JPL Document D-34923

Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph

Science and Technology

Definition Team (STDT)
Report

Editors:

Marie Levine, Stuart Shaklan

and James Kasting (Penn State University)

June 12, 2006

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Jet Propulsion Laboratory

California Institute of Technology
Pasadena, California
TPF-C STDT REPORT

ii
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Approvals

iii
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Goals for the Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph Mission

The question "are we alone?" has its roots deep in human consciousness, and its answer could revo-
lutionize our world view. Starting with Galileo's invention of the telescope 400 years ago, which he
used to prove the existence of other worlds, and continuing through a century of astonishing dis-
coveries—galaxies, stars, planets, and distant oceans—science has given us a dramatically clearer pic-
ture of the universe and our place within it. Today, we finally have tools within reach to seek life be-
yond Earth, and to answer this age-old question. The Terrestrial Planet Finder-Coronagraph (TPF-C)
mission is a giant step towards that goal.

Over the last decade, extrasolar planets have been discovered around nearly 200 nearby stars. Most
of these planetary systems are quite different from our own—with Jupiter-sized planets orbiting
close to their parent stars—mainly because radial velocity measurements are most sensitive to such
planets. New observing techniques, such as coronagraphy and nulling interferometry, are needed to
detect smaller, Earth-like planets by their own light and to characterize them as possible harbors for
life.

Characterization of a terrestrial-sized planet at its most fundamental level means learning about its
mass, diameter, temperature, and atmospheric and surface composition. The presence of liquid wa-
ter is considered a prerequisite for life, and several gases (O2, O3, CH4, N2O) are considered possible
indicators of life. Establishing the presence of any of these compounds in a planet’s atmosphere or
on its surface requires spectroscopic measurements of the planet’s emitted and reflected light in
both the visible/near-IR and the thermal infrared. The TPF-C mission described in this report is the
first of two NASA missions that will obtain these required data. The second is TPF-I/Darwin, a
NASA/ESA nulling interferometer that is described elsewhere.

In addition to detecting and characterizing Earth-like planets, TPF-C will characterize many Jupiter-
like giant planets and circumstellar dust disks. Such planetary system constituents provide clues to
the course of planet formation, and may affect the habitability of co-existing terrestrial planets by
influencing their bombardment histories.

These observations must be carried out in space. Ground-based telescopes cannot do the job, for
two reasons. First, ground-based telescopes must observe through the turbulence of the atmosphere.
Although some of the resulting blurring can be compensated by adaptive optics, it appears infeasible
to see a planet as faint as Earth, even for telescopes as large as 100 m in diameter. Second, Earth’s
atmosphere contains significant concentrations of the very biogenic gases that one would wish to
measure. Separating out the absorption features of an extrasolar planet’s atmosphere from those of
Earth’s atmosphere appears to be an intractable problem, given the small number of photons from
the observed planet and the resulting limited spectral resolution.

Technology progress necessary for TPF-C has been dramatic in recent years. At least a dozen new
types of coronagraphs have been invented that might enable us to see an Earth close to a vastly
brighter star. Methods for canceling the halo of starlight scattered within the telescope have also
been demonstrated, thereby dramatically relaxing the requirements for optical surface quality. In
both areas, laboratory tests are currently getting close to achieving flight-quality performance. The
telescope mirror itself needs to be relatively large (8m×3.5m), but it is still within reach of current

iv
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

fabrication capabilities. Alternative coronagraph designs described in this report might allow the
mission to be accomplished with a smaller mirror.

A large visible-wavelength space telescope of the quality needed to detect habitable Earth-sized
planets would also have important applications to other areas of astrophysics. In particular, it would
profoundly advance the science of extragalactic observations, out to the very edge of the universe.
Topics of literally cosmic importance could be addressed, including the expansion rate of the uni-
verse, dark energy, dark matter, and the formation of the first stars after the Big Bang. With its
planned wide-field camera, TPF-C could conduct many of its deep-space observations in parallel
with the search and characterization of Earth-like planets. In addition, the mission would provide
dedicated time for separate pointed observations in a program that would be open to the general
astronomical community.

In summary, TPF-C is one of the most scientifically compelling endeavors that the human race can
envision today. The technology needed to accomplish the mission is either available already or well
within reach. Pursuing this mission would give NASA a leading role in developing science and tech-
nology, and will be inspirational to people everywhere.

v
TPF-C STDT REPORT

A Very Brief History

With enlightened foresight, in 1985 NASA organized a Planetary Astronomy Committee, to “pro-
vide advice on … initiating the search for and characterization of other planetary systems”. In the
same year the Space Science Board of the National Research Council of the National Academy or-
ganized the Committee on Planetary and Lunar Exploration to “extend its exploration strategy to
planetary systems outside the Solar System”.

In 1988 NASA organized a Science Working Group to “formulate a strategy for the discovery and
study of other planetary systems”. The first extrasolar planets were discovered only a few years later
(1995). Soon thereafter NASA established the first Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) Science Working
Group, which reported in 1999 that TPF “will revolutionize humanity’s understanding of the origin
and evolution of planetary systems”, and produced a schematic design of a thermal-infrared TPF
Interferometer (TPF-I) to accomplish that task.

In 2000 NASA funded an academic-industry competition to devise additional concepts for finding
and characterizing Earth-like planets, resulting in dozens of new ideas, among which the leading one
was the TPF Coronagraph (TPF-C). In parallel, in 2000, the second TPF SWG was established to
develop an initial Science Requirements Document.

In 2005 NASA chartered the Science and Technology Definition Team (STDT) to work with the
TPF-C Project scientists and engineers, and deliver a mature Science Requirements Document for
TPF-C, a narrative on TPF-C’s potential for general astrophysics observations, a Design Reference
Mission, an assessment of design concepts and operational scenarios, recommendations on technol-
ogy developments needed, a recommended end-to-end science program, assistance in communicat-
ing with the astronomical community, and a report summarizing their work. This is that report.

The STDT met in plenary session six times throughout 2005 and early 2006, held scores of tele-
phone meetings, and exchanged many hundreds of emails. The STDT built on the foundation of
two major studies that had just been completed: the Science Requirements Document of the TPF-C
SWG (2004); and the Flight Baseline-1 engineering feasibility study of the TPF-C Project Office at
JPL and GSFC (2005). The STDT also incorporated the results of five major competitively-awarded
Instrument Concept Studies (2006). In addition, the STDT devoted a very substantial effort to the
research and writing of the Science Requirements Document and Design Reference Mission sections
of this report.

