Adaptive Reconnaissance Golay-3 Optical Satellite
(ARGOS)
Prof David W. Miller
Chart: 1
ARGOS Overview
ISS
Moon
Goal
Goal: :
Demonstrate
Demonstrate
the
thefeasibility
feasibility
of
of
Interferometry
Interferometry
technology
technology
Angular
AngularResolution
Resolutionatatλ=550
λ=550nm:
nm:
Wavelength
Regime:
Wavelength Regime:
(Field-of-Regard):
(Field-of-Regard):
FOV
FOV(Field-of-View)-min:
(Field-of-View)-min:
SNR
SNR
Pointing
PointingAccuracy:
Accuracy:
Autonomous
AutonomousOperation:
Operation:
0.35
0.35arcsec
arcsec
400-700
400-700nm
nmFOR
FOR
120°
(full
cone)
120° (full cone)
33xx33arcmin
arcmin
100
(Min)
100 (Min)
+/+/-10
10arcsec
arcsec
>>11hour
hour
First
First field
field operation
operation in
in May
May
Wireless
COMM
Station
Surrogate
Ground Station
M.I.T.
Frictionless Air Bearing
RWA
Chart: 2
Full Structure
Chart: 3
Sub-Aperture Manufacturing
TAKAHASHI 8-inch High Precision (RMS WF errors 1/20 λ) Telescope
Designed optimized achromatic doublet to convert a focal telescope to afocal with
Magnification m=10
Final Design
FK51
BaK2
•FK51/BaK2
•FK51/BaK2
–∆
–∆CTE
CTE5.3
5.3
–0.0027
–0.0027RMS
RMSError
Error
–Some
–Somesensitivity
sensitivityto
tothermal
thermalshock
shock
–-Manufacturable
–-Manufacturabletolerances
tolerances
Chart: 4
Relay Optics Design
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sub Aperture
Collimator
FSM+ODL
Pyramidal Mirror
Beam Combiner
CCD
The
TheAdvantages
Advantagesof
ofTwo
TwoMirror
MirrorDesign
Design
the
thecost,
cost,the
thecontroller
controllercomplexity,
complexity,
less
lessreflectance
reflectanceloss,
loss,smaller
smallerpossible
possiblemisalignment
misalignment
errors,
compactness
errors, compactness
2
3
6
1
4
5
Chart: 5
Allowable Structural
Misalignments
45-A+B = 45- B
2B=A
A
B
Magnification m=10
B= 0.5 *A *10 = 5 A.
to 0.01 degree
In reality, a factor of 6.4 works well up
45-B
Telescope Tilt
[Deg]
[arcsec]
FSM Comp
[Deg] Max
FSM OPD
[mm]
Strehl Ratio
Aberrated
SR
restored
0.034 degree
B= FSM
rotation
0.0001
0.36
-0.00064
0
0.687
0.982
0.001
3.6
-0.0064
0
0.016
0.979
0.005
18
-0.032
0
0.192
0.907
0.01
36
-0.064
0
0.064
0.604
0.01
36
-0.064
0.0002
0.189
0.859
Chart: 6
Passive/Active Actuators
7°
Mount
FSM
FSMMOUNT
MOUNT
•Angular
Range
•Angular Range+/+/-7°
7°
••Angular
AngularRes.
Res.+/+/-0.0008°
0.0008°(14
(14µrad)
µrad)
••Linear
LinearRange
Range11cm
cm
••Linear
LinearRes.
Res.11µm
µm
14 µrad
600 µrad FSM 0.05 µrad
FSM+ODL
FSM+ODL
••Angular
AngularRange
Range+/+/-600
600µrad
µrad
••Angular
AngularRes.
Res.+/+/-0.05
0.05µrad
µrad
••Linear
LinearRange
Range12
12µm
µm
••Linear
LinearRes.
