(
WIDE FIELD and PLANETARY CAMERA:· 2
Pre-Ship Review
SCIENCE CALIBRATIONS
John Trauger
27 May 1993
(
Overview
We will present a summary of the current state of science
characterization and calibration. Many individuals have been
involved in the analysis to date, as may be judged from the
current list of initial reports at the back of this package.
•
All objectives detailed in the TV science requirements docu­
ment were addressed during the test.
•
Approximately 3400 SCIence exposures were taken
course of the test.
•
III
the
Focus
The imaging of a pinhole target was analyzed for 'sharpness'
in three fine-focus runs during the test ( see table). The sharp­
ness table indicates focus position in focus motor steps, equal
to 0.0119 mm in the f/24 beam.
•
We found that the relative focus among the four cameras
remained constant to within 0.1 mm, but global shifts as large
as 0.26 mm were seen relative to the Stimulus focus.
•
.Three Arago/Hartmann focus measurements with the Stim­
ulus Monitor Camera showed focus variations in the Stimulus
as large as 0.5 mm.
•
focus is limited primarily by the an
apparent lack of stability and repeatability in Stimulus focus.
•
Our knowledge of absolute
FII�E
FOCUS PCI
HuT
(JP8IT
0.08
•
•
007
(f)
(j)
w
/
0..
•
•
•
•
;
0.06
•
0 05
0:::
•
« 004
I
VI
0.03
002
•
0,01
•
•
I
I
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
I
•
I
I
FINE FOCUS PCl
HOT
ORBIT WITH
I
FIT
0.08
0.07
(f) 0.06
(f)
w
Z 0.05
0..
0:::
« 0.04
I
(f)
0.03
•
0.02
•
0.01
0
900
1000
1100 1200 1300 1400
FOCUS POSITION
1500
1600
Sharpness with shape fixed:
*******
*******
postDynamic fine focus, 4/7/93, CCDs at +5C
HWIIM
FOCUS POSITION
PEAK SHARPNESS
PC1
0.07502
1305.4
127.9
WFC2
WFC3
0.16243
0.15078
1267.8
1234.0
161.2
169.5
WFC4
0.15962
1250.5
159.4
*.*.**.
Hot orbit fine focus, 4/20/93, CCDs at -20C
HWIIM
FOCUS POSITION
PEAK SHARPNESS
*** ••••
123.1
PC1
0.06525
1302.6
WFC2
0.16078
1261.2
161.2
WFC3
0.15648
1231. 6
164.7
WFC4
0.15520
1251.4
161.2
*** ••*.
cold orbit fine focus, 5/7/93, CCDs at -76C
HWIIM
FOCUS POSITION
PEAK SHARPNESS
*******
120.7
PC1
WFC2
0.06876
1324.8
0.16999
1282.5
158.8
WFC3
0.16965
1256.4
157.7
WFC4
0.16220
1270.4
158.7
Image quality
Burrows and Krist have estimated residual phase errors,
coma, and focus by phase retrieval (see attachment at end of
package). Wavefront errors exclusive of focus are better than
>. /25 RMS at 6328 A and consistent with December 1992 buyoff
interferometry.
•
Total wavefront must include relative focus shifts between
the cameras.
•
Maximum focus shift (between PC1 and WFC3) corresponds
to about >. /15 RMS. Selection of an OTA focus position inter­
mediate between these extremes leads to a total RMS wavefront
of no more than >./18 RMS in all cameras.
•
•
Wavefront quality is therefore within CEI specifications.
Encircled energy can be estimated from RMS errors, focus,
and OTA phase map, ignoring telescope pointing, pixellation
(see graphs).
•
\
Predicted PCl +OTA Performance
Predicted
;l
m
0
2(4)
eo
•
o5�
11°
e
'u
05
;; .
jd
�
focus =
0.032
Z(5)
05\i9 '"
0.008
1(6)
oS\;9 =
0.010
1(7)
l<corna =
0.005
)'corno =
0.003
2(B)
WF4+0TA
Z(11) sphe . ..
0.001.
1(22) spller =
0.001
2(4)
2(5)
e:
•
<
w",
1(6)
110
]
focus" -0.110
asti9 ..
0.009
aslig '" -0.008
1(7)
Jlcoma
=
0.004
2(8)
ycoma =
0 004
1(11) spher
g"",;
:8
0
•
Performance
=
-0.008
2(22) sphllr = -0.001
•
�
�
N
0
O�-'
--�--�----�--�
o
0.2
0.4
�
__
�
�
____
�
__
0.5
0 �1'--------
�
__
____
�
0.8
o
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.5
Radial distance. arcsec
Radial distance. arcsec
Predicted
�----�---f�------�� --------�
wF2+OTA Performance
Predicted
WFJ+OTA
Performance
;l
�
05 ..
0
1
.�
•
05
focus" -0.070
aslig .. -0.011
ostig
-0.016
a
1(7)
lecoma
a
0.003
Z(8)
ycorna =
0.007
Z(I!) spher = -0.003
io
;;
Z(4)
2(5)
2(6)
.
1(22) spher '"
0.002
�
05",
vO
i
�
I(4)
locus " -0,200
1(5)
osl;9 ..
0.008
1(6)
astig"
0,022
1(7)
"como =
0 005
zeal
ycamo =
0.004
1(11) sphe. = -0.008
g"",;
:! 0
Z(22) spher ..