This STDT report contains all of the scientific and engineering material requested in the STDT’s
Charter (February 2005), delivered on schedule (June 2006). We plan to publish soon five (5) com-
panion Volumes which provide the detailed information behind the STDT Report. The Volumes
are: 1) Design Reference Mission Studies, 2) Flight Baseline 1 Design Information and Performance
Assessment, 3) Instrument Concept Study Reports, 4) TPF-C Technology Plan and 5) Publications.
The STDT wishes it could have delivered even more, however, drastic funding cuts imposed in mid-
2005 and early 2006 precluded the development of two additional parts of the study that had been
chartered: a section of advice on the conduct of the end-to-end science program (not provided be-
cause the Phase-A start has been delayed indefinitely); and a section on a second iteration of the en-
gineering study, Flight Baseline-2 (not provided because the engineering staff was no longer funded).
We regret these losses, but we expect that they will be made up in the future. With these caveats, we
believe that the present study is more than fully responsive to the STDT’s Charter, and we are
pleased to be able to present this study to NASA and the community at large.

vi
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Authors

STDT Members
J. Roger Angel, University of Arizona
Michael E. Brown, California Institute of Technology
Robert A. Brown, Space Telescope Science Institute
Christopher Burrows, Metajiva
Mark Clampin, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Alan Dressler, Carnegie Observatories
Henry C. Ferguson, Space Telescope Science Institute
Heidi B. Hammel, Space Science Institute
Sara R. Heap, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Scott D. Horner, Lockheed-Martin
Garth D. Illingworth, University of California, Santa Cruz
N. Jeremy Kasdin, Princeton University
James Kasting, Penn State University (Co-Chair)
Mark J. Kuchner, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Douglas Lin, University of California, Santa Cruz
Mark S. Marley, NASA Ames Research Center
Victoria Meadows, Spitzer Science Center
Martin C. Noecker, Ball Aerospace & Technology Corp.
Ben R. Oppenheimer, American Museum of Natural History
Sara Seager, Carnegie Institution of Washington
Michael Shao, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Karl R. Stapelfeldt, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Wesley A. Traub, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Co-Chair)
John T. Trauger, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

James Alexander
Kunjithapatham Balasubramanian
Virginia Ford
Sarah Hunyadi
Marie Levine (TPF-C Systems Manager)
Douglas Lisman
Stuart Shaklan (TPF-C Architect)

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Charles Bowers
David Content

Industry Contractors
Terry Cafferty (TC Technology)
Joe Pitman (Lockheed-Martin)
Erin Sabatke (Ball Aerospace)

vii
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Acknowledgements

We are especially thankful to our former TPF-C Systems Manager, Virginia Ford, whose expertise,
enthusiasm, and dynamic leadership are largely responsible for the development of the TPF-C sys-
tem as described herein. Ginny we wish you good luck in your new venture! The authors would also
like to recognize the valuable contributions of all whose work is described herein but who largely no
longer remain on the project because of budget reductions:

Albert Niessner Gregory Moore

Alice Liu (GSFC) Ichung Weng
Allan Eisenman James Fanson
Andreas Kuhnert Jennifer Dooley
Andrew Kissil John Krist
Andrew Lowman John Schiermieir
Andrew Smith (GSFC) Joseph Carson
Anthony Martino (GSFC) Joseph Green
Brian Kern Joseph Howard (GSFC)
Carl Blaurock (NightSky Systems) Larry Dewell (Lockheed Martin)
Carl Bruce-Jr Louis Fantano (GSFC)
Charles Engler (GSFC) Luis Marchen
Charles Lillie (NGST) Mike Chainyk
Clifton Jackson (GSFC) Pantazis Mouroulis
Daniel Hoppe Paul Karlmann
Daniel Wilson Peter Feher
David Palacios Peter Halverson
Dwight Moody Philip Dumont
Eri Cohen Raymond Ohl (GSFC)
Erkin Sidick Sandra Irish (GSFC)
Eug-Yun Kwack Scott Antonille (GSFC)
Fang Shi Timothy Ho
Gary Gutt

We acknowledge the support and contributions of our NASA Headquarters TPF Program Execu-
tive Lia LaPiana and NASA TPF Program Scientist Zlatan Tsvetanov who commissioned this re-
port.

viii
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table of Contents
Approvals ...........................................................................................................................................................iii
Goals for the Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph Mission ..................................................................iv
A Very Brief History ........................................................................................................................................vi
Authors..............................................................................................................................................................vii
Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................................................viii
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................ix
List of Figures...................................................................................................................................................xv
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................xxiv
Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................................................1
1.0 TPF-C Science Requirements................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Definition of Scientific Terms .......................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.1 Planet............................................................................................................................................. 1-2
1.2.2 Terrestrial Planet ......................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.3 Habitable Planet .......................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.4 Habitable Zone and Continuously Habitable Zone............................................................... 1-3
1.2.5 Potentially Habitable Planet....................................................................................................... 1-3
1.2.6 Earth-like Planet .......................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.2.7 Earth Twin/Solar System Twin ................................................................................................ 1-4
1.2.8 Eta_Earth (η⊕) ............................................................................................................................ 1-4
1.2.9 Direct Detection.......................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.2.10 Giant Planet ............................................................................................................................... 1-4
1.2.11 Planetary System Architecture................................................................................................. 1-5
1.2.12 Exozodiacal Dust ...................................................................................................................... 1-5
1.2.13 The “Zodi” Unit........................................................................................................................ 1-5
1.2.14 Pericenter Shift .......................................................................................................................... 1-6
1.2.15 Protoplanetary, Debris, and Exozodiacal Disks ................................................................... 1-6
1.2.16 Parallel Observations ................................................................................................................ 1-7
1.2.17 Pointed Observations ............................................................................................................... 1-7
1.3 Science Objectives .............................................................................................................................. 1-7
1.3.1 Terrestrial Planet Science ........................................................................................................... 1-7
1.3.1.1 Detecting Potentially Habitable Planets ........................................................................... 1-7
1.3.1.1.1 Habitable Zone Location and Width ........................................................................ 1-7
1.3.1.1.2 Types of Stars to be Searched .................................................................................... 1-9
1.3.1.1.3 Terrestrial Planet Mass Distribution ....................................................................... 1-10
1.3.1.1.4 Planetary Albedo/Contrast....................................................................................... 1-11
1.3.1.1.5 Zodiacal and Exo-zodiacal Backgrounds ............................................................... 1-12
1.3.1.1.6 Number of Stars to Search ....................................................................................... 1-14
1.3.1.2 Characterizing Planetary Orbits....................................................................................... 1-16
1.3.1.2.1 Determination of Planetary Orbits.......................................................................... 1-16
1.3.1.2.2 Orbital Phase Space ................................................................................................... 1-19
1.3.1.3 Characterizing Planets by Their Color ........................................................................... 1-19
1.3.1.4 Characterizing Planets by Spectroscopy......................................................................... 1-21
1.3.1.4.1 Spectral Range ............................................................................................................ 1-21
1.3.1.4.2 Spectral Resolution .................................................................................................... 1-23