Res.0.2
0.2nm
nm
2
1
3
6
4
5
Pyramid Errors
w/o FSM Correction
SR = 0.444
Pyramid Errors
w/ FSM Correction
Pyramidal Mirror
Pyramidal mount
SR = 0.960
Chart: 7
Attitude Control System (ACS)
Q d
+
Active
Active
Balancing
Balancing
System
System
ACS
ACS
Actuator:
Actuator:
Reaction
Reaction
Wheel
Wheel
Q
e
Wheel
speed
τ
Body rate
Body rotation
Sensor
Sensor1:
1:
Electronic
ElectronicCompass
Compass
Sensor
Sensor2:
2:
Viewfinder
Viewfinder
Sensor
Sensor3:
3:
Rate
Gyro
Rate Gyro
Chart: 8
Structures Design
Chart: 9
Sparse-aperture Optics/Control
System (SOCS) Framework
XXAnalyze
AnalyzeOptics
OpticsPerformance
PerformanceRequirements
Requirements
θr
θr
EE
EE
SR
SR
PSF
PSF
MTF
MTF
SNR
SNR
FOV
FOV
ACS
ACS
YYDetermine
DetermineArray
ArrayConfiguration
Configuration
L
L
D
D
# of Aperture
# of Aperture
ZZDetermine
DetermineTolerable
TolerableBeam
Beam
Combining
Errors
Combining Errors
Piston
Piston
Tilt/Tip
Tilt/Tip
Geometry
Geometry
Beam
Beam
Combiner
Combiner
# Control Channel
# Control Channel
^^Design,
Design,Analyze,
Analyze,Build
BuildStructures
Structures
FSM
FSM
FMs
FMs
ODLs
ODLs
Structure Vibration
Structure Vibration
Allowable
Allowable
misalignment
misalignment
Assembly/Alignment Errors
Errors
Assembly/Alignment
# Reflection
# Reflection
Optical Components
Components Errors
Errors
Optical
]Design
]Design
CCD
CCDSystem
System
Residual Optics
Optics Design
Design WFE
WFE
Residual
M=d/D
M=d/D
\\Design
Design
Relay
RelayOptics
Optics
RMS
RMS WF
WF Error
Error Budget
Budget Tree
Tree
Sub Aperture
Aperture RMS
RMS WFE
WFE
Sub
Focal_1
Focal_1
Pupil
Pupil
mapping
mapping
Beam Combininng
Combininng Errors
Errors
Beam
[[Design/Build
Design/Build
Sub-Aperture
Sub-Aperture
Telescope
Telescope
Track
WFE
Budget
__Develop
DevelopWavefront
WavefrontSensors,Controllers
Sensors,Controllers
Chart: 10
Determination of Array Configuration
P (ξ,ζ)
Complex Pupil Function
Auto-correlation H (ξ,ζ)
Optical Transfer Function (OTF)
A (x,y)
Amplitude Spread Function
abs( )^2
S (x,y)
Point Spread Function (PSF)
Angular
AngularResolution,
Resolution,
Strehl
StrehlRatio
RatioRequirement
Requirement
Find
Findsuitable
suitablePSF,
PSF,MTF
MTF
Determine
Determinethe
the
corresponding
correspondingL,
L,DD
Chart: 11
Impact of [L D] on Resolution
Final
FinalSelection
Selectionfor
forthe
theARGOS
ARGOStestbed
testbed
L=0.19185
L=0.19185mm
D=0.210
D=0.210mm(8
(8inch
inchCOTS
COTStelescope)
telescope)
Chart: 12
Phasing Error Analysis –
Piston(OPD) Error
π D (1 + cos( r ))
I ∝
λ
2
J1 (π D sin r / λ )
π D sin r / λ
2
n
∑e
2
j 2 π ( L k r / λ ) cos( δ k − θ )
e
jφ k
- Menneson’s Equation
k =1
IArray = 3+2cos( 3cos(π / 6+θ)2πLr/ λ + φ12)
