ”dashboard” which monitors all of the processes which need to berunning for the instrument to operate, presents their status, provides web access to the log files being generated
by each program, and gives the user the ability to start, stop, or restart any of those software programs.
We have also developed a small number of engineering scripts which run on the instrument computer which
can be used for engineering tasks such as initiating a main Dewar warm up, a carousel Dewar warm up (used to
install new slit masks in the carousel), or for putting the instrument in a safe state before the instrument is tobe mounted or dismounted from the telescope itself.

3.1 FUTURE SOFTWARE UPGRADE POSSIBILITIESSupport for some software features were deferred until after initial commissioning in order to simplify the initialdevelopment and to save resources (budget and schedule). These features are discussed below and can be added
in software in the future, requiring no hardware modifications.
3.1.1 ON CHIP GUIDINGThe Teledyne provided socket interface for detector control does not support use of the on chip guiding feature.
This is not critically important to operations at the current time because the Subaru cassegrain port includes a
separate guide camera system which is what MOIRCS has used up to this point. However, support for on chip

guiding is desirable because one possible use of the instrument in the future would be with the ULTIMATESubaru project which would add ground layer AO capabilities for Subaru telescope with Adaptive Secondary
Mirror. Current plans for ULTIMATE-Subaru would require space in the cassegrain port currently occupied by
the guide camera, so an on chip guiding system would be advantageous if MOIRCS is to be used in conjunction
with ULTIMATE-Subaru.
A potential upgrade path would include implementing on chip guiding by replacing the socket interface with
our own software (which would use a lower level, more powerful interface to the detector). A side benefit toreplacing the Teledyne software with our own detector control software would be that we could remove the dependency on the Windows operating system. Subaru uses Linux systems for nearly all of its control computers,
so we have a expertise and infrastructure supporting Linux, but not Windows. Removing the Windows dependency would reduce the risk and effort associated with supporting an unusual (for Subaru) computer system. In
addition, if we replace the Teledyne software with our own detector control software, we may be able to reduce
the overheads associated with taking images.
3.1.2 DETECTOR CONTROL OVERHEAD
The new electronics have a 32 channel readout while the old system was 4 channel. This should enable much
faster readouts of the chip and lower the overhead between images. The previous system had typical overheads
in excess of 30 seconds (under typical observing settings) while the new system overhead has been measured to
be about 15 seconds. This improvement is quite significant for imaging operations in which typical exposures
are tens of seconds.
In addition, while the old system offered coadds to add frames in the controller (which had lower overhead
than taking multiple frames and writing them out as FITS files), the new system does not support this feature.
Replacing the Teledyne software with our own detector control software should enable us to investigate andoptimize the timing, hopefully reducing overhead times even further and improving the overall system efficiency.
3.1.3 UP THE RAMP READOUT MODE
The ”up the ramp readout mode” is supported by the Teledyne socket interface, but we have not propagatedthat support through our instrument control software to the user. This mode was not available with the previous
detector system, so none of the high level instrument control scripts included this option and would have to bemodified to offer it to the user. We opted not to add this option in order to save development time and because
it has not been in high demand, however this is a relatively straightforward software upgrade which is available
to us in the future with the new control system.

4. EARLY COMISSIONING RESULTS
During lab testing of the new detectors we found that there were a large number of clusters of pixels on thedetector saturated in each image. Their locations were variable, and they could affect even after coadding
multiple frames. This behavior was only seen when the detectors were installed in the instrument and had notbeen seen when the detectors were in our test Dewar. We eventually concluded that these were alpha particle
impacts on the detector which originated from the anti-reflection coating on the last lens surface in the opticalsystem. To mitigate the alpha particle impacts, we installed a pair of blocking filters (one in front of eachdetector) to absorb the particles (see Ref. 20 in this volume for more details).
Early commissioning nights in late 2015 and early 2016 were focused on testing and debugging the new
instrument control system software and confirming the basic operation of both imaging and spectroscopy modes.
The read noise was measured to be 14 and 15 electrons in the two channels. This is roughly a factor of two
improvement over the old detectors and readout electronics (see Ref. 20 in this volume for more details).
In May 2016, observations to measure the overall system throughput (Fig. 2) were made. The results show a
noticeable improvement in total throughput over the old instrument. While the amount varies with wavelengthand by detector, we found improvements in throughput ranging from a few percent to over 40 percent (see Fig. 3).

Figure 2. Spectra of the same target taken by the old MOIRCS system and the new upgraded MOIRCS.

Figure 3. Ratio of the throughput of the new system to the throughput of the old system. The values for the old system
are somewhat influenced by a QE variation across the detector, so the curve shown here is for a representative locationon the detector.