ix
TPF-C STDT REPORT

1.3.2 Giant Planets and Planetary System Architecture Science .................................................. 1-25
1.3.2.1 Detecting Giant Planets and Solar System Twins......................................................... 1-27
1.3.2.1.1 Direct Detection of Giant Planets........................................................................... 1-28
1.3.2.1.2 Giant Planet Orbit Determination .......................................................................... 1-29
1.3.2.1.3 Studies of Known Giant Planets: Orbits, Radii, and Masses .............................. 1-30
1.3.2.2 Colors of Giant Planets .................................................................................................... 1-31
1.3.2.3 Spectroscopy of Giant Planets......................................................................................... 1-31
1.3.3 Circumstellar Disks and Planet Formation Science ............................................................. 1-34
1.3.3.1 Survey of Dusty Debris around Solar-type Stars .......................................................... 1-35
1.3.3.2 Characterizing Disk-Planet Interactions ........................................................................ 1-35
1.3.3.3 Disk Evolution and Planet Formation ........................................................................... 1-38
1.3.4 Comparison with Ground-Based Capabilities ...................................................................... 1-39
1.3.4.1 Competing Ground-Based Facilities for Direct Detection and Spectroscopy of
Extrasolar Giant Planets................................................................................................................ 1-39
1.3.4.2 Competing Ground- and Space-Based Facilities for Circumstellar Disk Studies .... 1-39
1.3.5 General Astrophysics Objectives and Requirements........................................................... 1-40
1.3.5.1 Cosmology, Dark Energy, and Dark Matter.................................................................. 1-41
1.3.5.1.1 The Hubble Constant................................................................................................ 1-42
1.3.5.1.2 Gravitational Lensing ................................................................................................1-43
1.3.5.1.3 Supernova Cosmology .............................................................................................. 1-44
1.3.5.2 The Fossil Record of Galaxy Formation........................................................................ 1-44
1.3.5.2.1 Milky-Way Globular Clusters................................................................................... 1-45
1.3.5.2.2 Star-Formation Histories beyond the Local Group.............................................. 1-45
1.3.5.3 Galaxies, Dark Halos, and Reionization......................................................................... 1-47
1.3.5.3.1 The Evolution of Galaxy Internal Structure.......................................................... 1-47
1.3.5.3.2 Reionization ................................................................................................................ 1-48
1.3.5.3.3 Galaxies and Dark-Matter Halos ............................................................................. 1-48
1.3.5.4 General-Observer Program.............................................................................................. 1-49
1.4 Specific Science Requirements........................................................................................................ 1-49
1.4.1 Baseline Mission Requirements............................................................................................... 1-50
1.4.2 Minimum Mission Requirements............................................................................................ 1-51
1.4.3 Desired Mission Requirements ............................................................................................... 1-51
1.4.4 Rationale behind these Requirements .................................................................................... 1-52
Appendix 1.A TPF Spectral Lines (Desmarais et al., 2002)............................................................. 1-56
Appendix 1.B Zodi brightness table and ZODIPIC description.................................................... 1-58
Appendix 1.C References...................................................................................................................... 1-62
Appendix 1.D Alternative Form of Mission Requirements............................................................. 1-67
Appendix 1.E. The Previous Science Requirements for TPF (2004)............................................. 1-68
1.E.1 Historical Context .................................................................................................................... 1-68
1.E.2 TPF 2004 Science Requirements............................................................................................ 1-69
2.0 Design Reference Mission...................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Key concepts ....................................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Studies to date ..................................................................................................................................... 2-4
3.0 TPF-C Design Performance Assessment............................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Science Derived Requirements ......................................................................................................... 3-4
3.3 Flight Baseline 1 ................................................................................................................................ 3-10

x
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.3.1 System Architecture .................................................................................................................. 3-10

3.3.1.1 Optical Configuration ....................................................................................................... 3-10
3.3.1.1.1 Telescope..................................................................................................................... 3-11
3.3.1.1.2 Starlight Suppression System ................................................................................... 3-12
3.3.1.2 Mechanical Configuration ................................................................................................ 3-15
3.3.1.3 Launch Vehicle .................................................................................................................. 3-22
3.3.1.4 Mass ..................................................................................................................................... 3-22
3.3.1.5 Power................................................................................................................................... 3-26
3.3.1.6 Trades .................................................................................................................................. 3-27
3.3.2 Mission Operations................................................................................................................... 3-28
3.3.2.1 Mission Description .......................................................................................................... 3-28
3.3.2.2 Observatory Field of Regard............................................................................................3-28
3.3.2.3 Observational Scenario of Each Target Star ................................................................. 3-29
3.3.2.4 Orbit Environmental Issues.............................................................................................3-30
3.3.3 Science Payload.......................................................................................................................... 3-31
3.3.3.1 Optical Telescope Assembly............................................................................................ 3-31
3.3.3.1.1 Optical Telescope Assembly Requirements........................................................... 3-31
3.3.3.1.1.1 Optical requirements ......................................................................................... 3-31
3.3.3.1.1.2 Mechanical requirements................................................................................... 3-32
3.3.3.1.1.3 Thermal requirements........................................................................................ 3-33
3.3.3.1.1.4 Pointing Requirements ...................................................................................... 3-33
3.3.3.1.2 OTA Design Description ......................................................................................... 3-34
3.3.3.1.2.1 Telescope Design choices ................................................................................. 3-35
3.3.3.1.2.2 Primary Mirror Assembly.................................................................................. 3-36
3.3.3.1.2.3 Secondary Mirror Tower ................................................................................... 3-38
3.3.3.1.2.4 Secondary Mirror Assembly ............................................................................. 3-38
3.3.3.1.2.5 Tertiary Fold Mirror (M3) Assembly............................................................... 3-40
3.3.3.1.3 TPF-C Mirror Coatings............................................................................................. 3-41
3.3.3.1.3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3-41
3.3.3.1.3.2 Requirements ...................................................................................................... 3-41
3.3.3.1.3.3 Reflectance and Bandpass................................................................................. 3-42
3.3.3.1.3.4 Uniformity & Polarization ................................................................................ 3-44
3.3.3.1.3.5 Initial Sample Performance............................................................................... 3-44
3.3.3.1.3.6 Contrast Comparison of Various Coatings .................................................... 3-45
3.3.3.1.3.7 Summary and Recommendations .................................................................... 3-47
3.3.3.2 Starlight Suppression System ...........................................................................................3-56
3.3.3.2.1 Architecture ................................................................................................................ 3-56
3.3.3.2.2 Wavefront Sensing and Control .............................................................................. 3-63
3.3.3.3 Baseline Science Instruments...........................................................................................3-66
3.3.3.3.1 Detectors ..................................................................................................................... 3-66
3.3.3.3.2 Spectrometer............................................................................................................... 3-68
3.3.3.3.3 Wide Angle Camera................................................................................................... 3-69
3.3.3.3.4 Instrument Accommodation.................................................................................... 3-69
3.3.3.3.5 Instrument Concept Study Accommodations ....................................................... 3-71
3.3.3.4 Payload Support Structure (PSS)..................................................................................... 3-73
3.3.4 Spacecraft ................................................................................................................................... 3-76
3.3.4.1 Attitude and Pointing Control System Design.............................................................. 3-76
3.3.4.2 Vibration Isolation............................................................................................................. 3-84

xi
TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.3.4.2.1 Passive Isolation......................................................................................................... 3-86