- simplified
+2cos( 3cos(π / 6−θ)2πLr/ λ + φ13)+2cos( 3sin(θ)2πLr/ λ + φ23)
1
0.5
-4
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-2
-4
-2
0
2
-4
-6
x 10
0
2
x 10-6
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-4
Golay w/o OPD
Golay w/ OPD
Monolithic
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-2
0
2
x 10-6
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-2
-4
-2
0
2
x 10-6
0
2
-6
x 10
+0.2λ
-2
0
2
-6
x 10
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-4
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-2
-4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-2
-4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
-2
-4
-2
0
2
x 10-6
0
-0.2λ
2
x 10-6
0
2
x 10-6
0
2
-6
x 10
λ/10
λ/10was
wassuggested
suggested
as
asmaximum
maximumpiston
piston
(OPD)
(OPD)error
error
Chart: 13
Phasing Error Requirement –
Tilt / Pupil Mapping Error
FEM
FEMTilt
TiltError
ErrorAnalysis
Analysis
predicts
predictsmaximum
maximum
allowable:
allowable:0.35
0.35µrad=20
µrad=20µµDeg
Deg
Pupil
PupilMapping
MappingError
Error::
Golden
GoldenRule
Ruleof
ofBeam
BeamCombining
Combining
D/L
D/L(Entrance
(EntrancePupil)
Pupil)=d/l
=d/l(exit
(exitpupil)
pupil)
Max
Maxallowable
allowable ==12
12µm
µm
Chart: 14
Magnification vs Shear Error
• Sub-aperture magnification can be tuned to maximize
allowable shear error (lateral pupil mapping error) thereby
reducing control complexity.
Chart: 15
ZEMAX, CODE-V
• Zemax is a professional ray tracing/optical design software
• Sequential, Nonsequential Ray Tracing
• Optimization of optics design
• PSF, MTF, Spot Diagram, Imaging Analysis
• Tolerancing and Sensitivity Analysis
Chart: 16
Complete WF Error Budget
Total Wavefront Error
0.0727 (total RMS) < 0.075
Optical Design Errors
(Residual Design Error)
0.028
Subtelescope w/ Collimator
0.017
Distortion
0.015
Fabrication + alignment
0.015
Field Curvature
0.020
Thermal
0.01
Other abberations
0.013
Collimator
0.0009
Beam Combiner
Manufacturing Error
0.027
Primary
0.021
Fabrication
0.015
Thermal
0.01
Alignment
0.010
Secondary
0.017
Fabrication
0.015
Beam Combining Error
0.041
Assembly/Alignment
0.029
Environmental Error
0.0309
Piston(Phase) Error
0.028
Inter-subtelescope alignment
0.015
Thermal Deformation
0.02
Tilt/Tip Error
0.016
Pointing/Focus
0.01
Jitter/Drift (Image)
0.015
Pupil Mapping Error
0.015
Assembly Deformation
0.01
Jitter/Drift (Pupil)
0.015
Magnification Error
0.015
Fold Mirrors Alignment
0.01
Gravity Release Error
0.010
Sensor Error
0.010
FSM
Actuator Error
0.01
ODL
Thermal
0.01
FM @ BC
Alignment
0.010
Strehl Ratio =
e
− (2πσ / λ ) 2
,σ= RMS Wavefront error.