REFERENCES[1] Ichikawa, T., Suzuki, R., Tokoku, C., Uchimoto, Y. K., Konishi, M., Yoshikawa, T., Yamada, T., Tanaka, I.,
Omata, K., and Nishimura, T., “MOIRCS: multi-object infrared camera and spectrograph for SUBARU,” in[Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series ], Proc. SPIE 6269, 626916(June 2006).
[2] Suzuki, R., Tokoku, C., Ichikawa, T., Uchimoto, Y. K., Konishi, M., Yoshikawa, T., Tanaka, I., Yamada,T., Omata, K., and Nishimura, T., “Multi-Object Infrared Camera and Spectrograph (MOIRCS) for the
Subaru Telescope I. Imaging,” PASJ 60, 1347–1362 (Dec. 2008).
[3] Oesch, P. A., Bouwens, R. J., Illingworth, G. D., Labbé, I., Smit, R., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P. G.,
Momcheva, I., Ashby, M. L. N., Fazio, G. G., Huang, J.-S., Willner, S. P., Gonzalez, V., Magee, D., Trenti,
M., Brammer, G. B., Skelton, R. E., and Spitler, L. R., “The Most Luminous z ˜ 9-10 Galaxy Candidates
Yet Found: The Luminosity Function, Cosmic Star-formation Rate, and the First Mass Density Estimate
at 500 Myr,” ApJ 786, 108 (May 2014).
[4] Finkelstein, S. L., Papovich, C., Dickinson, M., Song, M., Tilvi, V., Koekemoer, A. M., Finkelstein, K. D.,
Mobasher, B., Ferguson, H. C., Giavalisco, M., Reddy, N., Ashby, M. L. N., Dekel, A., Fazio, G. G., Fontana,A., Grogin, N. A., Huang, J.-S., Kocevski, D., Rafelski, M., Weiner, B. J., and Willner, S. P., “A galaxy
rapidly forming stars 700 million years after the Big Bang at redshift 7.51,” Nature 502, 524–527 (Oct.
2013).
[5] Bunker, A. J., Caruana, J., Wilkins, S. M., Stanway, E. R., Lorenzoni, S., Lacy, M., Jarvis, M. J., andHickey, S., “VLT/XSHOOTER and Subaru/MOIRCS spectroscopy of HUDF.YD3: no evidence for Lyman
α emission at z = 8.55,” MNRAS 430, 3314–3319 (Apr. 2013).
[6] Ono, Y., Ouchi, M., Mobasher, B., Dickinson, M., Penner, K., Shimasaku, K., Weiner, B. J., Kartaltepe,
J. S., Nakajima, K., Nayyeri, H., Stern, D., Kashikawa, N., and Spinrad, H., “Spectroscopic Confirmation of