3.3.4.2.2 Active Isolation .......................................................................................................... 3-87
3.3.4.3 Thermal Control and Sunshield....................................................................................... 3-89
3.3.4.4 Solar Sail.............................................................................................................................. 3-92
3.3.4.5 Solar Array .......................................................................................................................... 3-93
3.3.4.6 Electronics .......................................................................................................................... 3-94
3.3.4.7 Communications................................................................................................................ 3-95
3.3.5 FB1 Performance Requirements.............................................................................................3-96
3.3.5.1 Static Error Budget..........................................................................................................3-100
3.3.5.1.1 Incoherent Scattter ..................................................................................................3-100
3.3.5.1.2 Coherent Scatter.......................................................................................................3-102
3.3.5.1.3 Drivers of Mirror Figure.........................................................................................3-105
3.3.5.1.4 Summary....................................................................................................................3-105
3.3.5.2 Contrast Stability Error Budget.....................................................................................3-106
3.4 Baseline Observatory Performance..............................................................................................3-109
3.4.1 Modeling Approach ................................................................................................................3-109
3.4.1.1 Engineering Models and Sensitivity Analysis ..............................................................3-112
3.4.1.1.1 Optical Performance Models .................................................................................3-113
3.4.1.1.2 Structural Models .....................................................................................................3-115
3.4.1.1.3 Thermal Models .......................................................................................................3-118
3.4.1.2 Throughput Models ........................................................................................................3-120
3.4.1.3 Instrument Models ..........................................................................................................3-122
3.4.2 FB1 Design Performance Assessment.................................................................................3-124
3.4.2.1 Contrast Performance.....................................................................................................3-124
3.4.2.1.1 Contrast Stability Performance ..............................................................................3-125
3.4.2.1.1.1 Dynamics ...........................................................................................................3-125
3.4.2.1.1.2 Thermal..............................................................................................................3-126
3.4.2.1.2 Static Contrast Performance...................................................................................3-128
3.4.2.2 System Thermal Performance........................................................................................3-130
3.4.2.3 Gravity Sag........................................................................................................................3-132
3.4.2.4 Launch Loads...................................................................................................................3-134
3.4.2.5 Stray Light.........................................................................................................................3-136
3.4.2.6 Trades ................................................................................................................................3-138
3.5 Verification Approach....................................................................................................................3-139
3.5.1 Baseline System Integration and Test...................................................................................3-140
3.5.1.1 Key Assumptions.............................................................................................................3-141
3.5.1.2 Strawman Observatory I&T Flow ................................................................................3-142
3.5.1.3 Strawman OTA Element I&T Flow.............................................................................3-145
3.5.1.4 Instrument Integration and Test ...................................................................................3-149
3.5.1.5 System Integration and Test - Description and Requirements.................................3-150
3.5.2 Model Verification and Validation........................................................................................3-150
3.5.2.1 Philosophy ........................................................................................................................3-150
3.5.2.2 Approach ..........................................................................................................................3-151
3.5.3 TPF-C Verification Open Issues ...........................................................................................3-153
3.5.4 TPF-C Verification References..............................................................................................3-153
4.0 Alternate Concepts and Trades ............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.1 Science Payload ................................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.1.1 Alternative Concepts and Trades, with impact on Aperture size......................................... 4-2

xii
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

4.1.1.1 Three-Mirror Anastigmat Telescope Design Option..................................................... 4-2

4.1.1.1.1 Motivation..................................................................................................................... 4-2
4.1.1.1.2 A Preliminary Three Mirror Design.......................................................................... 4-3
4.1.1.1.3 Comparison to the Baseline Two-Mirror Design.................................................... 4-4
4.1.1.1.4 Conclusions and Future Work ................................................................................... 4-5
4.1.1.2 Existing Coronagraph Designs and Potential Alternatives to the Baseline
Coronagraph ..................................................................................................................................... 4-5
4.1.1.3 Actuated Primary Mirror Alternative.............................................................................. 4-13
4.1.1.3.1 Justification and Motivation ..................................................................................... 4-13
4.1.1.3.2 Description of Alternative ........................................................................................ 4-13
4.1.1.3.3 Improvement/Impact ............................................................................................... 4-15
4.1.1.3.4 Alternative I&T test................................................................................................... 4-15
4.1.1.3.5 Low Authority Actuated Primary Mirror ............................................................... 4-16
4.1.1.4 Coatings: Aluminum vs. Silver for the Coronagraph PM, SM, and M3.................... 4-19
4.1.1.5 Racetrack/Bandaid Mirror Configurations.................................................................... 4-21
4.1.2 Starlight Suppression System Alternatives............................................................................. 4-24
4.1.2.1 FB1 Simplification ............................................................................................................. 4-24
4.1.2.1.1 Elimination of Polarizing Beam Splitters and Second Polarization Channel.... 4-24
4.1.2.1.2 Alternative to Michelson DM configuration ......................................................... 4-25
4.1.2.1.3 Use of State-of-the-Art Optics at Critical Locations in the Optical Train ........ 4-26
4.1.2.2 Pupil Remapping................................................................................................................ 4-27
4.1.2.3 Optical Vortex Coronagraph ........................................................................................... 4-29
4.1.3 Instrument Concept Studies .................................................................................................... 4-31
4.1.3.1 CorSpec Instrument Description .................................................................................... 4-31
4.1.3.2 CorECam ............................................................................................................................ 4-33
4.1.3.3 Broadband Camera/Spectrometer for Terrestrial Planets........................................... 4-37
4.1.3.4 Wide-Field Camera............................................................................................................ 4-39
4.1.3.5 Visible and Infrared Nulling Coronagraph Spectrometer ........................................... 4-44
4.1.3.5.1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 4-44
4.1.3.5.2 Science Drivers: How Many Stars Can Be Surveyed by the Nuller? .................. 4-44
4.1.3.5.3 Nulling Architecture Concept for TPF-C............................................................... 4-46
4.1.4 Spacecraft ................................................................................................................................... 4-47
4.1.4.1 An Alternate Sunshield Configuration ........................................................................... 4-47
4.2 Alternative I&T Test ........................................................................................................................ 4-49
5.0 Key Technologies, TRL Assessment, Development Plans & Progress to Date............................ 5-1
5.1 TPF-C Mission Risks.......................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.1 Approach to TPF-C Mission Risk Mitigation ......................................................................... 5-2
5.1.2 Current List of TPF-C Mission Risks ....................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.3 Near-Term Priorities for Key TPF-C Risk Mitigation ........................................................... 5-4
5.1.4 Existing Plans for Mitigating Key TPF-C Risks...................................................................... 5-4
5.2 Telescope Technology........................................................................................................................ 5-7
5.2.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 5-7
5.2.2 PM Blank Technology ................................................................................................................ 5-8
5.2.2.1 Mirror material ..................................................................................................................... 5-8
5.2.2.2 Blank fabrication.................................................................................................................. 5-8
5.2.3 PM Polishing and Metrology Technology ............................................................................. 5-10
5.2.4 PM Coating Technology .......................................................................................................... 5-10
5.2.5 SM Polishing and Metrology Technology ............................................................................. 5-10

