1. September 19, 2002University of Colorado The Off-Plane Option for the Reflection Grating Spectrometer Webster Cash University of Colorado

2. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Chandra Spectra Look Like Traditional Ground Spectra. Can We Afford to Step Back???

3. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Off-plane Mount In-plane Mount

4. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Radial Groove Gratings

5. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Off-plane Resolution At typical values of off-plane angles and 15” telescope resolution R ~ several hundred → thousand Sub-Aperturing improves it further

6. September 19, 2002University of Colorado An Off-plane X-ray Spectrum

7. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Off-plane Tradeoffs Higher Throughput Higher Resolution Better Packing Geometry Looser Alignment Tolerances CON Higher Groove Density PRO

8. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Packing Geometry +1 0 Central grating must be removed. Half the light goes through. +1 0 Gratings may be packed optimally In-plane Off-plane

9. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Throughput Littrow configuration  =  = blaze angle - Better Groove Illumination - Maximum efficiency Constant Graze Angle

10. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Holographic Gratings Last year we reviewed approaches to fabricating high density gratings. At Jobin-Yvon (outside Paris) Create rulings using interference pattern in resist Ion-Etch Master to Create Blaze Radial Geometry – Type 4 Aberrated Beams Density: Up to 5800 g/mm Triangular (<35 deg blaze) In UV holographic blazed gratings have very low scatter and good efficiency – same in x-ray?

11. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Raytracing – Arc of Diffraction

12. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Raytrace – 35 & 35.07Å

13. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Raytracing of Wavelength Pairs and +.07Å 10Å 90Å 80Å 70Å 60Å 50Å 40Å 35Å30Å 25Å 20Å15Å

14. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Internal Structure of Telescope Blur Favors Dispersion in Off-plane Direction Spectral line of HeII 304Å displaying In-plane scatter Data from a radial grating in the off-plane mount, Wilkinson

15. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Subaperture Effect

16. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Grating Modules R450.0mm Inner Mirrors High Energy R151.4mm Off-plane Grating Module Locations on Envelope R770.0mm Outer Mirrors Grating Area

17. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Can Improve Performance

18. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Can Improve Performance

19. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Raytracing – Arc of Diffraction

20. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Raytrace – 35 & 35.028Å

21. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Raytracing of Wavelength Pairs and +.028Å 10Å 90Å 80Å 70Å 60Å 50Å 40Å 35Å30Å 25Å 20Å15Å

22. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Resolution 0.1 1.0 10.0 Energy (keV) 100 1000 10,000 E/  E Calorimeter – 2eV I-P n=1 I-P n=2 Primary Response ASSUMPTIONS: 5500g/mm 15” SXT 2” gratings 2” alignment <35% Response Extended CCD Mission Requirement Mission Goal O-P n=1 O-P n=2 O-P n=3 Mission Requirement

23. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Effective Area Energy (keV) cm 2 ASSUMPTIONS: Coverage 40% of outer envelope Off-Plane Groove Efficiency 80% of theoretical 85% Structure Transmission CCD thin Al filter only 0.1 1.0 10.0 0 5000 off-plane 1000 2000 3000 4000 baseline  Goal Mission Requirement

24. September 19, 2002University of Colorado 0.1 1.0 10.0 Energy (keV) 15 area x resolution ÷ 10 6 off-plane 0 5 10 20 in-plane calorimeter Figure of Merit

25. September 19, 2002University of Colorado 0.1 1.0 10.0 Energy (keV) 15 area x resolution /E(kev)/ 10 6 off-plane – R~3000 0 5 10 20 in-plane calorimeter Figure of Merit with Spectral Weighting off-plane – R~1500

26. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Pros & Cons of Off-plane vs. Baseline Design ● Pro: – Greater Resolution from Sub-aperturing – Greater Collecting Area – higher groove efficiency – Less Sensitivity to Grating Alignment – Less Sensitivity to Grating Flatness – Lower scatter in Dispersion Direction – Fewer Gratings Required – Thicker Substrates Acceptable – Smaller Structure Required ● Con: – Higher groove density required

27. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Difficulties of High Resolution ( /Δ >1200) flatter gratings tighter alignment tighter focus telescope depth of focus adjustment zero order monitor essential to aspect solution more difficult calibration greater astigmatism –higher background –more source overlap

28. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Depth of Field Problem Solutions for Study: Smaller Gratings Curved Gratings Adjust Telescope Segments Hope that it is merely a matter of mounting existing shells at different radii

29. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Resolution Degradation 1 10 100 Grating Resolution (arcsec) 100 1000 10,000 E/  E

30. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Off-plane Grating Module 22cm Grating size: 10cm x 10cm x 0.2cm Graze angle: 2.7 o Gratings Qty. 20 11cm Holder

31. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Off-plane Grating Resolution Options  ~ 1000  ~ 5000 ● SXA (Al/SiC) substrates ● Easy tolerances ● Simple mount ● No thermal gradient ● Mass OK ● Glass/Si substrates? ● More difficult tolerances ● More difficult mount ● Probable thermal gradient issues ● Mass constraint more difficult to meet

32. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Off-plane Grating Estimated Tolerances Error type Zero-order Allowable Tolerances Equation  = 15 arcsec  = 2 arcsec Surface error 36.5  m4.9  m xx 36.5  m4.9  m yy 1mm zz 775  m103  m xx 11.5° yy 0.75 arcsec0.1 arcsec zz 31.8 arcsec4.2 arcsec

33. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Off-plane Grating Module Estimated Mass MaterialsGratings (Kg) Holder (Kg) Light- weight One Module (Kg) Qty Modules Total mass (Kg) SXA/SXA1.161.20none2.363275.65 SXA/SXA1.161.2025%2.173269.53 SXA/60611.161.11none2.273272.73 FS/Invar/Ti0.881.56870%2.453278.36 FS/Titanium0.881.48830%2.373275.82 FS/GrEp/Invar0.881.687none2.573282.17

34. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Wavefront Error: Resolution 1000 Total allowable error 21  m Fabrication 2.87  m (rss) Substrate Figure (3 ) 1.9  m (requirement) Replication Epoxy cure strain 1.0  m (calc) Replicate Separation Strain 1.9  m (WAG/3 ) Mount 10 um (WAG) Test ( /50).013  m Stability 6.23  m (rss) Creep 0.5  m (WAG) Water absorption (assume 0.3%) 1.6  m (calc) Thermal gradient (0.5°C) 6  m (calc) Jitter (on orbit).0003  m (WAG/calc) Alignment 10  m (estimate) 1g Sag.09  m (calc) Temp (bulk) ±2.5°C 2.02  m (rss) Mount 2  m (WAG) Reflective coating bimetallic effect 0.3  m (calc) Replication epoxy bimetallic effect 0.0005  m (calc) Spare 8.054 (rss) Constellation X Off-plane Grating Mount rms Wavefront Error Budget (15 arcsec max) All errors are presented as rms wavefront error

35. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Wavefront Error: Resolution 5000 Total allowable error 2.77 mm Fabrication 1.16  m (rss) Substrate Figure (1.5 ) 0.95  m (requirement) Replication Epoxy cure strain 0.23  m (calc) Replicate Separation Strain 0.6  m (WAG/1 ) Mount 1.5  m (WAG) Test (  50).013 mm Stability 0.62  m (rss) Creep 0.1  m (WAG) Water absorption (assume 0.3%) 0.35  m (calc) Thermal gradient (0.1°C) 0.5  m (WAG/calc) Jitter (on orbit).0003  m (WAG/calc) Alignment 1.75  m (estimate) 1g Sag.11  m (calc) Temp (bulk) ±2.5°C 0.21  m (rss) Mount 0.2  m (WAG) Reflective coating bimetallic effect.07  m (calc) Replication epoxy bimetallic effect 0.008  m (calc) Spare 0.754  m (rss) Constellation X Off-plane Grating Mount rms Wavefront Error Budget (2 arcsec max) All errors are presented as rms wavefront error

36. September 19, 2002University of Colorado Off-plane Grating Prototype: steps and schedule PhaseTaskLeadtime 1 Preliminary feasiblility study of type 4 aberration corrected grating distribution to approximate radial distribution 4-5 mos. (Jun ‘02 to ~Oct ‘02) 2 Preliminary study of blaze process using existing masks (30 o profile goal). (work done in parallel with step 1) 4-5 mos. (Jun ‘02 to ~Oct ‘02) 3 Contingent upon step 1&2 positive result. Deliverable: 58x58x10mm parallel groove sample with 30 o blaze angle. 4 mos. (Oct ‘02 to ~Feb ‘03) 4 Contingent upon positive test of sample. Deliverable: 58x58x10mm radial groove distribution with blazed profile. 3 mos. (Mar ‘03 to ~Jun ‘03) 5 Ray-tracing to optimize recording configuration Deliverable: 120mm square radial distribuation with blazed profile and flight groove density. TBD

37. September 19, 2002University of Colorado In Conclusion, Off-plane Can: ● Match RGS to Calorimeter Scientifically – R~1500 – greatly eased tolerances ● or Significantly Enhance Con-X Science – R~3000 – tolerances at currently expected levels Study funded by the Con-X project. First results in January.