Three z-dropout Galaxies at z = 6.844-7.213: Demographics of Lyα Emission in z ˜ 7 Galaxies,” ApJ 744,
83 (Jan. 2012).
[7] Richard, J., Stark, D. P., Ellis, R. S., George, M. R., Egami, E., Kneib, J.-P., and Smith, G. P., “A Hubble
and Spitzer Space Telescope Survey for Gravitationally Lensed Galaxies: Further Evidence for a Significant
Population of Low-Luminosity Galaxies beyond z = 7,” ApJ 685, 705–724 (Oct. 2008).
[8] Shimakawa, R., Kodama, T., Tadaki, K.-i., Hayashi, M., Koyama, Y., and Tanaka, I., “An early phase ofenvironmental effects on galaxy properties unveiled by near-infrared spectroscopy of protocluster galaxies
at z > 2,” MNRAS 448, 666–680 (Mar. 2015).
[9] Kubo, M., Yamada, T., Ichikawa, T., Kajisawa, M., Matsuda, Y., and Tanaka, I., “NIR Spectroscopic
Observation of Massive Galaxies in the Protocluster at z = 3.09,” ApJ 799, 38 (Jan. 2015).
[10] Koyama, Y., Smail, I., Kurk, J., Geach, J. E., Sobral, D., Kodama, T., Nakata, F., Swinbank, A. M.,
Best, P. N., Hayashi, M., and Tadaki, K.-i., “On the evolution and environmental dependence of the starformation rate versus stellar mass relation since z 2,” MNRAS 434, 423–436 (Sept. 2013).
[11] Tanaka, M., Toft, S., Marchesini, D., Zirm, A., De Breuck, C., Kodama, T., Koyama, Y., Kurk, J., andTanaka, I., “On the Formation Timescale of Massive Cluster Ellipticals Based on Deep Near-infrared Spectroscopy at z ˜ 2,” ApJ 772, 113 (Aug. 2013).
[12] Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., Bryson, S. T., Jenkins, J. M., Rowe, J. F., Batalha, N. M., Borucki, W. J.,
Koch, D. G., Dunham, E. W., Gautier, III, T. N., Van Cleve, J., Cochran, W. D., Latham, D. W., Lissauer,
J. J., Torres, G., Brown, T. M., Gilliland, R. L., Buchhave, L. A., Caldwell, D. A., Christensen-Dalsgaard,
J., Ciardi, D., Fressin, F., Haas, M. R., Howell, S. B., Kjeldsen, H., Seager, S., Rogers, L., Sasselov, D. D.,
Steffen, J. H., Basri, G. S., Charbonneau, D., Christiansen, J., Clarke, B., Dupree, A., Fabrycky, D. C.,
Fischer, D. A., Ford, E. B., Fortney, J. J., Tarter, J., Girouard, F. R., Holman, M. J., Johnson, J. A., Klaus,
T. C., Machalek, P., Moorhead, A. V., Morehead, R. C., Ragozzine, D., Tenenbaum, P., Twicken, J. D.,
Quinn, S. N., Isaacson, H., Shporer, A., Lucas, P. W., Walkowicz, L. M., Welsh, W. F., Boss, A., Devore,
E., Gould, A., Smith, J. C., Morris, R. L., Prsa, A., Morton, T. D., Still, M., Thompson, S. E., Mullally,F., Endl, M., and MacQueen, P. J., “Planet Occurrence within 0.25 AU of Solar-type Stars from Kepler,”
ApJS 201, 15 (Aug. 2012).
[13] Yasui, C., Kobayashi, N., Saito, M., and Izumi, N., “Low-metallicity Young Clusters in the Outer Galaxy.
II. Sh 2-208,” AJ 151, 115 (May 2016).
[14] Yasui, C., Kobayashi, N., Tokunaga, A. T., Saito, M., and Tokoku, C., “Short Lifetime of Protoplanetary
Disks in Low-metallicity Environments,” ApJL 723, L113–L116 (Nov. 2010).
[15] Scholz, A., Jayawardhana, R., Muzic, K., Geers, V., Tamura, M., and Tanaka, I., “Substellar Objects in
Nearby Young Clusters (SONYC). VI. The Planetary-mass Domain of NGC 1333,” ApJ 756, 24 (Sept.
2012).
[16] Geers, V., Scholz, A., Jayawardhana, R., Lee, E., Lafrenière, D., and Tamura, M., “Substellar Objects in
Nearby Young Clusters (SONYC). II. The Brown Dwarf Population of ρ Ophiuchi,” ApJ 726, 23 (Jan.
2011).
[17] Zanella, A., Daddi, E., Le Floc’h, E., Bournaud, F., Gobat, R., Valentino, F., Strazzullo, V., Cibinel, A.,
Onodera, M., Perret, V., Renaud, F., and Vignali, C., “An extremely young massive clump forming bygravitational collapse in a primordial galaxy,” Nature 521, 54–56 (May 2015).
[18] Collins, C. A., Stott, J. P., Hilton, M., Kay, S. T., Stanford, S. A., Davidson, M., Hosmer, M., Hoyle, B.,
Liddle, A., Lloyd-Davies, E., Mann, R. G., Mehrtens, N., Miller, C. J., Nichol, R. C., Romer, A. K., Sahlén,M., Viana, P. T. P., and West, M. J., “Early assembly of the most massive galaxies,” Nature 458, 603–606(Apr. 2009).
[19] Kulkarni, S., “Instruments on Large Optical Telescopes – A Case Study,” PASP, in prep. (2016).
[20] Fabricius, M., “Detector upgrade of Subarus multi-object infrared camera and spectrograph,” Proc. SPIE
(2016).
[21] Omata, K., Nishimura, T., Colley, S., Cook, D., Gorman, W., Magrath, B., Ramos, L., Kleinman, S.,
Tokoku, C., Konishi, M., Yoshikawa, T., Tanaka, I., and Suzuki, R., “Automatic pre-cooling system forlarge infrared instruments,” in [Advanced Optical and Mechanical Technologies in Telescopes and Instrumentation ], Proc. SPIE 7018, 70182E (July 2008).

[22] Yoshikawa, T., Omata, K., Konishi, M., Ichikawa, T., Suzuki, R., Tokoku, C., Katsuno, Y., and Nishimura,T., “T-LECS: The Control Software System for MOIRCS,” in [Astronomical Data Analysis Software andSystems XV], Gabriel, C., Arviset, C., Ponz, D., and Enrique, S., eds., Astronomical Society of the PacificConference Series 351, 678 (July 2006).