xiii
TPF-C STDT REPORT

5.2.6 Laser Truss and Secondary Mirror Rigid Body Actuation .................................................. 5-11
5.2.7 Mechanical Configuration........................................................................................................ 5-11
5.2.8 Thermal Stabilization ................................................................................................................ 5-11
5.3 Starlight Suppression System Technology..................................................................................... 5-13
5.3.1 Apodizing Masks and Stops..................................................................................................... 5-13
5.3.2 Wave Front Sensing and Control............................................................................................ 5-16
5.3.3 Deformable Mirrors.................................................................................................................. 5-17
5.3.4 High Contrast Imaging Testbed.............................................................................................. 5-20
5.4 Science Instrument Technologies................................................................................................... 5-21
5.4.1 CorSpec Key Technologies...................................................................................................... 5-21
5.4.1.1 Detectors............................................................................................................................. 5-21
5.4.1.2 Dichroics............................................................................................................................. 5-22
5.4.2 CorECam Technology Assessment........................................................................................ 5-22
5.4.3 Broadband Camera/Spectrometer.......................................................................................... 5-22
5.4.4 Wide Field Camera.................................................................................................................... 5-22
5.4.5 Visible and Infrared Nulling Coronagraph Spectrometer ................................................... 5-23
5.4.5.1 Technology Summary ....................................................................................................... 5-23
5.4.5.2 Status of Deep Nulling ..................................................................................................... 5-23
5.4.6 Spatial Filter Arrays................................................................................................................... 5-24
5.4.6.1 Deformable Mirrors .......................................................................................................... 5-27
5.4.6.2 DM Electronics.................................................................................................................. 5-28
5.4.6.3 Status of Detector Arrays ................................................................................................. 5-29
5.4.6.4 Wavefront Sensing............................................................................................................. 5-29
5.5 Integrated Modeling Tool Development.......................................................................................5-30
5.5.1 Status ........................................................................................................................................... 5-30
5.5.2 Program Architecture ............................................................................................................... 5-30
5.5.3 Structural and Thermal Finite Element Technologies:........................................................ 5-32
5.5.4 Nonlinear Transient Thermal Solution Procedures ............................................................. 5-32
5.5.5 Planned Technology Development ........................................................................................ 5-34

xiv
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

List of Figures

Figure 1.2-1. Planetary radius (in units of 10^4 km) as a function of planet mass for zero-
temperature homogeneous spheres of various composition (Zapolsky & Salpeter 1969). The
masses and radii of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are shown.......................................... 1-5
Figure 1.3-1. The instantaneous habitable zone around different stars at the time when they first
entered the main sequence. The dotted curve shows the distance at which a planet’s rotation
would become locked within 4.5 Gyr. The nine planets in our own Solar System are shown as
well. (Modified from Kasting et al. 1993).......................................................................................... 1-9
Figure 1.3-2. The solar system, viewed by TPF-C from 10 pc away, at λ=0.5 µm: (left) with no
masks, but the direct starlight magically removed, and (right) with an eighth-order mask and
matched Lyot stop. Zodiacal dust dominates the images. ............................................................ 1-13
Figure 1.3-3. The effect of pericenter shift. The same system as in Figure 1.3-2, but with no Earth
and with 0.1 AU of pericenter shift in the zodiacal cloud, creating a brightness asymmetry that
mimics a terrestrial planet. ................................................................................................................. 1-14
Figure 1.3-4. Limited access to the photoastrometric orbit for the purposes of determining the orbit
and predicting future observability. The curves depict the variations in separation and delta
magnitude over one orbital period for ten randomly selected habitable-zone planets around a
Sun-like star. Each curve is suppressed where the planet is not detectable, which is for
separations smaller than the inner working distance (vertical red line) and for delta magnitudes
greater than the limiting sensitivity (horizontal red line). (This plot assumes a limiting delta
magnitude of 25, and a value of the product of the distance to the star and the angular size of
the central field obscuration equal to 0.68 AU.) For exposures of the same depth as the
searching observations, only the unsuppressed portions of the curves can be detected and
contribute data points for the orbital solution and estimations of future observability........... 1-18
Figure 1.3-5. Color-color diagram for Solar System objects. (Courtesy of W. Traub) ...................... 1-20
Figure 1.3-6. Spectra of Venus, Earth, and Mars. a) Full-resolution synthetic disk-averaged albedo
spectra (from Meadows, 2006). Synthetic Earth spectra are shown for both uniform high cirrus
cloud cover, and as a fit to Earthshine observations of the gibbous Earth. The Venus spectrum
was approximated to a disk average and has been multiplied by 0.6 to fit the plot. The Mars and
Earth spectra are disk-averages of 3-D spatially- and spectrally-resolved Virtual Planetary
Laboratory models of the Earth and Mars (Tinetti et al., 2005, 2006). For the observed Earth,
which was ocean-dominated with relatively little cloud cover, the Rayleigh scattering (0.45-0.6
μm) is pronounced, but the ozone is less apparent. The ozone absorption is much more
pronounced for the Earth with cloud cover, increasing the difficulty of identifying the Rayleigh
scattering component. b) Degraded albedo spectra (R = 70) of the Venus, Earth (gibbous
phase), and Mars spectra shown in panel ‘a’.................................................................................. 1-22
Figure 1.3-7. a) Synthetic spectra of hypothetical Earth atmospheres at various times during the
planet’s history (from Meadows 2006). Modern—335 ppmv CO2, 1.6 ppmv CH4; Proterozoic
(1.5 Gyr ago)—335 ppmv CO2, 100 ppmv CH4; Archean (3.0 Gyr ago)—2000 ppmv CO2,
1000 ppmv CH4. Model atmospheres and spectra calculated using techniques described in
detail in Segura et al. (2003). b) Same spectra, degraded to R = 70 resolution.......................... 1-24
Figure 1.3-8. Compositional variation of giant planets in our Solar System. The measured
atmospheric composition of solar system giant planets (neglecting the noble gases), expressed
as a ratio to solar abundance (Lodders 2003), provides a fingerprint of the giant planet

xv
TPF-C STDT REPORT

formation process. For example, the near-uniform enrichment of volatiles in Jupiter’s

atmosphere has been interpreted (Owen et al. 1999) as evidence that planetesimals bombarded
the atmosphere over time (e.g., Atreya et al. 2003). Such planetesimals could also have delivered
volatiles to the Solar System's habitable zone.................................................................................1-26
Figure 1.3-9. Model evolutionary scenarios compared with observed extrasolar planets. By
comparing architectures of other stellar systems with theory, new insights can be gained into
the planetary formation process. TPF-C should have the capability of detecting a Jupiter twin
out to an Outer Working Angle of 10 AU in systems harboring an Earth twin (diagram
courtesy D. Lin). ................................................................................................................................. 1-27
Figure 1.3-10. Parameter space uniquely accessible to TPF-C. The purple curve shows the expected
contrast of TPF-C as a function of angular separation from a target star. Crosses indicate
known precise-Doppler planets. The red lines indicate the parameter space potentially
accessible from the ground via interferometry and extreme AO on existing telescopes. ........ 1-28
Figure 1.3-11. Spectra of the local giant planets...................................................................................... 1-33
Figure 1.3-12. Model Spectra of Giant Planets. ...................................................................................... 1-34
Figure 1.3-13. HST/ACS scattered light image of the dust debris ring around Fomalhaut. (Kalas et
al. 2005). The ring center is clearly displaced from the stellar position, indicating that the ring is
intrinsically eccentric. Apsidal alignment of the ring particle orbits can only be maintained
through the perturbations of an unseen interior planet on an eccentric orbit. This is the most
clear-cut example to date of debris disk structures pointing toward an unseen planetary
perturber............................................................................................................................................... 1-36
Figure 1.3-14 Orbital eccentricities and semimajor axes of known extrasolar planets detected by the
precise-Doppler method (see http://exoplanets.org) and models of collisionless dust disks
containing planets of various masses and eccentricities (inset). Observing these structures with
TPF can fill in the gap at > 10 AU, where the planets are too faint to detect directly, and orbital
periods are too long for indirect methods, like the Precise Doppler method. .......................... 1-37
Figure 1.3-15 Our present knowledge of the prevalence of exozodiacal clouds around sun-like stars.
............................................................................................................................................................... 1-40
Figure 1.3-16. This figure shows the deviation in four dark-energy observables as a function of
redshift between two models: one with w = -1 and the other with w = -2/3. Other cosmological
parameters have been adjusted to leave the CMB fluctuations unchanged. H is the Hubble parameter, D is
the co-moving angular-diameter distance, H0D is a relative distance (e.g. from comparing the
apparent magnitudes of high-z supernovae to a local sample), and G is the growth rate of
density fluctuations from self gravity. Fixing the CMB observables changes the perspective on
where the largest deviations from the fiducial ΛCDM model occur. Given that the CMB is a
high-redshift probe, the largest effect on distances and growth is seen as z → 0. In fact, the
single most useful measurement that would complement the CMB distance measure is a
Hubble constant measurement that is accurate to the percent level. From Hu (2005)............ 1-41
Figure 1.3-17. From Dalal et al. (2005). Cosmological parametersderived from fitting sets of 50
strongly lensed sources between redshifts zsrc = 0.8 and 5, generated by ray-tracing through N-
body simulations with full light cone tiling. Each point corresponds to a realization of the
intervening planes and lensed images. An input cosmology of ΩM=0.3, w = -1 was used to
generate the lensed images. In this simulation, constraints on the mass and mass profile of the
cluster came from lensing alone. Constraints could be significantly stronger when information
on the cluster shape and density profile from X-ray, S-Z and velocity dispersion measurements
are included. With a sufficiently large cluster sample, this technique will be a powerful
additional probe of Dark Energy. ................................................................................................... 1-43