0.001
•
�
�
d
N
dN
o�
I'-C--�---c�----"---- o�----"----f�---L----�c---�----"
o
0.2
0.4
0.6
Radial distance, orcsec
0.8
\I--�----�--�-- ��--�--��--�--�------�
o�
o
0.2
0.4
0.6
Radial distance, orcsee
0.8
____
Optical Alignment
K-spot positions were stable through the dynamics tests (see
graph) , indicating a robust optical bench alignment.
•
Image deflections due to AFM motions has been consis­
tent with the predictions based on laboratory calibration data
throughout the environmental tests.
•
AFM settings for minimum coma are listed in the table.
These have been used consistently in tests since predynamics,
and are recommended for the initial flight settings.
•
I',POTS P')3TTEST
w
u
z
w
cr:
W
LL
-
PRETEST
cAMlf-.�
I
0
�
:
I
-.:..
:..
r
'"'-
-
ISP�TS POSTTEST - PRETEST CAMERA �
w
U
Z
w
cr:
W
LL
LL
0
-,
-
-.J
W
�
2
-
0
o
•
..... .
::.<
-'-
r
-.
.:t
�
--
-1
�-PI/EL
[L
I
1
0
DIFFERENCE
+-
-1 -
�
�
�
-1
X-PIXEL
')
j
0
DIFFERENCE
1kSPOTS POSTTEST - PRETEST CAMERA
�SPOTS POSTTEST. - PRETEST CAMERA:
W
U
Z
w
cr:
W
LL
LL
0
-.J
W
',<
[L
I
0
.�
I-
w
U
Z
w
cr:
W
LL
LL
0
(I
o
_00
-.J
W
3
2
.
0
." .
./
-
-I
[L
-
I
-1 .
�
�
-1
X-PIXEL
1
0
DIFFERENCE
2
')
')
�
j
0
/-P I \EL DIFFEREIJCE
-1
')
FLIGHT AFM SETTINGS
At 12 degrees C:
Camera
AFM settings
(HEX)
AFM voltages
1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B
1A&B 2A&B 3A&B
PC1
43 43 00 00 00 00
23.3
WFC3
15 15 00 00 54 54
WFC4
lS lS 00 00 15 15
Magnitude of
Magnitude of
Pupil Shear
Image offset
(t diameter)
(pixels)
0.0
0.6S
3.9
7.4
0.0 29.2
1.03
2.7
S.3
0.0
O.OS
0.2
0.0
7.4
,«
0::
CL
«
Ci
a>
......
.
"'i"
II-
T
�
a>
......
.
UJ
Vl
0
I:J:
<.!>
'7
«
w
L
�
(L
0
-'
...
0
Ll'l
a>
�t,
Ll'l
0
�
+
(L )
..
�
0
-t
0
:::(
'..)
�
0
a>
......
.
�
0
t-
0
---l
W
(
a>
......
�
-
(f)
(-
I
(_
I
I
(.L )
-t
T
LL
W
0
( -)
--+-'
0
......
.
''
,
-t
"
r"J
)
.' )
(-
..
LL
.
«
0::
w
'2
-t
<.!>
Z
0
�
"T
I
\ ..� ,
a>
......
','
-
�
0
.
S:
a>
......
.
a>
......
Z
0
o
o
+
a>
......
f-
�
en
C)
0...
L
LL
«
r-f)
f'
"T
('I
�
"T
0
�
�
CD
�
"T
U
UJ
"T
�
(-)
"T
+
1'"
e I-I
co
en
S0
d
UJ
-:t
-:t
([)
-:t
'":t
en
I."
(
(,
-t
r i'
-t
-t
(
,- )
I
{i..... )
(
CCD Quantum Efficiency
QEs from 3500 to 9500 Angstroms are nominal and meet
CEI specifications, but QEs at 1470 are below expectations by
roughly a factor of two.
•
Large differences in apparent QE between the CCDs are seen
in the Xe 1470 data, inconsistent with the relative uniformity
seen with other lamps in the FUV filters.
•
QEs with F170W and F160W ( Wood's) filters indicate nom­
inal variations between CCDs, but no absolute calibration is
possible until the SMC is calibrated.
•
The nature of the Xe 1470 illumination pattern is not ade­
quately understood, further work is needed.
•
�
o
.....
•
..ql.J....
?i:
0
0
0
IX)
III
c:
411.
·0
,......
III
a.
0
0
-c
•
�
1'0
l.J....
?i:
III
>
W
0
E
.. ..
..
0
....
III
-
0
0
0
(0
... .
-C
Q)
-
.�
-C
E
Q.
'-'"
..c:
CI
c:
Q)
Qj
>
0
==
•
·
CI
c:
«
.
N
l.J....
?i:
0
0
0
'<t
..
o
o
o
N
...
z·o
a
UV Col Channel
F16 0W8
60!
u'403 3
gO"
100
=
series
0.389281
abave
0.175685 e/ s/p
PC rates
X4.8'
5 00.000 s
7.5e/ON
<::.
Xenon Lamp 17
CLEAR
u14137 series
100
(�.'
o
N
.�
4.15754
above
1.15 444 e/ s/p
�
�:
��::
0
Ii?
O�
=
_I
' !I'!'!�'';':;';;;_C)=�'''::l! n�:_30�-=�' '-' '' �
�1L==,-,_�O!4,""'''''�
�
X481
s
5
Superdark subtracted
�V-'- ��
f
smoothed 19
11
,�90--"
c
...
"'0
')oL....
___
,n �:lllllll.-
....l.£a.__
.
.
_
_
.
