TMA 광학계에 대한 MFR과 MDCO의 정렬 기법 성능 비교

Abstract

In this study, we performed alignment state estimation simulations and compared the performance of two Computer Aided Alignment (hereafter CAA) algorithms i.e. ‘Merit Function Regression (MFR)’ and ‘Multiple Design Configuration Optimization (MDCO)’. The former minimizes the merit function using multi-field wavefront error measurements from single configuration, while the latter minimizes the merit function using single-field measured wavefront error from multiple configurations. The optical system is an unobscured three-mirror anastigmat (TMA) optical system of 70mm in diameter, and F/5.0. It is designed for an unmanned aerial vehicle for coastal water remote sensing. The TMA consists of two aspherical mirrors, a spherical mirror and a flat folding mirror. Based on the sensitivity analysis, we set the tilt x, y of tertiary mirror as a compensator, and not considered decenter of tertiary mirror because of its spherical characteristic. For the simulation, we imposed initial misalignment to M3 as Gaussian distribution of which mean value is zero and standard deviation is 0.5 mrad. The initial simulation result of alignment state estimation shows that both algorithms can meet the alignment requirement, λ/10 RMS WFE at 633nm. However, when we includes measurement noise, the simulation result of MFR has greater standard deviation in RMS WFE than that of MDCO. As the MDCO requires single on-axis field while the MFR retion (MDCO)’. The former minimizes the merit function using multi-field wavefront error measurements from single configuration, while the latter minimizes the merit function using single-field measured wavefront error from multiple configurations. The optical system is an unobscured three-mirror anastigmat (TMA) optical system of 70mm in diameter, and F/5.0. It is designed for an unmanned aerial vehicle for coastal water remote sensing. The TMA consists of two aspherical mirrors, a spherical mirror and a flat folding mirror. Based on the sensitivity analysis, we set the tilt x, y of tertiary mirror as a compensator, and not considered decenter of tertiary mirror because of its spherical characteristic. For the simulation, we imposed initial misalignment to M3 as Gaussian distribution of which mean value is zero and standard deviation is 0.5 mrad. The initial simulation result of alignment state estimation shows that both algorithms can meet the alignment requirement, λ/10 RMS WFE at 633nm. However, when we includes measurement noise, the simulation result of MFR has greater standard deviation in RMS WFE than that of MDCO. As the MDCO requires single on-axis field while the MFR re