xvi
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 1.3-18. For stellar population studies, TPF-C can reach a 12Gyr main-sequence turnoff out to
4 Mpc in 200 hours of exposure time per field in V and I bands. (From Wide Field Camera
Instrument Concept Study.) .............................................................................................................. 1-46
Figure 1.3-19. TPF-C’s Improved Resolution and S/N Compared with Webb and Hubble. The
simulated object is an L* galaxy at z = 4 observed in a broadband filter centered at ~900 nm. 1-
48
Figure 3.3-1. Telescope and Coronagraph Assembly ............................................................................. 3-12
Figure 3.3-2. Functional Block Diagram of the Starlight Suppression System................................... 3-12
Figure 3.3-3. Schematic of the Starlight Suppression System ............................................................... 3-13
Figure 3.3-4. Lyot coronagraph masks. Top: Original 8×3.5m elliptical pupil mask (gray) and typical
Lyot pupil mask (white). Bottom: Linear 8th-order occulting mask, which blocks most of the
starlight ................................................................................................................................................. 3-14
Figure 3.3-5. Schematic of the TPF-C Elements..................................................................................... 3-16
Figure 3.3-6. Deployed telescope assembly ............................................................................................. 3-17
Figure 3.3-7. Secondary tower stowing sequence.................................................................................... 3-18
Figure 3.3-8. Deployed spacecraft assembly ............................................................................................ 3-18
Figure 3.3-9. Stowed spacecraft assembly ................................................................................................ 3-19
Figure 3.3-10. Stowed flight system .......................................................................................................... 3-19
Figure 3.3-11. Deployment sequence........................................................................................................ 3-20
Figure 3.3-12. Deployed flight system cross section .............................................................................. 3-20
Figure 3.3-13. Deployed sunshade and deployment structure .............................................................. 3-21
Figure 3.3-14. Sunshade Architecture Top View .................................................................................... 3-22
Figure 3.3-15. Schematic of the TPF-C Elements Mass Estimates ...................................................... 3-23
Figure 3.3-16 Timeline for a planet observation around one star. The observation includes 6 science
integration periods separated by 5 roll slews. Each slew is followed by settling time. Each pair
of science integrations constitutes a dither, and each dither is preceded by recalibration of the
wavefront. ............................................................................................................................................ 3-29
Figure 3.3-17. Schematic of the Observatory Field of Regard.............................................................. 3-30
Figure 3.3-18. Optical Telescope Assembly Schematic......................................................................... 3-35
Figure 3.3-19. Exploded View of the Primary Mirror Assembly (PMA) ........................................... 3-37
Figure 3.3-20. (1) Secondary mirror tower deployment sequence. (2) From the launch configuration,
the top portion latches up to mate with the lower section (3) then the upper two sections rotate
to mate with the base. 4) Finally the full tower is extended to its deployed position............... 3-39
Figure 3.3-21. CAD Views of Secondary Mirror Assembly. ................................................................. 3-39
Figure 3.3-22 M3 Assembly. Left: The M3 assembly (red circle) is in the AMS at the base of the
secondary tower. Right: M3 view showing the components in the assembly including mirror,
actuators, thermal control, and stray light mask............................................................................. 3-40
Figure 3.3-23. Single surface model reflectance of some candidate mirror coatings including Au
(using indices from Palik), minimum polarization Ag (two models, one using proprietary
indices and the other using indices from Palik), and Al+MgF2. The protected Ag coatings
clearly have the highest reflectivity through the nominal TPF-C bandpass (500–800 nm) though
even the small differences in these two models will result in significantly different predictions
for the total system throughput (23 mirrors).................................................................................. 3-49
Figure 3.3-24. Predictions of the full TPF-C system throughput for the nominal, 23 mirror design
shown are the results for modeled Au, three models of protected Ag using the indices from a
proprietary source but for three different overcoat thicknesses (the minimum polarization is the
solid blue curve with 125 nm thickness), and the extrapolated (R23) results from two
preliminary test coatings from different vendors........................................................................... 3-49