�
--'
_
"""
_______
UV Contamination
The Stimulus Xenon spectral lamp, which includes filters to
isolate a single spectral line at 1470 Angstroms, provides the
means to monitor accumulation of molecular contaminants on
the CCD windows over time.
•
Xe 1470 exposures indicated a uniform decrease in intensity
at a rate of about 1% per day in all four cameras.
•
Reference QE diode readings proved unreliable at the low
illumination levels from the Xe lamp.
•
The Stimulus Monitor Camera, a CCD camera protected
from the TV environment, was used to monitor the Xe 1470
signal after the tenth day of the test, and showed a similar
decrease of about 1% per day.
•
This indicates that to our measurement accuracy (a few %),
the Xe 1470 decrease is caused by a decrease in output from
the lamp.
•
No variations in sensitivity of the CCDs at 1470 Angstrom
were seen in excess of our measurement uncertainty during the
course of the test, including the two periods of decontamination
thermal cycling late in the test.
•
We could have reliably seen 10% variations in sensitivity at
1470 Angstroms. No contamination was observed at this level
over the course of the vacuum test with cold CCDs.
•
WF2
C_Rate Xe-l 470A
vs
WF3
time
0..8
.......
In
In
CD
4
�U
i �j� 1 "l� + +Kt + * :\+
�
�U
o
0:::
2
-+-
c
:J
-+-
c
:J
o
u
2
t
I-
5
o
(days
time
WF4
+*
:+
;h
o
PC
�8
CD
CD
4
C_Rate Xe-1470A
vs
time
1.0
-+-
o
0:::
2
-+-
i �j� 1 �lt + +Kt + * :\ + :+
2
from
15
20
4/ 19/93 00:00)
In
CD
c
:J
(days
10
0..
.......
I
-+-
5
time
....... 6
I
o
0:::
J
+*
....... 1.5
In
I-
2
time
0.. 8
u
o
I-
15
20
from 4/ 19/93 00:00)
vs
2
j i �j� I �lt + +Kt + * :\+ : +
u
10
C_Rate Xe-1470A
4
.......
�
time
....... 6
I
CD
o
0:::
vs
0..8
.......
....... 6
I
�
C_Rate Xe-1470A
;h
+*
o
5
time
(days
20
15
from 4/ 19/93 00:00)
10
C
:J
o
s->
05
•
°1�
;h
j i �j� 1 �lt + +Kt + * :\+ :+
I-
+*
5
o
time
(days
10
from
20
15
4/ 19/93 00:00)
j
Xe Lamp WFPC2 and SMC Count Rates vs time
8
�
---... --- :-"- � :�:
0::6
....
...
en
-------.
.......
.......OJ)
**-
� 4
..-
o
�
...
..­
c:
:J
o
u
.
•
.
2
)It
)It
..
.
WF2
WF4
WF3
)I(
)f(
SMC
••
•
PC
(x4.81)
o
o
5
time
(days
15
from 4/19/93 00:00)
10
20
Xe Lamp: Diode Current (nA) and SMC Count Rates vs time
,
'=i 8
,
,
I
,
,
, , , I
I
,
,
,
,
I
0.006 I I
'
'
'
'
'
""'"
0..
6 "'-
""'"
<{
c
UI
"'­
'-" 0.004
CD
rn
c
'0
o
CD
a::
'-"
UI
**----*-
CD
....
---.",
SMC
4�
....
C
::J
o
U
CD
'0
o
Ci
....
CD
Z
0.002
DIODE
U
2::E
Vl
0.000
I
10
o
5
time
(days
15
from 4/19/93 00:00)
10
20
ccn Flatfields
At least five TV flatfield exposures were obtained for each
filter.
•
Ratios over CCD temperature cycles indicate flatfields are
constant to much better than 1% (during 6 hour decontamina­
tion cycle).
•
Ratios show that flatfield intensity patterns are sensitive at
the 1% level to very small mirror tilts.
•
Intrinsic flatness of the uncorrected images is roughly 3%,
and the reticle pattern (every 34.133 rows) is the dominant
irregularity.
•
Vignetting is different in the Stimulus and CAL channel (and
OTA) so corrections must be worked out for TV flatfields in
preparation for their use on-orbit.
•
,
OTA, Stirriulus, and CAL channel flatfields will be predicted
based on raytrace calculations, tested where feasible with TV
data, and ultimately used to predict the OTA flatfield pattern
for all filters.
•
,.
'<.
F555W thermal cycling
en
Qj
x
'5.
'0
ci
c
(ij
c
0
-
U
e
.05
.05
.04
.04
.03
Q)
x
'5.
.02
.02
C
(ij
c
0
-
'u
e
0
::J
::J
!'
9-
..
'2.
x
.01
:� I
.01
I 1 1 :1 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 I: I 1 I I $ I I 1 I :1 1 I I I 1 I I 1·1 I: I 1 I I .�
iF
0
05
.04
.04
.03
.03
-
iil
g
0
::J
!1!.
0
ci
g
!1!.
.0
.l!l
.03
�
II>
.02
.02
::J
!'
9-
..
'2.
x
.01
.01
--
.-
01
-4
-2
(Frame 2
2
- Frame 1) / expected
4
o
u
-4
-2
(Frame 2
2
- Frame 1) / expected
iF
10
4
o
u
(
Other CCD Characteristics
CCD/signal chain read noise, gain (electrons/DN), and lin­
earity have been determined (see table), and are well with CEI
specifications.
