Preparing the optical calibration of the M4-Deformable mirror for the E-ELT Briguglio, R., Pariani, G., Xompero, M., Riccardi, A. ADONI meeting, Firenze.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The GMT NGS WFS design Presented by S. Esposito. The team L. Fini G. Agapito L. Carbonaro A. Puglisi L. Busoni V. Biliotti A. Riccardi S. Esposito E.
Advertisements

Fast & Furious: a potential wavefront reconstructor for extreme adaptive optics at ELTs Visa Korkiakoski and Christoph U. Keller Leiden Observatory Niek.
LBT AO progress report meeting – Firenze, Feb 2005 A. Riccardi: LBT672 1 LBT672: Arcetri progress report A. Riccardi, M. Xompero, D. Zanotti, A.
Osservatorio di Arcetri Potsdam May st light LBT AO: PDR Optical Test Tower for the LBT Adaptive Optics System A. Riccardi 1, P. Salinari.
30-meter cabin refurbishment for a large Field Of View: status of on-going study S.Leclercq 28/04/2008.
Osservatorio di Arcetri LBT AO Conceptual Design Review Steward Observatory - March 5-7, 2001 MMT336 Characterization Software Armando Riccardi & Guido.
The adaptive secondary mirror. Current technology for MMT/LBT A. Riccardi 1, G. Brusa 1, C. Del Vecchio 1, P. Salinari 1, R. Biasi 2, M. Andrighettoni.
Géraldine Guerri Post-doc CSL
October 10th, 2007Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri1 Application of the pyramid wavefront sensor to the cophasing of large segmented telescopes F. Quirós-Pacheco,
FLAO Alignment Procedures G. Brusa, S. Esposito FLAO system external review, Florence, 30/31 March 2009.
LBT AGW units Design Review Mar.2001 General Concept Performance specifications and goals The off-axis unit The mechanical support structure The control.
WFS Preliminary design phase report I V. Velur, J. Bell, A. Moore, C. Neyman Design Meeting (Team meeting #10) Sept 17 th, 2007.
WBS & AO Controls Jason Chin, Don Gavel, Erik Johansson, Mark Reinig Design Meeting (Team meeting #10) Sept 17 th, 2007.
Thermally Deformable Mirrors: a new Adaptive Optics scheme for Advanced Gravitational Wave Interferometers Marie Kasprzack Laboratoire de l’Accélérateur.
Telescope Errors for NGAO Christopher Neyman & Ralf Flicker W. M. Keck Observatory Keck NGAO Team Meeting #4 January 22, 2007 Hualalai Conference Room,
Figuring large off-axis segments to the diffraction limit Hubert Martin Steward Observatory University of Arizona.
15/8/03Copyright Sigmadyne, Inc. Optomechanical Design and Analysis of Adaptive Optical Systems using FEA and Optical Design Software Victor Genberg, Keith.
Cophasing activities at Onera
MCAO Adaptive Optics Module Mechanical Design Eric James.
19 February 2009 Cophasing sensor for synthetic aperture optics applications First steps of the development of a cophasing sensor for synthetic aperture.
LBT672 opto-electro-mechanical specification overview Presented by A. Riccardi A. Riccardi, G. Brusa, R. Biasi, D. Gallieni FLAO system external review,
FLAO commissioning with InfraRed Test Camera (IRTC) S. Esposito, G. Brusa, A. Riccardi FLAO system external review, Florence, 30/31 March 2009.
NST PRIMARY MIRROR CELL: ANALYSIS AND SOLUTIONS BBSO, 02/11/2004 Leonid Didkovsky.
1 Manal Chebbo, Alastair Basden, Richard Myers, Nazim Bharmal, Tim Morris, Thierry Fusco, Jean-Francois Sauvage Fast E2E simulation tools and calibration.
LBT Progress Report, Feb Marco Xompero 1/14 P45 Test Results and beyond… Marco Xompero Daniela Zanotti Armando Riccardi.
Rev. 0 CONFIDENTIAL Mod.19 02/00 Rev.2 Mobile Terminals S.p.A. Trieste Author: M.Fragiacomo, D.Protti, M.Torelli 31 Project Idea Feasibility.
Integral Field Spectrograph Eric PRIETO CNRS,INSU,France,Project Manager 11 November 2003.
LBT672 ADAPTIVE SECONDARYLBT AO Review Firenze - 10  11 November, 2005 LBT672 ADAPTIVE SECONDARY UNITS Current status, acceptance test plan and specifications.
Low order modes sensing for LGS MCAO with a single NGS S. Esposito, P. M. Gori, G. Brusa Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri Italy Conf. AO4ELT June.
AO review meeting, Florence, November FLAO operating Modes Presented by: S. Esposito Osservatorio Astrofisico di Arcetri / INAF.
FLAO system test plan in solar tower S. Esposito, G. Brusa, L. Busoni FLAO system external review, Florence, 30/31 March 2009.
