1 / 15
Télécharger la présentation

Slicer development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Slicer development Eric Prieto LAM

  2. ESA PROTOTYPE

  3. In reality Eric Prieto -LAM

  4. Slicer Stack Only 10 active slices 20 dummies • Spherical slices (0.9mm thick, 28 mm long) • 30 slices stack • Optical bonding assembly • All in Zerodur • Silver protected coating Telescope pupil images after reflection on the slicer Eric Prieto -LAM

  5. Pupil mirrors • 5 pupil mirrors (2.7mm width) • Spherical active surface • Silver protected coating • Optical bonding • INVAR structure Slit images after reflection on the pupil mirrors Eric Prieto -LAM

  6. Prototype performances Thermometers Thermal straps END 03 Eric Prieto -LAM

  7. conclusions • Glass manufacturing in spécification: OK • Optical performance: OK • Cryogenic operation: OK • Vibration survival of the optical assembly: OK • Opto-mechanical mount: FAIL • No clear specification for vibration at the beginning of the study • Structure not design for such load • A posteriori simulations demonstrate the stress > 10 MPa in zerodur • To be prototype early in the development BUT THIS A PROBLEM ALREADY SOLVED IN OTHER INSTRUMENT ZERODUR OPTICS ARE CLASSICAL FOR SPACE APPLICATION Eric Prieto -LAM

  8. Big Numbers • Slice .9mm x 30mm (.5mm in prototyping) • Slice positioning <10’’ (15µm center of curvature) • Ra: 1nm • Surface quality: 5nm rms • Cracks < 5µm (specification for SNAP slicer) • Two vendors (SESO – WINLIGHT) • Manufacturing cost for space delivering fly unit: 20k€/slice • Manufacturing cost for 30 slicers for ground application: 2k€ /slice • For SNAP very rough estimate: 5-10 k€ / slice LAM current baseline Eric Prieto -LAM

  9. Slicer around the world

  10. DURHAM • GNIRS-IFU • Based on diamond turned techniques • Big numbers presented during meetings: • Ra: 8nm • WFE: <50 nm rms • Edge ? • Slice orientation: <1” • Monolithic • Long lead learning process to know how manufacture • No industrial Vendor • One Lab for manufacturing: LFM (difficult) • Second lab in the learning curve: Durham Eric Prieto -LAM

  11. CRAL • Long prototyping work on Glass Slicer: good results • But costly and very long lead item for 24 units: • Trade manufacturing process • Metallic approach • Some vendors contacted and prototypes We are hungry to know results Eric Prieto -LAM

  12. Oxford • SPIFFI Heritage : SWIFT • Flat slices • 30-40 slices • Glass slices • Vendor: WINLIGTH (same than the SNAP demonstrator) • Chosen as well establish technology Eric Prieto -LAM

  13. Opticon – JRA 5 • European effort • Axed to replication for • Cost • Manufacturing process • Metallic mandrels • Roughness and WFE under studies • Result end 07 Eric Prieto -LAM

  14. LAM Axis • Optimisation of the designs: • Concentric slicer (SPIE 04 + SNAP concept) • Fan shape (Proposal IFU/NIRSPEC – SPIE 06 + …) • Manufacturing cost reduction slicer design for MIFU: • SPIE 06 • Prototyping SNAP IFU (demonstrator – SPIE 06 …) • Improving coupling ifu and instrument: • Interaction between IFU design and instrument design • Trying to have an overall instrument simplification (concentric slicer) • Rational manufacturing approach • Survey of other manufacturing approach and performance associated Eric Prieto -LAM

  15. SNAP ROADMAP • Demonstrator to validate: • the optical performances • Existence of one manufacturing process • Trade the manufacturing techniques versus: • Performance • Opto-mechnical interfaces • Cost • Prototype the relevant point for the selected approach: • Opto-mechnical interface for the glass approach • Manufacturing for SiC approach (full SiC instrument ?) • Quality for aluminum approach • Next months study to propose the next step in prototyping for SNAP Eric Prieto -LAM

More Related