•
Dark noise vs. temperature has been determined for all
CCDs, and -76C was selected as the preferred temperature
setpoint to assure that dark rates would not exceed 0.01 elec­
trons/pixel/second.
•
-Hot pixels and traps have been mapped. One very hot pixel
(1.8 electrons/sec) has appeared in WFC2 since CCD screen­
mg.
•
Residual images have been checked, are consistent with CCD
screening tests and will not pose a problem on-orbit.
•
ADC characteristics are under analysis. Missing codes have
been eliminated, small (normal) digitization irregularities are
seen.
•
Pattern noise was often seen in the bias frames at the sub-DN
level. It is likely related to the electrical noise in the EGSE and
enVIrons.
•
Ru.tJ.. VI"Se, 6� �
I
��nr-"
TABLE 6
"7.5 gain·"
PC-l
WF-2
WF-3
WF-4
noise (e-)
5.24
+/-0.30
5.51
+/-0.37
5.22
+/-0.28
5.19
+/-0.36
gain
7.12
+/-0.41
7.12
+/-0.41
6.90
+/-0.32
7.10
+/-0.39
1. 0015
+/-0.0006
1.0015
+/-0.0006
1.0020
+/-0.0006
1.0038
+/-0.0007
(e-/DN)
gaIDma
"15 gain"
PC-l
WF-2
WF-3
WF-4
7.02
+/-0.41
7.84
+/-0.46
6.99
+/-0.38
8.32
+/-0.46
13.99
+/-0.63
14.50
+/-0.77
13.95
+/-0/63
13.95
+/-0.70
1. 0004
+/-0.0001
1.0023
+/-0.0004
1.0032
+/-0.0006
1.0018
+/-0.0012
ise (e-)
gain
ganuna
(e-/DN)
PC1
WF4 DarK Rate
DarK Rate
100
100
-0
C
0
0
Q)
(j)
-0
C
0
0
Q)
(j)
10
L
.
L
Q)
Q
10
Q)
Q
C.l
Q)
Q)
0.01
0.01
0.001
-90
0.1
-80
-7 0
-60
-50
-4 0
Temperature
-3 0
0.001
-9 0
-20
-60
-50
-40
Terrperat u r e
-30
-20
-30
-20
100
100
-0
C
0
0
Q)
(j)
10
10
L
L
Q)
Q
-7 0
WF3 DarK Rate
WF2 DarK Rate
-0
C
0
0
Q)
(j)
-80
Q)
Q
0.1
Q)
Q)
0.01
0.01
0.001
-9 0
0.1
-80
-7 0
-60
-50
-40
Temperature
-3 0
-20
0.001
-90
-80
-7 0
-6 0 -50 -40
Terrperature
I-to+
•
. "
'"
.'..
'
.
Sc0!,kil"
;
,',
.
.
: .
....
"
,,
' ,'
,
. .
.
:.
.. .
.
"
"
':,
',:,
-'.,'
" " "
. .' �
.",
. '
': .
.
'
.
�
,,>< ",I
0.00400000
Filters
Plot of sharpness vs wavelength over the filter set suggests
that there are no outstanding filter imaging problems, but the
test is susceptible to Stimulus jitter, and further evaluation is
required.
•
One of two Wood's filters (F160WB) performed well in test,
with rejection better than 10-6 at 5550 A, the second exhibited
pinholes which limited rejection to no better than 3 x 10-5.
Pinhole characteristics. are consistent with inspection reports
prior to installation of the filters.
•
Ramps and Quads were checked for orientation and wave­
length calibration, calibration is in progress.
•
Point Source Sharpness
(,NO
8
0.02
t
8r
•
390N
437N •
450W
•
469N
..
m
0
0
.......
»
::J
10
CJl
•
•
•
631N
658N
675W •
-...J
0
0
•
410M
439W
467M
487N
547M
•
•
•
•
•
606W
.....
::::r
•
•
502N
569W
::E
0
<
CD
CD
::J
10
375N380W
•
8�
0.08
0.06
0.04
588N
�
•
•
702W
••
CJl
CJl
::J
<
0
�.
.....
..,
0
3
CJl
'-"
.....
en
::::r
0
..,
"0
::J
CD
622W
656N
673N
"U
()
785LP
(Xl
0
0
814W
0
c
•
•
CJl
791W
::!!
;:;:
•
CD
..,
CJl
8r
(0
-
8t.....
-
o
•
1042M
..... 1-
Lc;
o
_L
____
�______L_____�____�____��____L______L____�____�
____
-j).
SWATH 2
IMAGE 12241
fran 295,
1
to 295,
800
3000
C
"D
2000
1000
o
100 200 300 400 500 600. 700
pixel length along line
Deliverables
Database of TV science images and science observer
logsheets: online and accessible over Internet, complete set of
datatapes was shipped to the STScI (5/20/93).
•
Complete TV datasets now reside at JPL, STScI, U Wiscon­
sin, and ASU.
•
•
Quicklook and Data Analysis notebooks, at JPL and STScl.
Preliminary TV science calibration report before September
15.
•
Flatfields representative of OTA
before September 15.
•
+
WFPC-2 for all filters
Ramp filter wavelength predictive software and database be­
fore September 15.
•
Reference AFM predictive software and database is now avail­
able.