Optical surface measurements for very large flat mirrors Jim Burge, Peng Su, and Chunyu Zhao College of Optical Sciences University of Arizona Julius Yellowhair.
European Gravitational Observatory12/12/2005 WG1 Hannover 1 Mode Matching of the Fabry-Perrot cavities Julien Marque.
1 1 st Light AO 4 LBT Pyramid WFS Adaptive Secondary MMT Unit.
04. November 2004 A. Freise A. Freise, M. Loupias Collaboration Meeting November 04, 2004 Alignment Status.
LBT SW workshop. Tucson, 2-6 Oct 2006 A. Riccardi - The LBT AdsSec units1 The two LBT adaptive secondary units (LBT672a, LBT672b) A. Riccardi, M. Xompero,
1 Characterization of the T/T conditions at Gemini Using AO data Jean-Pierre Véran Lisa Poyneer AO4ELT Conference - Paris June , 2009.
Stabilization of Focus at ATF2 David Urner University of Oxford.
1 High-order coronagraphic phase diversity: demonstration of COFFEE on SPHERE. B.Paul 1,2, J-F Sauvage 1, L. Mugnier 1, K. Dohlen 2, D. Mouillet 3, T.
Zero field The 25 ‑ m f /0.7 primary mirror for the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) is made of seven 8.4 ‑ m segments in a close packed array. Each of the.
LIGO-G0200XX-00-M LIGO Scientific Collaboration1 First Results from the Mesa Beam Profile Cavity Prototype Marco Tarallo 26 July 2005 Caltech – LIGO Laboratory.
The Active Optics System S. Thomas and the AO team.
MAXIM Periscope ISAL Study Highlights ISAL Study beginning 14 April 2003.
A global approach to ELT instrument developments J.-G. Cuby for the French ELT WG.
Experimental results of tomographic reconstruction on ONERA laboratory WFAO bench A. Costille*, C. Petit*, J.-M. Conan*, T. Fusco*, C. Kulcsár**, H.-F.
1 Design and analysis for interferometric measurements of the GMT primary mirror segments J. H. Burge a,b, L. B. Kot a, H. M. Martin a, R. Zehnder b, C.
FLAO_01: FLAO system baseline & goal performance F. Quirós-Pacheco, L. Busoni FLAO system external review, Florence, 30/31 March 2009.
The Adaptive Mirror for the E-ELT
S. ChelkowskiSlide 1LSC Meeting, Amsterdam 09/2008.
M. Mantovani, ILIAS Meeting 7 April 2005 Hannover Linear Alignment System for the VIRGO Interferometer M. Mantovani, A. Freise, J. Marque, G. Vajente.
Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova A study of Pyramid WFS behavior under imperfect illumination Valentina Viotto Demetrio Magrin Maria Bergomi Marco Dima.
Solar Probe Plus Fluxgate Magnetometer QSR – Oct SPF MAG Quarterly Report – Oct 2014 The MAG EM1 (EQM) (board and frame at right) was successfully.
Pre-focal wave front correction and field stabilization for the E-ELT
The Self-Coherent Camera: a focal plane wavefront sensor for EPICS
Reproduction interdite © ALMA EUROPEAN CONSORTIUM Reproduction forbidden Design, Manufacture, Transport and Integration in Chile of ALMA Antennas Page.
Laguerre-Gauss Modes for Future Gravitational Wave Detectors Keiko Kokeyama University of Birmingham 2 nd ET Annual Erice, Sicily, Italy
Current Status of LASER FRAME for KEK-Nano BPM (Tentative results of resolution test) Second Mini-Workshop on Nano Project at ATF December 11-12, 2004.
Charts for TPF-C workshop SNR for Nulling Coronagraph and Post Coron WFS M. Shao 9/28/06.
Simulations - Beam dynamics in low emittance transport (LET: From the exit of Damping Ring) K. Kubo
The Field Camera Unit Results from technical meeting S. Scuderi INAF – Catania.
François Rigaut, Gemini Observatory GSMT SWG Meeting, LAX, 2003/03/06 François Rigaut, Gemini Observatory GSMT SWG Meeting, LAX, 2003/03/06 GSMT AO Simulations.
J. H. Burgea,b, W. Davisona, H. M. Martina, C. Zhaob
IFU Management Meeting LAM – 15/10/04. Introduction (olf)
IF and KL measurements with 4D interferometer Runa Briguglio, OAA.
Optomechanical Technologies for Astronomy, SPIE 6273 (2006)1 Manufacture of a 1.7 m prototype of the GMT primary mirror segments Buddy Martin a, Jim Burge.
1 & 2 JUNE 2015 – LLRF – BEAM DYNAMICS WORKSHOP URIOT Didier What is taken into account in simulations LLRF – Beam dynamics Workshop.
1 Cascina – October 19, 2011 ASPERA Forum Laurent Pinard Substrates, Polishing, Coatings and Metrology for the 2 nd generation of GW detector Laurent PINARD.
Pyramid sensors for AO and co-phasing
SPHERE – SAXO Performance status
Integration and alignment of ATLAS SCT
Presentation transcript:

