# Presentation: 704797

## MAXIM Periscope ISAL Study Highlights

- ISAL Study beginning 14 April 2003

## Science Team

- Webster Cash - University of Colorado
- 303-492-4056
- Ann Shipley -	University of Colorado
- 303-492-1875
- Keith Gendreau - NASA/GSFC Code 662
- 6-6188

## How to implement the simple X-ray Interferometer

- Full MAXIM- the black hole imager

- Nanometer formation flying
- Primaries must point to milliarcseconds

**Pre FY02 Baseline Mirror Grouping**

**Improved Mirror Grouping**

- Group and package Primary and Secondary Mirrors as “Periscope” Pairs

- “Easy” Formation Flying (microns)
- All s/c  act like  thin lenses- Higher Robustness
- Possibility to introduce phase control within one space craft- an x-ray delay line- More Flexibility
- Offers more optimal UV-Plane coverage- Less dependence on Detector Energy Resolution
- Each Module, self contained- Lower Risk.

**A scalable MAXIM concept.**

## The Periscope Module- the subject of this ISAL study

- The Periscope module  is a convenient place to break out two radically different tolerance levels
- Nm and ~mas relative positioning and pointing within the modules
- Micron and arcsecond module to module alignment
- Some further study makes our Periscope mirror “pairs” into mirror “quads”
- 4 bounce optical situation required to maintain coarse module to module alignment

## Goals for this Study

- How do you make these light weight mirrors so they are flat to better than /300?
- How do you hold these mirrors with actuators to move them by ~nm over microns of range?  Which Actuators and controlling electronics?  Do you put actuators on all the mirrors?
- How does the structure provide an environment suitable to maintain the mirror figure and stability?
- Do we need internal metrology?  How to implement?
- How do we register one module’s mirror surfaces to another modules mirror surfaces at the micron level?
- How to mass produce these?  By how much does this save costs?
- What would the alignment procedures be?
- Trade Studies- three different mirror module sizes,..
- We need the usual IMDC cost/mass/power inputs.  Drawings.

## A Pair of MAXIM Periscopes

- Detector

- Periscope Module

- 1

- 2

- 3

- 4

## h and OPD – Key Requirements

- OPD < x-ray/10

## Periscope Assembly

**Entrance Aperture**
**(Thermal Collimator)**

**Shutter Mechanism**
**(one for each aperture)**

**Assy. Kinematic Mounts (3)**

## Optical Bench & Mirrors

**Pitch**

**Roll**

**Translate**

**Translate**

**Mirror #1**

**Mirror #2**

**Mirror #3**

**Mirror #4**

**3 DOF Mechanism**

**1 DOF Mechanism**

**Main Optical Bench**

**Mirrors**
**(300mm x 200mm x 50mm)**

**Entrance**
**Aperture**

**Exit**
**Aperture**

## Launch Configuration Layout

**Delta IV ****ø5m x L14.3m**

**24 Free Flyer Satellites (4 Apertures ea.)**
**1 Hub Satellite (12 Apertures)**
**1 Detector Satellite**

**Ø4.75m**

- ~1000 cm2 of Collecting Area

## Total Costs for Optical Assemblies:  ~< $60M

- This includes savings from mass production, prototyping, flight spares, and contingency.
- 1000 cm2 of effective area- full MAXIM.
- Still need satellite infrastructure.

## The Collecting Area of Chandra for 1/10 The Cost

- Chandra has 0.5 arc sec resolution and its mirrors cost $400M
- This study has shown that it is possible to build a microarcsec imaging telescope with the same collecting area as the current Chandra for 1/10 its cost
- The study has also shown how the engineering can be done to allow X-ray imaging and spectroscopy in formation flying

## PRICE Cost Summary1st “Periscope-Pair”

- PRICE Cost Summary1st “Periscope-Pair”

**Engineering**

**Manufacturing**

**Cost Element**
**(Summary Report**
**Available for each **
**cost element)**

**Year Dollars**
**($03)**

**Total Cost Estimate**
**$23.9M**

**Production**

**Development**

**Schedule**

**Project Management**

**Mass**

## PRICE Cost Estimate Summary Incremental Cost of 2nd Unit (T2)

- PRICE Cost Estimate Summary Incremental Cost of 2nd Unit (T2)

- T1

- T1 + T2

## Learning Curves