•
Summary of WFPC2 Optical Verification Test Results
Chris Burrows and John Krist, WFPC2 IDT
25 May 1993
'
MOSI of Ih� opl
vacuum I('sling of WFPCZ has b��n reduced. Ther(' ar(' Ihr('e m('lhods Ihal can b� used in
Ihis dalas('1 10 del('rmin(' Ih(' ab�rralions in each inslrum('nlal configuralion. Th('y al'(,:
The stimulus + WFPC2 0Plical design predicls
1. Th(' commanded mirror positions.
('ssenlially z('ro aberralions near Ihe cenler of Ihe field of each camera when Ihey ar('
aligned. and tihing Ih(' pickoff mirror or AFMs from Ihis position produc('s a
prediclable -amounl of coma given Ih(' gains of Ihe aClualors.
2. Th(' aberrations d('lermined by phase relri('val on OUI of focus images. Phase relri('val is
Ih(' only m('lhod 10 give informalion aboul Ihe aberralions in Ihe cameras Ihal does nOI
Unforlunalely. Ihe pupil
suffer from unknown z('ro poinls and unc('rlain gains.
illuminalion pall('rn was nOI uniform. and unknown. so iI was solv('d for along wilh
Ihe aberralions.
3. The in·focus image. The image motion belween exposures when only one mirror has
been moved is a prediclor of Ihe associaled coma change.
In Figure 1. Ih� r�suhs from Ihes� Ihr�� m�lhods are shown for Ih� PC cam�ra. Th�I'� are
c1uslers of poinls al Ih� zero coma ("fIighl") position. Ihe zero AFM vohage selling and Ihe
6 places where one or IWO AFM have 44V applied. In order 10 achieve Ihis fil. cerlain gain
faclors were oplimized (for all four cameras simuhaneously).
The resuhs of Ihal
oplimization. logelher wilh a comparison wilh Ihe predictions from ray Irace analysis.
and Ihe presenl values in Ihe JPL ACTUATE program (which is being implemenled in Ihe
ground syslem) are given in Table 1. II can be seen Ihal Ihe ray Irace predicls image
motion well. bUI induced coma poorly bOlh for Ihe POMM and AFMs. The cause of Ihe
laller 20% discrepancy is nOI presenlly underslood. ahhough we feel il is very unlikely 10
be relaled 10 any problem wilh Ihe caineras. II is possible Ihal Ihe phase relrieval
sriflware suffers from a 20% bias when iI is eslimaling Ihe pupil illuminalion pallern
.,,;
'
f-------
I
I
,
o
...... _-
o�
,
"
• """'In
�
•
11'
r--r�--�-+--+--+--+--+--+-�--r--r�r--r�--�-�--"- -4--- 1
j
1
Figure 1. Three measuremenls of coma. Each tick mark is (1.01 microns rms coma
logelher wilh coma.
RAY
JPL
USED
0.269
0.279
0.216
0.200
0.232
0.213
0.717
0.918
0.022
0.023
0.018
AFM pixels/F/arcsec
0.0037
0.0047
0.0037
AFM Pixels/%/F
0.168
0.203
0.207
POMM % shear/slep
POMM pixels /F/ slep
POMM pixels/%
0.802
.
AFM % shear/arcsec
Table 1. Comparison of our raylrace. ,IFL program. and besl fil
gain faclors. Image molion follows Ihe prediclion
closely. while phase relrieved coma seems 10 have a
gain faclor aboul 2096 less Ihan expecled.
There was considerable image molion belween lesls. allhough lillie wilhin Ihem. This
image molion was broken up as a global shill common 10 all Ihe cameras. as given in
Table 2. and a relalive shill belween Ihe cameras (relalive 10 WF2) as given in Table 3. The
. glohal �hifl� in po�ilion do nol corrp�pond 10 purl' largpl whppl rolalion. which would
produce pure Y coordinale changes in our coordinales. The direclion of Ihe global shifls
in almosl all cases is Ihe same. and may correspond 10 M4 mirror molion. (10 be check..d).
We have also observed a similar relalive shill in "-SpOI posilions belween Ihe nominal and
cold orbilal condilions in TV. This shill is a concern for relalive aslromelric observalions
bplween chips. and would be a serious problem if could occur during a singl.. exposurp.
The oplical bl'nch lemperalure changes belween Ihese exposures musl be examined. The
global shills ascribed 10 Ihe POMM were necessary 10 explain coma changes belween leSIS.
II is gralifying Ihal no significanl coma change (>O.lH microns rms) was seen belween Ihe
nominal and cold orbils in any camera.
xpom
ypom
targx
targy
o o�
Pre-Environmental test
10
30
0.13
-0.05
-0.02
Post-Env before rezero
10
30
3.92
-1.60
-1.04
-6.65
-1.11
-0.92
-0.21
-0.43
-0.62
Post-Env test
TV @14 before adjust
TV @14 after adjust
11
26
1.25
11
26
-7.78
1.30
10
28
-1.45
0.57
Thermal Vac Nominal orbil
10
28
1.13
-175
Thermal Vac Cold orbit
10
28
-1.59
4.08
Table 2.
-
.
-9.35
3.24
3.25
1.91
1.84
1.96
Glohal shifls in POMM 7pro po�ilion and largpl coordinalps hplwppn
lesls. The largel molions are expressed in WF pixels bUI in Ihe
PCl coordinale syslem.
xpre
WF2
WF3
WF4
PCl
pomy
pomx
0.000
0.295
0.662
-0.799
xpost
0.000
0.073
0.525
xtv
xtvc
ypre
ypost
ytv
ytvc
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-0.143 -0.374 -0.179
0.065
-0.486
0.441
-0.140
-0.092 -0.495 -0.21 9 -0.173 -0.371
0.300
-0.630 -0.218
0.445
0.589
0.674
0.722
Table 3. Camera 10 camera shifls in WF pixels belw..en lesls.