Preparing the optical calibration of the M4-Deformable mirror for the E-ELT Briguglio, R., Pariani, G., Xompero, M., Riccardi, A. ADONI meeting, Firenze April 2016

E-ELT & M4 M4: the E-ELT’s DM Shape: flat A few numbers: – OD: 234cm, ID: 54cm – # segments: 6 – # actuators 5316 – on a triangular pattern (3.15cm pitch, 52.5 cm projected on M1) – Settling time< 1ms – Fitt. Error, median seeing: 145 nm WF – Flattening spec: 20 nm WF – Pupil position midway M4/M5:  Optical area moves on M4, depending on field – M5: Tip-Tilt only

E-ELT & M4 M4: the E-ELT’s DM Shape: flat A few numbers: – OD: 234cm, ID: 54cm – # segments: 6 – # actuators 5316 – on a triangular pattern (3.15cm pitch, 52.5 cm projected on M1) – Settling time< 1ms – Fitt. Error, median seeing: 145 nm WF – Flattening spec: 20 nm WF – Pupil position midway M4/M5:  Optical area moves on M4, depending on field – M5: Tip-Tilt only

E-ELT & M4 M4: the E-ELT’s DM Shape: flat A few numbers: – OD: 234cm, ID: 54cm – # segments: 6 – # actuators: 5316 – on a triangular pattern (3.15cm pitch, 52.5 cm projected on M1) – Settling time< 1ms – Fitt. Error, median seeing: 145 nm WF – Flattening spec: 20 nm WF – Pupil position midway M4/M5:  Optical area moves on M4, depending on field – M5: Tip-Tilt only

M4 project Partners – ADOPTICA as prime-contractor (companies consortium, MG+ADS) – INAF as sub-contractor Allocated Budget: – ~30M€ (tot) – ~ 1.3M€/7y (INAF) – 2.5FTE/y INAF Team: – Riccardi, Briguglio, Xompero (OAA) – Pariani (OAB) – 0.5 more persons (to be hired) INAF Tasks: -AO expertise -Error budget -Optical design of Test Tower -Test plan and procedures -Support of Tower integration and characterization -M4 optical test (2022)

The INAF Team Marco Xompero-OAA Giorgio Pariani-OAB Runa Briguglio-OAA Armando Riccardi-OAA

However, we fit well into an ADONI meeting LBT Access road, february 2010

Project timeline Date08/10/201608/09/201708/10/201908/01/202008/04/2022 Deliverables Optical Test Setup Critical Design Review Final Design review Optical Test Setup Review Integration readiness review In-Unit Optical Tests Optical Test Setup Design X Optical test setup specification X Compliance Matrix X X Engineering Budgets X Optical test setup Verification plan X Optical test setup engineering budgets X M4 Unit optical tests plan/procedure XX X Optical test X