Chart: 17
Optical Cost Models
• Investigate economical viability of modular optics
given performance constraints
• Focus on monolithic Cassegrain telescopes versus
Golay-3 design
• Use real data and experience from ARGOS
relay
optics
object
k-th aperture
δk
beam
combiner
B
Lk
Dk
sub-telescope plane
(input pupil)
lk
b
dk
combiner plane
(exit pupil)
focal plane
(image pupil)
Chart: 18
Literature Search for Cost Models
Kahan, Targrove, “Cost modeling of large
spaceborne optical systems”, SPIE, Kona, 1998
Humphries, Reddish, Walshaw,”Cost scaling laws
and their origin: design strategy for an optical array
telescope”, IAU, 1984
Meinel, “Cost-scaling laws applicable to very large
optical telescopes”, SPIE, 1979
Meinel’s law:
S = 0.37 ⋅ D
2.58
[M$] (1980)
Chart: 19
Small Amateur Telescopes
• Priced various amateur
telescopes
DHQ f/5
DHQ f/4.5
D Truss f/5
Obsession f/4.5
Celestron G-f/10
• Fit power law
C = 28917 D 2.76
• Exponent surprisingly
similar to Meinel’s Law
Telescope Purchase Cost C [2001$]
–
–
–
–
–
x 10
3
4
Telescope Cost CER (Aperture): C=28917*D
2.76
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Telescope Diameter D [m]
0.9
1
Chart: 20
Professional Telescope OTA cost
4
x 10
5
3.5
CERs for
Ritchey-Chretien
Ritchey-Chretien
Classical Cassegrain
CRC = 376000 ⋅ D 2.80
OTA Cost [2001 $]
3
2.5
Classical Cassegrain
2
CCC = 322840 ⋅ D 2.75
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Aperture Diameter D [m]
Company: Optical Guidance Systems
(http:www.opticalguidancesystems.com)
0.8
0.9
1
Remarkable Result:
virtually identical
power law across
completely different
product lines.
Chart: 21
ACS Mass and Cost
Reaction wheel mass scales w/
momentum capacity
Kg = 2.49Nms
•
•
0.41
Reaction wheels dominate
ACS mass
ACS cost is function of mass
0.8
$ ACS = co Kg ACS
•
•
•
Scale using ARGOS ACS mass
and cost
Inertia depends on sub-aperture
masses and geometry
Assumed 1.5 deg/sec slew rate
Ball, Honeywell, and Ithaco RWAs [Kg = 2.49 Nms0.41]]
14
12
10
Mass [Kg]
•
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Momentum Capacity [Nms]
60
70
Chart: 22
Sub-System Cost Tables
Chart: 23
Sub-System Cost Tables
Chart: 24
Sub-System Cost Tables
Chart: 25
Labor Cost Table
Sub-System
Passive Optics Soon-Jo Chung
Janaki Wickrema
Erik Iglesias
David Ngo
Active Optics Soon-Jo Chung
Abran Alaniz
Praxedis Flores III
ACS
Carl Blaurock
Ayanna Samuels
Susan Kim
Paul Wooster
Structures
Marc dos Santos
David LoBosco
PAS
Raymond Sedwick
Soon-Jo Chung
Carolina Tortora
Christopher Rakowski
Dustin Berkovitz
SOC
John Keesee
Eric Coulter
Daniel Kwon/Lisa Girerd
Management Paul Bauer
David Miller
Raymond Sedwick
John Keesee
Total
Yearly
Hours
Rate
Spring Summer Fall
Spring
$70,000
200
200
200
200
$50,000
260
0
260
130
$50,000
260
360
260
130
$50,000
260
360
260
130
$70,000
150
160
150
150
$50,000
260
360
260
130
$50,000
260
0
260
130
$70,000
0
0
78
78
$50,000
260
0
260
130
$50,000
260
0
260
130
$50,000
260
0
260
130
$50,000
260
0
260
130
$50,000
260
0
260
130
$70,000
104
96
104
104
$70,000
0
0
0
104
$50,000
260
0
260