Perhaps 01 greal",sl inleres!. Ihe resulls 01 Ihe phas", r",lri",val runs in TV ar", summarized
h('l·"'. In Ih'" p,'e and posl ",nvir·onlll",nlal l",sls. Ih", dala is llIuch noisi",1' (as Ih'" chips w""',,,
warm). and less focus posilions w",r", measur",d. so Ih",se aberralions wer", nol dNermined.
Throughoul. aberralions ar", measured in microns RMS wav",fronl error ov",r a 0.33
obscured aperlure in deleclor (Le. chip) coordinales. The mean focus posilion in Ihe lable
is Ihe resull 01 averaging only over Ihe flighl aclualor·resulls. The lable does nol include
Ihe retrie\,,,tll'Um� v�lu"s which will be tle�1t wilh 1�It'r. Tht' iliumin�liun p�lIt'rn lur t'�ch
lamp is markedly difleren!. in slope and apodizalion. but Ihe phase r",lri",val solves for
Ih",s", paramel",rs. and Ih'" resulls can b", s"'en 10 be largely ind",pendenl 01 Ihe
illumination pall",rn. Each phase r",lrieval result is Ihe resull 01 a simultaneous Iii 10 4
imag"'s.
Alignmen
Orbit
Flight
Nominal
Flight
Nominal
Nominal
Flight
-10.-10
Cold
-10.+ 10
Cold
Flight
Cold
+ 10,-10
Cold
+ 10.+ 10
Cold
Lamp
Focus
(mm)
Astigmatism
45 Oeg.
Asti!!.
3rd Order
Seherical
5th Order
Seherical
L7
L8
L9
L7
L7
L7
L7
L7
0.02
0.03
-0.01
-0.12
0.02
0.01
-0.15
0.01
-0.0083
-0.0152
-0.0137
-0.0179
-0_0288
-0.0098
-0.0011
0.0101
-0.0175
-0.0156
-0.0175
-0.0312
-0.0182
-0.0147
-0.01gO
0.0024
-0.0055
-0_0060
-0.0047
0.0006
-0.0025
-0.0051
-0.0013
-0.0028
0.0020
0.0026
0_0028
0.0023
0.0025
0.0023
-0.0021
-0_0001
-0.024
-0.011
-0_016
-0_003
0.002
Mean
Table 4. Phase retrieval results for WF2
In addilion 10 Ihe phase relrieval melhods. Ihe sharpness of Ihe image has b",,,,n compared
10 models.
The fine Ihrough focus runs wilh 20)(20 pinhole grids hav", clNrly
diff",renlial",d peaks in mer;lian sharpness al differenl focus s","ings. These sellings from
Ih... pre-",nvironmenlal leSIS were al encod",r sellings 1326. 1286. 1250. and 1264. In TV
nOlllinal orbit. Ih",y w",re 1296.1264.1222. and 1250 for cameras 1-4 r",speclively. a
diff",renc", of aboul 22. \h do nol consider Ih", differenc",s from Ih", m",an differ",nce 01 8
"'ncoder sleps 10 b", significan!. bUI Ihe differences belw",en Ih'" cameras are.
From Ih'"
phase relrieval resulls. 100 sleps corresponds 10 1/10_3 waves rms 01 focus errol'. These
focus offsels between Ihe cameras ar", mor'" reliable Ihan Ihe phase relrieval values which
do nol correlale well with Ihem for reasons Ihal are only partly underslood. II could be
Ihal small syslemalic errors in eslimaling Ihe pupil i1luminalion pallerns (which are
differenl for each camera) translale inlo focus errors in Ihe phase relrieval melhod.
PUlling all 01 Ihese resulls logelher. gives Ihe following lable of aberralions in each
camera.
WF3
WF2
WF4
PC1
X-Image motion (WF pixels)
V-Image motion (WF pixels)
0 000
-0.404
1.093
0.000
-0.442
-0.551
0.663
-0.581
Focus from PR (in mm from 1286)
-0.024
-0 001
0.048
0.009
X-Coma standard deviation
0.003
0.005
0.004
0.005
Y-Coma standard deviations
0.007
0.004
0.004
0.003
.A.stigmatism
-0 01 1
0.008
0.009
0.008
45 degree astigmatism
-0.016
0.022
-0.008
O.OlD
Spherical aberration
-0.003
-0.008
-0.008
0.001
5th order spherical
0.002
0.001
-0 001
0.001
Focus from sharpness
-0.07
-0.2
-0.11
0.032
Table 8 Overall resulls for aberrations in each camera
Orbit
Nominal
Alignment
Lamp
Flight
L7
Nominal
Flight
Nominal
1 at 44V
L7
1 at 44V
L9
2 at 44V
L8
Nominal
Fli9ht
Nominal
1 at 44V
Nominal
2 at 44V
Nominal
2 at 44V
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
L8
L9
L8
L7
L9
3 at 44V
L7
Cold
Cold
0.0012
0.0229
·0.0078
0.0143
0.0291
·0.23
0.0156
0.0168
·0.22
0.0057
·0.01
0.0186
0.15
0.0126
0.15
·0.26
0.07
0.02
AFM off
L9
0.02
·10.' 10
Flight
+10,·10
·0.0104
0.0017
0.0109
0.0243
·0.0093
0.0072
0.0216
·0.0091
·0.0008
0.0205
L7
0.03
0.0129
Mean
0.0027
0.0242
0.0211
0.0329
0.0157
0.0025
0.0222
0.12
0.0183
0.0354
0.13
·0.0006
·0.001
·0.21
0.0021
0.0013
0.0174
0.0058
L7
·0.0006
0.0196
·0.18
L7
+10,+.10
0.0162
·0.0037
·0.0028
L7
L7
·0.0115
·0.0037
0.0192
0.07
·0.0114
0.0263
0.0012
0.0011
·0.0029
·0.09
L7
·0.0097
0.0007
0.0016
0.0046
L7
0.20
0.0365
·0.0094
·0.0017
0.0083
L7
0.0235
·0.0025
0.0076
0.00
L8
·10.+10
0.0042
0.08
L7
afm off
0.0057
45 Deg. 3rd Order 5th Order
Sgherical' Seherical
Astig.