1.Review of the test tower design Interferometer replaced Optical design: update/sensitivity/risks Opto-mechanical fine tuning 2. Test procedure Risks/unknowns (experience with LBT/VLT +M4 prototype) Simulations Overview of on-going activity

On-going activity 1 Test Tower Revision lim = $  ∞ +

11 TOP VIEW M4 FM SIDE VIEW Concept: Newtonian telescope F/3.3 beam 45° folding mirror 1.5 m parabolic collimator Flat M4 to close the cavity Test tower concept Interferometer, F/3 beam Parabola

Test tower concept Rotating-sliding assembl y M4 Parabola Ref Flat mirror Interferometer frame

Test Tower Revision Validation of Fizeau interf. proposed during Phase1 – Dynamic Fizeau: discarded – Critical internal calibration procedure – Calibration residuals too large for M4 REQ – New solution: dynamic Twyman Green Optical design updated – Beam expander to implement TG interf. Validation tests & OAB Thanks to E.Diolaiti, F.Cortecchia, M.Riva

Fizeau? Dynamic Fizeau interferometer discarded: Reasons for exclusion: calibration 1.Tip/tilt and focus entangled with calibration signal 2.Coupling of calibration signal with current aberrations 3.Time overhead and risks due to calibration (e.g. Mask management) 14-Oct.-2015E-ELT M4 Unit – PM#2 Meeting 14 Comparison between PSI and DYN mode: tip-tilt and focus are shown up. Critical for flattening Re-trace error (signature) measured through HO cavity: entangled with local WF. Critical for IF and flattening. Detector mask affected by reconstruction issues, because of very large fringes density. Critical for mask management/schedule.

Our background in DM optical calibration: On-going activity 2 Test procedures definition LBT (2x), Mag VLT-DSMLATT M4DP 1m 1.2m diam, cm diam, 19 2x 30cm x70cm 2x 111 Also tested by Merate Also: TecnoINAF2010 was devoted to DM calibration SPIE 2010 AO4ELT3- SPIE2014 ICSO2015 SPIE2016 AO4ELT4

M4 is different: è petaloso!!! – Segmented system (2x tested with M4DP) – Management of block-diagonal command matrix – Management of mask islands – Measurement/correction of global shape with local commands – Images composition (interf beam << M4) – Measur./Correction of continuous modes on partial frame – Management of CPA vs segment aberrations – Very tight specifications – 20 nm WFE, including phasing+polishing – Test tower: 6 m – Convection, vibration, thermoelastic bending

M4 is different: – Segmented system (2x tested with M4DP) – Management of block-diagonal command matrix – Management of mask islands – Measurement/correction of global shape with local commands – Images composition (interf beam << M4) – Measur./Correction of continuous modes on partial frame – Management of CPA vs segment aberrations – Very tight specifications – 20 nm WFE, including phasing+polishing – Test tower: 6 m – Convection, vibration, thermoelastic bending

The optical calibration of M4DP was a lesson learned: – Management of segments: – Commands – Masks – InfFunct – Measurement/unwrapping of diff piston – Measurement of piston InfFunct – LO Modes command amplitude must be << λ/4 – We need a new command basis Optical Merate  OAA+OAB: February-March 2015 Results -Flattening: 12 nm RMS WFE -Diff piston accuracy: 5 nm WF -Test on convection noise -Noise vs diff piston -Optimal control of differential tilt: InfFunct absolutely referenced in tilt with the not-active shell

Results on the M4DP 1: Initial shape 2: 2x10 modes flattening 3: high orders flattening, no phasing 4: whole system flattened and co-phased WFE: 12 nm RMS 70 cm

Still many open points -How to measure effectively the piston IntMat, despite the interf. phase ambiguity? -How to compute global commands from single local measurements? -What is the best management strategy for the interferometer island masks? -How to cope with bench noise? Diff piston noise: 150 nm N λ jumps

