pointing stability of sot against the microvibration
DESCRIPTION
Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration. K.Ichimoto and Solar-B Team SOT#17 2006.4.17-20. FPP. IRU. -. B. MW. IRU-A. . Disturbance sources in the spacecraft. OTA. Momentum wheel x 4 IRU-A (4 gyros) & B (2 gyros) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration
K.Ichimoto and Solar-B Team
SOT#17 2006.4.17-20
![Page 2: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Disturbance sources in the spacecraft
- Momentum wheel x 4- IRU-A (4 gyros) & B (2 gyros)- Moving mechanisms (many!)
in mission instruments (SOT/XRT/EIS)
Experimental evaluations of the OTA pointing error due to the micro-disturbances have been performed using the S/C-Mechanical Test Model (MTM) and the Flight Model (FM).
Vibration (shift/tilt) of M1 and M2 of OTA is the dominant cause for the pointing error.
.
FPP
IRU-B
MWIRU-A
OTA
![Page 3: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Two complimentary configurations were adopted.
S/C hanged up by springs
PSD
theodolite
dolly
S/C installed on a dolly in the tower
Optical end-to-end measurement of SOT pointing error using PSD and FPP/CT.More environmental noise.
Transmissibility of microvib. is measured with accelerometers on M1/M2 of OTA.Less environmental noise.
630nm tunable laser
Test configurations
![Page 4: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Microvibration transmissibility measurement with accelerometers on OTA
Accelerometers on M1/M2 to detect shift and tilt. Sinusoidal force and torque injected at the locatio
ns of MW and IRU’s in MTM, and the response of OTA pointing was measured as a function of frequency at each location.
Net pointing error (f>20Hz) are calculated by using the component disturbance data.
MW and IRU are run in FM test to evaluate the SOT pointing error.
![Page 5: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
FG-CCD
FPP
CT-CCD
Image planePSD
Data logger
Acc. sensors
Insertion pipe
180oBS
Optical layout
Pointing error measurement with optical sensors
Pointing error is measured by position sensitive detector (PSD, 3kHz) and FPP/CT camera (580Hz) (only in FM).
![Page 6: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Test historyTransmissibility test w/ MTM (2002) (dummy mass for IRU etc.+ shaker) (accelerometers on OTA)
Transmissibility test w/ MTM (2003)
Transmissibility test w/ OTA in vacuum chamber (2003) (accelerometers on OTA) confirm that damping by air is not significant
Pointing error measurement in 1st integration of FM (2004) (flight components & flight optics) (accelerometers on OTA) confirm the consistency of two test configurations
Pointing error measurements in 2nd integration of FM (2005-2006) (no accelerometers on OTA) monitor trend before/after Vib. test, after TV test
Components disturbance measurement (IRU/MW/PMU)
Evaluation of SOT pointing error and feedback to the flight hardware
![Page 7: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Example of microvibration transmissibility spectrum from IRU-A to M1 (red) and M2 (blue) tilt. FEM prediction (dots) fails to reproduce the transmissibility…
![Page 8: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Strehl degradation due to image jitter
Strehl degradation due to optical error
(requirement)
SOT requirement on image stability = 0.09” (3 = 0.042” (0-p)
psf with sinusoidal jitter, = 390nm
(sinusoidal jitter)
0.09” (3
![Page 9: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Momentum wheelsExample of data: power spectrum density of M2 tilt against MW-A spin rate
![Page 10: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Momentum wheelsSuitable windows of spin rate of MW were identified.
Hanged up config.Acc. data
Requirement = 0.03arcsec (rms)
X
Y
Operational spin range of MWs is decided to be 2800+100rpm so that disturbance of MW will not be a significant cause of SOT pointing error.
![Page 11: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
IRU-A
PSD-X PSD-YOptical measurement in FM
![Page 12: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
IRU-B
PSD-X PSD-YOptical measurement in FM
![Page 13: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
IRU-A and B
X (arcsec rms) Y (arcsec rms)IRU-A 0.003 0.005IRU-B 0.005 0.006
For IRU-A, the observed disturbance level is much smaller (<1/30) than the prediction based on past experiments. The reason of this discrepancy is understood as the anti-resonance between IRU-A internal structure and the panel of bus module (but not conclusive). Trend of the disturbance level is being monitored during the final test period.
Total pointing error integrated for f >20Hz.
![Page 14: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
FPP wheelsNFI filter wheel BFI filter wheel
![Page 15: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
XRT wheelsXRT filter wheel-1 XRT filter wheel-2
![Page 16: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
XRT VLS EIS coarse mirror
Since operation of EIS coarse mirror mechanism is very rare, we do not care..
![Page 17: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
EIC/MIC2004.11
Before vib.2005.9.28
Post-vib.2005.10.26
Post-TV.2006.6
FPP-NFI-FW (110-120Hz)
PSD-X 0.0021 0.0019 0.0034
PSD-Y 0.0132 0.0076 0.0090
FPP-BFI-FW (110-120Hz)
PSD-X 0.0009 0.0019 0.0028
PSD-Y 0.0127 0.0076 0.0091
XRT-VLS (no cont.rotation)
PSD-X 0.18 (0-p) 0.10 (0-p) 0.09 (0-p)
PSD-Y 0.20 (0-p) 0.09 (0-p) 0.09 (0-p)
XRT-FW1 (63-72Hz)
PSD-X 0.0052 0.0015 0.0075
PSD-Y 0.0220 0.0042 0.0096
XRT-FW2 (63-72Hz)
PSD-X 0.0106 0.0054 0.0032
PSD-Y 0.0217 0.0194 0.0103
EIS-SHT (no cont.rotation)
PSD-X Neg. Neg. Neg.
PSD-Y Neg. Neg. Neg.
EIS-F-Mirr (no cont.rotation)
PSD-X Neg. Neg. Neg.
PSD-Y Neg. Neg. Neg.
IRU-A (110-120Hz)
PSD-X 0.0015 0.0012 0.0011
PSD-Y 0.0011 0.0015 0.0014
IRU-B1/2 (150-160Hz)
PSD-X 0.0066 0.0064 0.0081
PSD-Y 0.0070 0.0059 0.0076
Record of OTA pointing error induced by mission mechanisms. (by the PSD sensor from continuous rotation measurement, unit=arcsec rms)
requirement = 0.03” (1 = 0.014” (0-p)
![Page 18: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Pointing disturbance caused by XRT-VLS shutter
Disturbance level of XRT-VLS Final Strehl ~ 0.59
Strehl degradation due to image jitter
Strehl degradation due to optical error
(requirement)
Final Strehl will be ~ 0.42 @390nm.
60 < f < 200Hz
![Page 19: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Point spread function under the sinusoidal jitter
requirementXRT VLS ~ 0.1 (0-p)”
For sinusoidal jitter 009” (3) is equivalent to 0.042” (0-p)
![Page 20: Pointing stability of SOT against the microvibration](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815df4550346895dcc2baf/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Summary:After extensive experiments, we expect that therequirement of SOT pointing stability is to be satisfied.
Issues to be addressed after launch:- What is the real disturbance level of the XRT-VLS in orb
it?
- How frequently we need the visible image of XRT for data co-alignment?
- Shall we stop the IRU-B (which is redundant) during the nominal operation with IRU-A?