·0.0095
afm off
L9
3 at 44V
Astig'
matism
0.0237
0.07
Nominal 2&3 at 44V
Cold
0.02
0,04
L8
Nominal 1&3 at 44V
Cold
(mm)
3 at 44V
Nominal 1&2 at 44V
Cold
Focus
·0.0111
,0.0096
·0.0024
0.0007
0.0013
0.0022
·0.0086
0.0012
·0.0055
·0.0005
·0.0031
·0.0022
·0.0132
·0.0098
0.0019
0.0022
0.0018
0.0022
0.0221
·0.0085
0.0213
0.0157
·0.0029
·0.0026
0.008
0.022
·0.008
0.001
0.0196
·0.0103
'0.0112
0.0009
0.0014
Table 5. Phase retrieval results for \VF3
Orbit
Alignment
Lamp
Focus
(mm)
Asti9'
matism
Nominal
Flight
L7
0.06
0.0085
Nominal
Flight
L9
0.01
0.0072
Nominal
Nominal
Flight
L8
1 at 44V
L7
0.06
0.26
0.0080
0.0188
Nominal
1 at 44V
Nominal
2 at 44V
Nominal
2 at 44V
L9
Nominal
3 at 44V
L8
0.06
·0.0009
L7
0.04
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
L8
L9
1 at 44V
L7
2 at 44V
L8
3 at 44V
L7
3 at 44V
L9
AFM off
AFM off
0.26
0.30
·0.27
-0.21
-0.14
0.05
0.0003
0.0076
·0.0084
·0.0089
·0.0005
0.0093
·0.0072
·0.0093
0.0007
0.0055
0.0068
·0.0146
·0.0064
·0.0094
0.06
0.0076
Cold
,10.+10
Cold
+10,.10
Cold
Cold
Mean
Flight
+10.+10
L7
L7
L7
L7
·0.0220
·0.0058
·0.0074
·0.0191
·0.0094
·0.0078
·0.0090
·0.0073
·0.0030
·0.0006
0.0009
0.0008
0.0014
0.0001
·0.0035
·0.0054
·0.0084
·0.0012
0.0083
·0.0255
·0.0006
·0.0028
0.009
·0.008
·0.008
·0.001
,0.0176
0.0206
0.08
·0.0027 ·0.0078
0.048
·0.0011
0.0014
·0.0005
0.0088
0.32
·0 19
·0.0021
·0.0144
·0.0022 ·0.0066
0.0044
0.09
0.0016
0.0031
·0.0011
·0.0093
·0 24
L7
·0.0004
·0.0131
·0.0060
·0.0018
L7
·10.,10
·0.0136
0.0031
0.0005
·0.0034
Nominal 2&3 at 44V
Cold
·0.0010
·0.0033
0.0190
0.28
·0,0073
·0.0183
0.05
L7
0.0009
·0.0096
0.0131
0.0090
L7
Nominal 1 &3 at 44V
·0,0094
·0.0237
0.0157
Nominal 1&2 at 44V
0 06
·0.0056
Seherical
0.0107
0.0070
L9
·0.0075
·0.0061
S�herical
0.0027
0.05
AFM off
Asti!!.
0,0168
L8
Nominal
45 Deg. 3rd Order 5th Order
0.0041
·0.0141
·0.0088
Table 6. Phase relrieval results for WF4
0.0000
0.0017
·0.0012
Orbit
Alignment
Lamp
Focus
(mm)
Astigmatism
Nominal
Flight
L7
0.00
0.0096
45 Oeg_ 3rd Order 5th Order
Se herical Seherical
Astig.