xvii
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.3-25. Predicted single surface reflectivity of Al+MgF2 coatings for a high reflectance UV-
Al coating (black curve with 25 nm MgF2 overcoat) and for a minimum polarization coating
(visible) with 141 nm MgF2 overcoat. Several values of MgF2 absorption constant k were used
to allow for the uncertainty in this value. Reflectance of the minimum polarization models is
significantly reduced in the primary TPF-C bandpass and is very non-uniform below 300 nm.
Coating three mirrors with such a coating will increase these deviations. The nominal UV-Al
reflectance is much better, both in the visible and ultraviolet...................................................... 3-50
Figure 3.3-26. The relative throughput of a TPF-C design with three mirrors coated with UV-Al
coatings and all others with protected Ag, compared to a design with all mirrors having
protected Ag coatings......................................................................................................................... 3-50
Figure 3.3-27. Models of the minimum polarization, protected Ag coatings (Balasubramanian)
showing phase difference between polarizations for a single surface. Each solid curve
represents a different angle of incidence from 0-12°, spanning the range (about 1-11°) incident
on the non-flat optics of the nominal TPF-C design. Two wavelengths within the nominal
bandpass (500–800 nm) have no phase difference and at other wavelengths within the
bandpass, the polarization is minimal. Outside the bandpass, the polarization increases. ...... 3-51
Figure 3.3-28. Models of the polarized amplitude ratio for a single surface using the minimum
polarization, protected Ag coating. Each curve represents a different angle of incidence
spanning the range encountered on the non-flat optics of the nominal TPF-C design. The
minimal polarization coating, designed to minimize phase differences in the bandpass, also
results in very low amplitude difference between polarizations including wavelengths longward
of the nominal bandpass.................................................................................................................... 3-51
Figure 3.3-29. Models of the phase difference for bare Au coating using the indices of Palik. Each
curve represents a different angle of incidence, spanning the range encountered on the non-flat
optics in the nominal TPF-C design. The polarization is significantly greater than the models
for protected Ag throughout (see Figure 3.3-27) the primary TPF-C bandpass (500–800 nm)
but improving longward of this bandpass....................................................................................... 3-52
Figure 3.3-30 Models of the amplitude ratio for bare Au coating of a single surface using the indices
of Palik. Each curve represents a different angle of incidence, spanning the range encountered
on the non-flat optics in the nominal TPF-C design. The amplitude polarization is seen to be
greater than the protected Ag results (see Figure 3.3-26) in the nominal TPF-C bandpass (500–
800 nm). ............................................................................................................................................... 3-52
Figure 3.3-31. Models of the phase difference for UV-Al coating each curve represents a different
angle of incidence, spanning the range encountered on the non-flat optics in the nominal TPF-
C design. The polarization is significantly greater than the models for protected Ag throughout
............................................................................................................................................................... 3-53
Figure 3.3-32. Models of the amplitude ratio for the UV-Al coating of a single surface. Each curve
represents a different angle of incidence, spanning the range encountered on the non-flat optics
in the nominal TPF-C design. The amplitude polarization is seen to be greater than the
protected Ag results (see Figure 3.3-32) in the nominal TPF-C bandpass (500–800nm). ....... 3-53
Figure 3.3-33. A comparison of single surface reflectance of measured and modeled mirror coatings
shown are a model and measurements for a bare Au coating, two measurements of initial test
coatings of protected Ag from two vendors, and two models using different Ag indices of
refraction. Note that the small, jumps in measurements near 800 nm are due to instrumental
causes when the configuration must be changed to span this wavelength. There is generally
good agreement between the modeled and measured Au coating, but small differences between
both the models and measured results for protected Ag. These small differences can cause

xviii
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

significant differences when extrapolated to the total system throughput for the TPF-C design.
............................................................................................................................................................... 3-54
Figure 3.3-34. Results of measurements of phase difference for one of the initial test coatings of
protected Ag compared with models of this coating. Shown are the phase differences between
polarizations at three angles of incidence which could be determined using ellipsometric
measurements. The limit of the particular ellipsometer prohibited measurements below 16°, a
little above the largest angle of incidence (about 11°) in the nominal TPF-C design. These
measurements confirm the expected behavior of the minimum polarization design, namely, two
wavelengths in the bandpass without polarization and minimal polarization between these
wavelengths (compare with Figure 3.3-25). While this general behavior is confirmed, the
polarization is greater than optimal; the red curves show models of the polarization at these
angles after increasing the index of refraction of the SiO2 overcoat by 1.25 compared to the
nominal values. Better determination of these indices and better process control is needed to
produce polarization values closer to the models shown in Figure 3.3-27. ............................... 3-54
Figure 3.3-35. Median Contrast at 4λ/D8 for protected Ag, Au, and protected Al coated TPF-C
models using a model sinc2 coronagraph, without and with wavefront correction applied.
Without wavefront correction, contrast is greater than the fiducial 10-10 at nearly all
wavelengths. Application of wavefront correction produces much better contrast for the
minimum polarization Ag coating but much less improvement for the more highly polarizing
Au and Al coatings. ............................................................................................................................ 3-55
Figure 3.3-36. Median contrast at 4λ/D8 for protected Ag, Au, and protected Al coated TPF-C
models using a model eighth order coronagraph, without and with wavefront correction
applied. Without wavefront correction, the contrast is dominated by the intrinsic, very small
residual phase error of the TPF-C optical design. With wavefront correction applied, contrast
improves for all coating models which are nearly identical with an ideal, uniform pupil. Also
shown are the maximum contrast values with wavefront correction applied. .......................... 3-55
Figure 3.3-37. Median contrast at 4-10λ/D8 for protected Ag, Au, and protected Al coated TPF-C
models using a model eighth order coronagraph, without and with wavefront correction
applied. ................................................................................................................................................. 3-56
Figure 3.3-38. Ray trace of the starlight suppression system, one polarization path. Elements not
otherwise labeled are flat fold mirrors. ............................................................................................ 3-59
Figure 3.3-39 Left: p and s reflectance of beamsplitter design. Right: total transmittance of two
crossed beamsplitters. The lowest value for the top curve (Rs*Tp) is 98.3%............................. 3-60
Figure 3.3-40. Spot diagrams at three positions inside the system. (a) telescope focus, (b) occulting
mask, (c) final focus. The ellipse/circle represents the Airy disk size at the corresponding
location. In each case, the middle of the field (left) and the worst-case 2 arcsec field (right) are
shown.................................................................................................................................................... 3-61
Figure 3.3-41. Polychromatic spot diagram at the center of the field and the final focus location It
may be visible, if only barely, that each spot shown in fact comprises three different ones,
corresponding to the different wavelengths, with a maximum separation of about 1.5 nm. Thus
there is no residual chromatic aberration. ....................................................................................... 3-62
Figure 3.3-42. Standard Dark Current Curves for a 12 Micron Pixel CCED..................................... 3-67
Figure 3.3-43. Instrument Accommodation Concept ............................................................................ 3-70
Figure 3.3-44. The Stacked Configuration Location within TPF-C ..................................................... 3-72
Figure 3.3-45. Science Payload Assembly Schematic..............................................................................3-74
Figure 3.3-46 Details of the PSS Sub-components................................................................................. 3-75
Figure 3.3-47 Interfaces Between the PSS, the Spacecraft and the Optical Telescope Assembly.. 3-75

xix
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.3-48 Attitude Pointing and Control Mechanisms.................................................................... 3-77

