Alignment of freeform mirrors for multi-element off-axis

systems
Woojin Park
Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, 776, Daedeok-daero, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, 34055, Republic of Korea
wjpark@kasi.re.kr

Abstract: Practical and precision alignment procedures of freeform mirrors for multi-element off-
axis systems are introduced. Sensitivity table method with a wavefront sensor and CMM are applied
to calculate alignment errors in the assembly and integration stage.

1. Sensitivity of off-axis reflective systems

Sensitivity analysis of the optical system is necessary to figure out feasibility of the system and to decide
compensators for alignments. Park et al. (2020) compared sensitivities of on-axis and two types of off-axis systems,
common and confocal off-axis systems [1]. The confocal off-axis system is one of the reflective off-axis systems
whose optical components share their common focuses, so it can eliminate linear astigmatism that is the most
critical aberration of the common off-axis system.
Fig. 1 shows sensitivity analysis results of on-axis, common off-axis, and confocal off-axis Cassegrain systems
[1]. In this case, despace for off-axis systems are noticeably sensitive to optical performance by comparing to that of
the on-axis system. Decenter for both off-axis systems and tilt for the confocal off-axis system are represented as
more sensitive parameters than those of the on-axis system.

Fig. 1. Sensitivity analysis results at the center of the field for (a-c) on-axis, (d-f) common off-axis, and (g-i) confocal off-axis systems.
(left) Tilt, (center) decenter, and (right) despace sensitivities are calculated. Primary and secondary mirror sensitivities are shown in red
and blue, respectively. Black-dashed lines represent the resolution limit based on the Nyquist sampling.

Since off-axis systems with freeform mirrors have rotational asymmetrical optical surfaces and are more
sensitive than on-axis systems, precise alignment procedure for off-axis systems is required.

2. Off-axis system alignment

Two practical off-axis system alignment methods, sensitivity table method with a wavefront sensor and re-
optimization with Coordinate Measurement Machine (CMM), are introduced here.
2.1. Sensitivity table method with a wavefront sensor
Sensitivity table method calculates the alignment errors (𝑑𝑥𝑖 ) by using the relation of a Zernike coefficient
(𝑍𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖 ) and alignment parameters as follows [2]:
 𝜕𝑍𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖 𝜕𝑍𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖 𝜕𝑍𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖 𝜕𝑍𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖 𝜕𝑍𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖
∆𝑍𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖 = 𝑑𝑥1 + 𝑑𝑥2 + 𝑑𝑥3 + 𝑑𝑥4 + 𝑑𝑥5 + ⋯. (1)
𝜕𝑥1 𝜕𝑥2 𝜕𝑥3 𝜕𝑥4 𝜕𝑥5

The Zernike coefficient is measured using a wavefront sensor at the field location (i). The more Zernike
coefficients such as 𝑍2−2 (oblique astigmatism), 𝑍22 (vertical astigmatism), 𝑍3−1 (vertical coma), 𝑍3−3 (vertical
trefoil), 𝑍31 (horizontal coma), etc. are considered for alignment, the more accurate alignment errors can be
calculated. Therefore, the final equation for calculating alignment errors using sensitivity table method is
ΔZ = AΔX, (2)

Δ𝑍2−2𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 1
⋮ ∂𝑍2−2 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 1 ∂𝑍2−2 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 1
−2
Δ𝑍2 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖 ⋯ 𝑑𝑥1
𝜕𝑥1 𝜕𝑥𝑖
ΔZ = ⋮ , A= ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ , ∆X = [ ⋮ ]. (3)
Δ𝑍33 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 1 ∂𝑍33 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖 ∂𝑍33 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖 𝑑𝑥𝑖
[ 𝜕𝑥1 ⋯ ]
⋮ 𝜕𝑥𝑖
3
[ Δ𝑍3 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑖 ]

2.2. Re-optimization with CMM

Re-optimization finds correct locations and angles of the optical components using an optical simulation that
requires fabricated mirror surface data calculated from least square fitting and three-dimensional coordinate of
mirrors measured from CMM. It calculates adjustment values of optomechanical parts for relocations of the optical
components, so tilt, decenter, and despace errors of each optical component are compensated for [3].
Fig. 2 illustrates the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) chart before and after re-optimization of a confocal
off-axis telescope. Black solid lines show optical performance of the system before re-optimization, which deviates
from the designed performance due to mirror surface errors, mechanical errors of the mirror holder, and assembly
errors. Red solid lines represent the best optical performance the system can achieve with fabricated mirrors, and
also imply optical performance after the re-optimization.

Fig. 2. The MTF chart before (black-solid lines) and after (red-solid lines) re-optimizations for the MATS satellite [4].

3. References
[1] W. Park, S. Pak, S. Chang, H. Lee, S. Lee, and D. W. Kim, “Optical sensitivity analyses of various reflective systems: on axis, common off
axis and confocal off axis designs,” Proc. SPIE 11451, 114513X (2020).

[2] E. D. Kim, Y. –W. Choi, and M. –S. Kang, “Reverse-optimization Alignment Algorithm using Zernike Sensitivity,” JOSK 9, 2 (2005).

[3] W. Park, S. Chang, J. H. Lim, S. Lee, H. Ahn, Y. Kim, S. Kim, A. Hammar, B. Jeong, G. H. Kim, H. Lee, D. W. Kim, and S. Pak, “Development
of linear astigmatism free—three mirror system (LAF-TMS),” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 132, 044504 (2020).

[4] W. Park, A. Hammar, S. Pak, S. Chang, J. Gumbel, L. Megner, O. M. Christensen, J. Rouse, and D. W. Kim, “Flight model characterization
of the wide-field off-axis telescope for the MATS satellite,” Applied Optics 59, 17 (2020).