|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
01290 am a22002053u 4500 |
| 001 |
88591 |
| 042 |
|
|
|a dc
|
| 100 |
1 |
0 |
|a Schechter, Paul L.
|e author
|
| 100 |
1 |
0 |
|a Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Physics
|e contributor
|
| 100 |
1 |
0 |
|a MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research
|e contributor
|
| 100 |
1 |
0 |
|a Schechter, Paul L.
|e contributor
|
| 100 |
1 |
0 |
|a Levinson, Rebecca Sobel
|e contributor
|
| 700 |
1 |
0 |
|a Levinson, Rebecca Sobel
|e author
|
| 245 |
0 |
0 |
|a Generic misalignment aberration patterns and the subspace of benign misalignment
|
| 260 |
|
|
|b Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE),
|c 2014-08-07T18:00:22Z.
|
| 856 |
|
|
|z Get fulltext
|u http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/88591
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a Q1: Why deploy N wavefront sensors on a three mirror anastigmat (TMA) and not N + 1? Q2: Why measure M Zernike coefficients and not M + 1? Q3: Why control L rigid body degrees of freedom (total) on the secondary and tertiary and not L + 1? The usual answer: "We did a lot of ray tracing and N, M, and L seemed OK." We show how straightforward results from aberration theory may be used to address these questions. We consider, in particular, the case of a three mirror anastigmat.
|
| 546 |
|
|
|a en_US
|
| 655 |
7 |
|
|a Article
|
| 773 |
|
|
|t Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes IV
|