8s is a simulation SW producing phase maps of the OTT. Written in IDL Model from FEA and ZEMAX The user may command/modify: Tower geometry/ configuration M4 actuator command Optics position Optics figuring and markers on/off Vibration noise, diff piston on/off Introducing 8s: Optical Test Tower Simulator Optics position OTT WFmap ZEMAX/FE model OTT geometry Test procedures Data processing Simulation strategy Noise Act command OTT Data Segment mask Green: input from operator

8s is a simulation SW producing phase maps of the OTT. Written in IDL Model from FEA and ZEMAX The user may command/modify: Tower geometry/ configuration M4 actuator command Optics position Optics figuring and markers on/off Vibration noise, diff piston on/off Introducing 8s: Optical Test Tower Simulator Phase map Geometry InterferogramAct.Command Simulator output

Introducing 8s: Optical Test Tower Simulator 8s is a simulation SW producing phase maps of the OTT. Written in IDL Model from FEA and ZEMAX The user may command/modify: Tower geometry/ configuration M4 actuator command Optics position Optics figuring and markers on/off Vibration noise, diff piston on/off

Introducing 8s: Optical Test Tower Simulator 8s is a simulation SW producing phase maps of the OTT. Written in IDL Model from FEA and ZEMAX The user may command/modify: Tower geometry/ configuration M4 actuator command Optics position Optics figuring and markers on/off Vibration noise, diff piston on/off

Alignment procedure with reference flat Single segment Interaction Matrix Single segment flattening Tip/tilt IntMat with partial segment visibility Flattening of differential tip/tilt with partial segment visibility ‘Piston friendly’ modified command matrix Work in progress with 8s Mmat = [v 0 v 1 v 2 ] Modified Mmat: v0’ = recmat # piston v 1 ’ = v 1 -v 0 ’ v 2 ’ = v 2  piston(v 0 )=1  piston(v 1 )=0  piston(v 2 )=0 Piece of cake, mostly a system validation

Alignment procedure with reference flat Single segment Interaction Matrix Single segment flattening Tip/tilt IntMat with partial segment visibility Flattening of differential tip/tilt with partial segment visibility ‘Piston friendly’ modified command matrix Work in progress with 8s TTmat = [(2x6)x5136]= [Tip0 Tilt Tip1 Tilt ] Tip = |Mmat> Mmat = [v 0 v 1 v 2 ] Modified Mmat: v0’ = recmat # piston v 1 ’ = v 1 -v 0 ’ v 2 ’ = v 2  piston(v 0 )=1  piston(v 1 )=0  piston(v 2 )=0

Alignment procedure with reference flat Single segment Interaction Matrix Single segment flattening Tip/tilt IntMat with partial segment visibility Flattening of differential tip/tilt with partial segment visibility ‘Piston friendly’ modified command matrix: now to be tested with diff piston noise Work in progress with 8s Original command matrix: Mmat = [v 0 v 1 v 2 ] V0: mode 0 V1: LO modes (1:40...) V2 : others (41:end) Modified command matrix: |v 0 ’> = | v 1 > |v 1 ’>= (1- )v 1 > |v 2 ’>= |v 2 > Mmat’ = [v 0 ‘ v 1 ‘ v 2 ’]  = 1  = 0

What’s next? microOTT for test cases assessment – Reduced scale OTT or – Test-specific laboratory setup Study on system calibration with FEA – Lead by C. Del Vecchio – Well fitting M4 modularity

Summary INAF is involved in M4 project 2.5 FTE, 1.3 M€ / 7 years Tasks: AO expertise, optical test Current activity Review of the optical test tower Definition of the calibration procedures Optical test of M4 is a challenge Segmented system, local visibility, global performance Tight specifications Simulation in progress to assess the strategy

Thanks for your attention stay tuned for flattening in 2023

Update of Parabolic mirror spec. 14-Oct The tightest SPEC is SurfError: Slope error and Curv Radius are met after SurfError is met Two possible SPEC definitions  Via simulation:  We define a polishing quality spatial distribution  Montecarlo generation of phase maps  Computation of subtraction residuals  Check of specifications  Direct computation of subtraction residuals S = PM Surf Map dS= S- shift(S, 2pix, 2pix): dS < 3 nm RMS Pix: resolution element 3 nm  6 nm WF  12 nm WF DPass