-0.0011
0.0004
0.0115
Nominal
Flight
L9
-0.02
0.0080
0.0099
L8
0.09
L7
-0.09
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
Flight
1 at 44V
1 at 44V
2 at 44V
Nominal
2 at 44V
Nominal
0.08
0.0168
0.09
0.0145
0.0072
-0.0015
0.0012
0.0004
-0.0018
0.0126
-0.0014
-0.0009
0.0087
0.0045
0.0012
0.0115
-0.0013
0.0002
0.0048
0.0012
3 at 44V
L7
-0.04
0.0026
0.0099
0.0023
-0.0008
0.0112
0.0024
0.0005
0.0088
0.0120
0.0012
0.14
0.0126
0.0022
-0.0027
0.0057
0_0117
0.0048
L8
3 at 44V
L9
AFM off
L8
L7
AFM off
-0.05
-0.03
-0.03
-0.01
L9
-0.02
l7
0.05
l7
Nominal 2&3 at 44V
-0.11
-10.-10
-10, ... 10
l7
l7
0.03
... 10,-10
l7
-0.04
Nominal 1&3 at 44V
Cold
Cold
0.0014
0_0084
L9
Nominal 1&2 at 44V
Cold
0.0145
-0.0010
0.0064
AFM off
Cold
Cold
0.0142
0.0101
-0.09
Nominal
Nominal
0.0094
L8
3 at 44V
Nominal
L9
0.05
2 at 44V
Nominal
Nominal
L7
1 at 44V
Nominal
Nominal
L8
Flight
... 10.... 10
Mean
l7
l7
l7
0.0029
0.0032
0.0015
0_0090
0.0105
0.0127
0.0031
0.0090
0.0047
0.04
0.0120
0.17
0.0158
0.0115
0.0156
0.0122
0.0099
0.0103
0.0073
0.0102
-0.01
0.0021
0.009
0.008
0.0033
0.0021
0.0014
0.0017
0.0012
0.0000
0.0009
0.0015
0.0026
-0.0007
0.0006
0.0000
0.0004
0.0105
-0.0028
0.0023
0.0017
-0.0006
0.0015
0.0011
0.0100
0.0039
0.0021
0.0014
0.010
0.001
0.001
0.0008
Table 7_ Phas(' rE'tri('val results for PC!
Finally. thE' absolute values obtained for the image sharpness present a puzzle. They are
summarized in Table 8. It can be seen that the image sharpness obtained is much less
than expected from simulations with the measured aberrations in the cameras. We are
still working to try to resolve this.
Camera Measured
Focus
Min
Max
Mean
Median
1324
1286
0.0537
0,(1599
(l.O802
0.2086
(l.O666
0.1460
0.0666
0.1458
1286
0.1113
0.1946
0.1494
0.1478
1286
0.1005
0.1872
0.1420
WF4
WF2 Simulations, perfect focus (Projected pinhole size size· 12_9 /2-1.0)
0.1-115
PC
WF2
WF3
=
Measured aberrations
... Pinhole size
10 microns
=
... Pinhole size
20 mierons
0.1844
0.3314
0.2729
0.2751
0.1829
0.3167
0.2618
0.260 I
0.1765
0.3043
0.2353
0.2305
... Pinhole size =30 microns
0.1656
0.2516
0.2023
0.2007
... 40 mas rms jitter
... PSF at pixel (0,0)
0.1434
0.1711
0.1563
0.1567
0.1688
0.34-17
0.2634
0.2622
=
Table 9 Sharpness results and simulations
References: Initial Data Analysis Reports
Initial analysis reports in science computer directories, which
in turn refer to notebooks and other hardcopy reports:
Hester
Trauger
Biretta
Richie
Scowen
Watson
Hester
Moody
Richie
Watson
Watson
Sparks
Richie
O'Neil
Trauger, Evans
Trauger
Hester
Watson
Watson
Biretta
Ballester
Watson
Evans
SemI/en
Hester
Evans
adc.041493
afmLPo�redictor.042893
baY_3_vs_4_comparisons.OS0793
biasvsoversan.042793
ccdtraps.OS0293
charge_transfer.042493
dark_vs_T.042193
dark_rates. 052193
decon_xenon-phot.OS0293
deferred -charge.043093
deferred_charge.042193
f336w_anomoly.070S93
f547w_missionflats.043093
filter_ghosts.051193
fine_focus.041693
fine_focus.042593
flat_sensitivity.042793
flat_vs_T.042193
flats.042393
flats_!ong_wavelength.OS0193
fuv_stability.OS1293
gain-and-read-noise.042993
hot-pix.052193
hotpixel.OS0293
jitter.041193
jpl_diode_qe.042293
kspots.042593
Clampin
O'Neil
Truager
light_trans fer_shutter.051193
over!ap.050793
Watson
Neuschaefer
phot_stability.050993
phot_stability.042193
Hughes
qe.OS0293
Trauger
qe_1470.0S2493
Stapelfeldt
Qe_vis.25may93
Watson
qeh.OSOS93
Holtzman
radiometry. 042193
Stapelfeldt .
ratio_170_255.0Smay93
Ballester
redleak_QL_resu1ts.OSmay
Baggett
residimg.050493
Grillmair
residual.060593
Stapeldeldt
sharpness_vs_wavelength.052193
Shaya
shuttershade.042593
Ajhar
shuttershade.043093
Hester
superbias.042693
Scowen
Hester
superdark.050293
svc_focus.042093
Stapelfeldt
svc_uvdiversity.050793
Holtzman
Evans
Watson
therma1cycling.930506
traps.052193
O'Neil
unusual_images�051193
Clarke,Ballstr
Grillmair
Hester
vibration.042293
xenon.041993
ubvi-filters.060593
uv_report.052693
I Other
reports in hardcopy and/or in progress:
Westphal
Burrows, Krist
Clarke, Ballester
Hester
Linearity, read noise. and gain
Wavefront analysis, alignment stability
UV perfonnance
Hester
Empirical stimulus flatfields and OTA flatfield model
AOC characteristics vs. light transfer
Hester
Evans, Trauger
Vaughan
Vaughan
Moody
Evans, Trauger
Evans
Photometric stability over FOV
Ramp filter predictive algorithm and database
Vignetting models for OTA and Stimulus
Absolute focus via SMC focus position
Dark rates vs. temperature setpoints
Final AFM deflection calibration
Residual images following flatfields