Step 1. Proof of concept
May 1, 1993
Steward Observatory Mirror Lab
University of Arizona
http://medusa.as.arizona.edu/lbtwww/tech/ua9304.htm
A flat optic with 8.3 nm rms figure error over a clear aperture of 11 mm was measured using a diffractive test plate. The error in making the measurement with the CGH test plate was determined to be 2.1 nm rms with contributions from two independent components. The distortion in the CGH caused a measurement error of 1.9 nm rms and noise in the measurement from laser speckle and stray reflections in the camera caused an additional 0.5 nm rms error. The optical test of secondary mirrors using the CGH test plate will have similar errors due to the CGH distortion, but a rotating ground glass screen will be used to eliminate speckle and spurious fringes. On the basis of this data, we are highly confident that the CGH test plate will provide an efficient method for making highly accurate surface measurements of secondary mirrors.

The spherical surface forms the reference for this measurement, so its shape is critical. Since this is a concave spherical surface, it can be measured interferometrically from its center of curvature to high accuracy. Any shape errors in the reference sphere will be subtracted from the secondary test results.
The small-scale laboratory test used this configuration, but was simplified with the use of flat surfaces. By using flats, the fabrication of the CGH could be performed using standard photolithographic techniques and the surface figures are well known. Since the CGH for a tilted plane is just a straight line ruling, it is easily specified. Also, all of the diffracted orders from a straight line ruling are plane waves with the tilt angle proportional to the order number. By testing the plane wavefronts from different orders, the surface figure and ruling errors are fully separable.
The accuracy of the wavefront created by the CGH is directly related to the positional accuracy of the lines and the order of diffraction. The error in the diffracted wavefront is simply
where
x is the error in grating line position, s is the local grating spacing, and m is the order number. This error
is added to the wavefront error that comes from the surface figure of the CGH substrate. All orders are equally
affected by the surface figure.

The rulings, made by Klarmann Rulings, Inc., consist of aluminum stripes covering an area of 14 15 mm fabricated onto a flat glass (BK7) substrate. Two rulings were made and tested -- one with 100 µm spacings and the other with 200 µm spacings. These spacings correspond to actual spacings that will be used in the secondary mirror test. The duty cycle, or ratio of metal band width to center-to-center separation, was fixed at 15% for both rulings to maximize the contrast of the interference pattern.
Accurate, high resolution measurements were made using phase shifting interferometry. The test flat was mounted to a PZT that provided the motion for the phase shifting. The phase measurement was performed using software from Phase Shift Technology running on a 486 PC. Errors in the phase measurement are below 0.5 nm for an average of 10 maps.
The retro-reflected beam off the test flat was used as feedback to align the light to be normally incident onto the test flat. The ruling was then tipped to make the desired diffracted order coincide with the test beam. The position of the 200 µm pinhole was adjusted to pass these two beams, but to block all of the other orders. The CCD camera was placed at the image of the test flat where diffraction effects are minimal.
The CGH was tilted to the appropriate angle to allow measurement of the test flat using the -1, 0, +1, and +5 diffracted orders. By using the fact that the CGH distortion causes errors proportional to the order number, the surface figure and the grating writing errors were separated. As expected, the surface figure computed using all four maps is virtually identical to the measured zero order. A contour map of the test flat surface figure with respect to the reference surface is shown in Fig. 3.
The measurement of the test flat with the first diffracted order from the CGH is shown in Fig. 4. This corresponds to the measurement of a secondary mirror with a CGH test plate. The difference between these two gives the error in the measurement, shown in Fig. 5.


The measurement error shown in Fig 5. has two components -- noise in the measurement and distortion in the CGH. These two effects were separated using measurements at several orders. The CGH distortion was determined to cause 1.92 nm rms figure error. The noise in the measurement, caused mostly by the spurious fringes from the CCD window, was determined to cause 0.54 nm rms error.

The distortion in the 200-µm pitch ruling required to cause a surface figure error of 1.92 nm rms and 12.2 nm P-V was calculated. The distortion in the ruling was 1.2 µm rms and 7.7 µm P-V with a spatial distribution shown by Fig. 5. This amount of distortion is consistent with the claims of the company that fabricated the rulings. It is also comparable to the writing accuracy expected in the fabrication of the test plates.
This results of this test conclusively demonstrate that the assumptions and techniques used for the design and analysis of the CGH test plate are valid. This proof of the concept strongly indicates that the method will work for secondary mirrors. We are currently pursuing the next step in the development of the CGH test plate method -- using a CGH test plate to perform a full-aperture test on a 10-inch secondary mirror.