Paper detail

Comparing focal plane wavefront control techniques:\\Numerical simulations and laboratory experiments

Fewer than 1% of all exoplanets detected to date have been characterized on the basis of spectroscopic observations of their atmosphere. Unlike indirect methods, high-contrast imaging offers access to atmospheric signatures by separating the light of a faint off-axis source from that of its parent star. Forthcoming space facilities, such as WFIRST/LUVOIR/HabEX, are expected to use coronagraphic instruments capable of imaging and spectroscopy in order to understand the physical properties of remote worlds. The primary technological challenge that drives the design of these instruments involves the precision control of wavefront phase and amplitude errors. Several FPWS and control techniques have been proposed and demonstrated in laboratory to achieve the required accuracy. However, these techniques have never been tested and compared under the same laboratory conditions. This paper compares two of these techniques in a closed loop in visible light: the pair-wise (PW) associated with electric field conjugation (EFC) and self-coherent camera (SCC). We first ran numerical simulations to optimize PW wavefront sensing and to predict the performance of a coronagraphic instrument with PW associated to EFC wavefront control, assuming modeling errors for both PW and EFC. Then we implemented the techniques on a laboratory testbed. We introduced known aberrations into the system and compared the wavefront sensing using both PW and SCC. The speckle intensity in the coronagraphic image was then minimized using PW+EFC and SCC independently. We demonstrate that both SCC and PW+EFC can generate a dark hole in space-like conditions in a few iterations. Both techniques reach the current limitation of our laboratory bench and provide coronagraphic contrast levels of 5e-9 in a narrow spectral band (<0.25% bandwidth)

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.