130
$50,000
260
360
260
130
$50,000
260
360
260
130
$90,000
104
96
104
104
$50,000
260
0
260
130
$50,000
260
0
260
130
$70,000
104
96
104
104
$90,000
104
48
104
104
$70,000
26
0
26
26
$90,000
26
0
26
26
Total
800
650
1010
1010
610
1010
650
156
650
650
650
650
650
408
104
650
1010
1010
408
650
650
408
360
78
78
ARGOS
Total
Recurring
$61,833
$15,458
$35,885
$7,177
$55,760
$7,177
$55,760
$7,177
$47,148
$11,594
$55,760
$7,177
$35,885
$7,177
$12,058
$6,029
$35,885
$7,177
$35,885
$7,177
$35,885
$7,177
$35,885
$7,177
$35,885
$7,177
$31,535
$8,038
$8,038
$8,038
$35,885
$7,177
$55,760
$7,177
$55,760
$7,177
$40,545
$10,335
$35,885
$7,177
$35,885
$7,177
$31,535
$8,038
$35,775
$10,335
$6,029
$2,010
$7,751
$2,584
$919,903 $190,115
EB/OHD Wrap
2.12
Student
$50,000
Staff
$70,000
Management
$90,000
Chart: 26
Labor Cost Table
Sub-System
mult
Passive Optics
Active Optics
ACS
Structures
PAS
SOC
Management
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sub-System
mult
Passive Optics
Active Optics
ACS
Structures
PAS
SOC
Management
Total
1.5
2
1
2
1
1
1
ARGOS
Total
$209,240
$138,794
$119,714
$71,771
$186,980
$112,316
$81,090
$919,903
Recurring
$36,990
$25,948
$27,560
$14,354
$37,608
$24,689
$22,967
$190,115
mult
Golay-6
Total
$313,859
$277,588
$119,714
$143,542
$186,980
$112,316
$81,090
$1,235,088
Recurring
$55,484
$51,896
$27,560
$28,708
$37,608
$24,689
$22,967
$248,912
mult
0.3
0.3
1
0.6
1
1
1
2
3
1
3
1
1
1
Monolith
Total
$62,772
$41,638
$119,714
$43,063
$186,980
$112,316
$81,090
$647,572
Recurring
$11,096.88
$7,784.38
$27,560.00
$8,612.50
$37,607.92
$24,689.17
$22,966.67
$140,318
mult
Golay-9
Total
$418,479
$416,381
$119,714
$215,313
$186,980
$112,316
$81,090
$1,550,272
Recurring
$73,979
$77,844
$27,560
$43,063
$37,608
$24,689
$22,967
$307,709
mult
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2.5
4
1
4
1
1
1
Golay-3
Total
$209,240
$138,794
$119,714
$71,771
$186,980
$112,316
$81,090
$919,903
Recurring
$36,990
$25,948
$27,560
$14,354
$37,608
$24,689
$22,967
$190,115
Golay-12
Total
$523,099
$555,175
$119,714
$287,083
$186,980
$112,316
$81,090
$1,865,456
Recurring
$92,474
$103,792
$27,560
$57,417
$37,608
$24,689
$22,967
$366,506
Chart: 27
Golay System Costs
•
•
•
Optimum Golay is
Deff-dependent
Labor moves
Golay benefits to
larger Deff
Golay’s sacrifice
Encircled Energy
EE=83.5%
EE=26.4%
EE=9.3%
EE=3.6%
EE=2.2%
Chart: 28
Compact Golay-3
•
•
•
Reduces side-lobes, improves EE,
improves fill factor (SNR)
Sacrifices cost savings
Adding bus & relay optics costs
defines Golay-3 vs. monolith
breakpoint
L=1.2xD
L=D (Golay)
L=0.8xD
ARGOS
*
ARGOS
*
Chart: 29
Compact Hex Arrays
EE=62%
EE=50%
Compact Golay-9
Compact Hex
Compact Golay-6
Deff=0.64m
EE=40%
Deff=0.42m
EE=31%
Monolith
Compact Golay-3
Golay-3
•
Deff=1.79m
Golay-6
•
Compact Golay-12
Golay-9
•
Larger Deff favors higher
order Golays
Golay-3 & Hex compact
better than higher order
Golays
Compactness limited by subaperture interference
Hex is not as cost-efficient at
providing full uv-coverage as
Golay
Golay-12
•
EE=23%
Equal Deff (angular resolution)
Chart: 30