Figure 3.3-49. Schematics of Two Alternative Pointing Control Systems: Passive & Active .......... 3-78
Figure 3.3-50. Rigid Body Disturbances, Both Passive and Active Systems....................................... 3-81
Figure 3.3-51. Attitude Control Schematic .............................................................................................. 3-82
Figure 3.3-52. Optical Responses of both Passive and Active Systems Caused by Dynamics. Top:
Line of sight; middle: Beam Walk; Bottom: Primary mirror aberrations ................................... 3-83
Figure 3.3-53. Contrast Comparison using Active Isolation and Passive Isolation. .......................... 3-84
Figure 3.3-54. Electrical Concept for DFP Sensor. ................................................................................ 3-88
Figure 3.3-55. Sensors Based on Inductive (Eddy-Current) Sensor Technology............................... 3-88
Figure 3.3-56. TPF-C thermal control architecture................................................................................. 3-90
Figure 3.3-57. TPF-C V-Groove Sunshield.............................................................................................. 3-91
Figure 3.3-58. Thermal Enclosure............................................................................................................. 3-92
Figure 3.3-59. Comparison of Baseline and Proposed Solar Sail Designs. ......................................... 3-93
Figure 3.3-60. Comparison of Baseline and Proposed Solar Array Designs....................................... 3-94
Figure 3.3-61. Strawman Electronics Diagram........................................................................................ 3-95
Figure 3.3-62. Error Budget Structure. ‘C-matrix’ is a Sensitivity Matrix or Equation. R1-R7 are
Multiplicative Reserve Factors. ......................................................................................................... 3-97
Figure 3.3-63. Required 2-D PSD of Optical Surface Height in the Michelson and Sequential
Configurations Assuming A 100 nm Bandpass. We also Show the Surface PSD Achieved for
EUV Optics. The EUV Curve is a Fit to Data Provided by Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory of Interferometric Measurements of Two Aspherical Optics Produced for EUV
Lithography By Tinsley. The R.M.S. WFE of the EUV Optic for the Spatial Frequencies
Shown is 0.30 nm..............................................................................................................................3-103
Figure 3.3-64. The Solid Diagonal Lines Show the Allowed RMS Reflectivity Variation vs. Spatial
Frequency in the Sequential Configuration for a Periodic Deformation Resulting in a Contrast
Floor oOf 10-12 per Optic. The Requirement for the Michelson Configuration is the
Horizontal Line at 2.2e-5. The Dashed Line Shows the Allowed Reflectivity Variation
Assuming that the DM is Limited to 30 nm Piston and is at a Distance of 3m from the Pupil. 3-
104
Figure 3.3-65 Summary of Major Engineering Requirements to Meet the Time-Variable Error
Budget. Thermally Induced Translations Lead to Beam Walk that is Partially Ccompensated by
the Secondary Mirror. Jitter is Partially Compensated by the Fine Guiding Mirror...............3-108
Figure 3.4-1. TPF-C Modeling and Simulation Roadmap....................................................................3-110
Figure 3.4-2 Integrated Simulation Process for TPF-C ........................................................................3-110
Figure 3.4-3. Models Used to Calculate Static and Dynamic Contrast. .............................................3-114
Figure 3.4-4. Primary Mirror Core Segmentation .................................................................................3-116
Figure 3.4-5. TPF-C Thermal Model.......................................................................................................3-119
Figure 3.4-6. Reflected throughput after 1, 2, 3 and 4 silver surfaces at normal incidence ............3-121
Figure 3.4-7. Reflected throughput after 1, 2, 3 and 4 aluminum surfaces at normal incidence....3-121
Figure 3.4-8. Thermal deformation of the Primary Mirror..................................................................3-127
Figure 3.4-9. Motion of Optics after a 30 Deg LOS Slew ...................................................................3-128
Figure 3.4-10. Clock Angle Definition for Thermal Analyses.............................................................3-130
Figure 3.4-11. Delta Steady-State Temperatures on the Primary Mirror from a 30o Dither ..........3-131
Figure 3.4-12. Delta Steady-State Temperatures on the Observatory from a 30o Dither ...............3-131
Figure 3.4-13. Delta-Temperature Time-History of Averaged Temperature of PM 30 deg Dither
(195 to 225 deg) ................................................................................................................................3-132
Figure 3.4-14. High Fidelity Finite Element Model of the Primary Mirror used for the Gravity Sag
Analysis...............................................................................................................................................3-132

xx
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.4-15. Gravity Sag of Primary Mirror Assembly .....................................................................3-133

Figure 3.4-16. Optical Performance Due to 1-G Sag on the Primary Mirror...................................3-134
Figure 3.4-17. Modified PM Assembly with 8 Launch Locks.............................................................3-136
Figure 3.5-1 TPF-C Verification Process, with Examples of Key Considerations...........................3-141
Figure 3.5-2 TPF-C Requirements Flowdown Approach (Smith et al 2005)....................................3-142
Figure 3.5-3. Strawman TPF-C Observatory Integration & Test Flow ................................................ 144
Figure 3.5-4. Strawman TPF-C PMA Integration & Test Flow (Smith et al 2005)..........................3-145
Figure 3.5-5. Strawman TPF-C SMA Integration & Test Flow (Smith et al 2005) ..........................3-146
Figure 3.5-6. Strawman TPF-C OTA Optics-Only Testing (Smith et al 2005) ................................3-147
Figure 3.5-7. Strawman TPF-C OTA Testing (Smith et al 2005)........................................................3-147
Figure 3.5-8. Strawman TPF-C Final Payload Optical Testing ...........................................................3-148
Figure 4.1-1 A TMA Design that has Adequate Performance to Support the Wide-Field Camera.. 4-3
Figure 4.1-2. RMS Wavefront Error versus Field of View (Top) for the TMA Shown in Figure 4.1-1;
with Color Legend (Bottom)............................................................................................................... 4-3
Figure 4.1-3. Useful Throughput of Several Existing Coronagraph Designs ....................................... 4-7
Figure 4.1-4. Simulated 4-hour Exposures of HIP 56997 and a Hypothetical Earth-Type Planet at
Maximum Elongation for Telescope Sizes Ranging from 2m to 12m ....................................... 4-10
Figure 4.1-5. Total Cumulative Exposure Times Required to Reach a 50% Planet Detection (SNR =
7) Probability for a Single Observation as a Function of Number of Targets .......................... 4-11
Figure 4.1-6. Optimization of the Mount Point Locations Reduces the Peak Gravity Self Deflection
of the PM from 483 μm to 82 μm; the Optimized Mounting Points were then Studied for
Optimal Actuator Location and Gravity Offloading Performance vs. Actuator Count.......... 4-16
Figure 4.1-7. Left: Low Authority can Easily Achieve Correction of Self Gravity Deflection to the 10
μm level with a low actuator count; Right: In order to correct to within the stroke of the fine
DM a significant number of actuators is required. ........................................................................ 4-17
Figure 4.1-8. Actuator Locations as Optimized for 6 (left) and 20 (right) Actuators. Mounts are the
large red shaded areas and mounting points are the smaller locations. In practice, the mirror
segmentation and the mounting locations would be optimized together; for this exercise the
mirror segmentation was held fixed. With 6 actuators, 1g deflection is reduced to 1.8 µm RMS,
9.5 um P-V; with 20 Actuators Deflection is reduced to 0.6 µm RMS, 3.3 um P-V. ............... 4-18
Figure 4.1-9. Unprotected Al vs. Ag: Reflectivity and Throughput after 3 Mirrors. ......................... 4-20
Figure 4.1-10. Protected Aluminum vs. Silver with Typical Single Layer Overcoats ........................ 4-21
Figure 4.1-11. Mirror Shapes Corresponding to a) Current FB-1, b) Racetrack, and c) Bandaid. (The
grey area represents the actual shape of the mirror and the white area corresponds to the Lyot
spot size.).............................................................................................................................................. 4-21
Figure 4.1-12. Comparison of Integration Times for Different Mirror Configurations (The
Integration Time Values are depicted as a Ratio to that of the Baseline Values. Stars are Sorted
by Angle to the Habitable Zone.)..................................................................................................... 4-22
Figure 4.1-13. Comparison of Completeness for Different Band-Aid Shape Mirrors (The
Completeness Values are depicted as a Ratio to that of the Baseline Values. Stars are Sorted by
Angle to the Habitable Zone.) .......................................................................................................... 4-23
Figure 4.1-14. Comparison of Aberration Sensitivity of the Baseline Mirror and the 8 x 3.0m
Bandaid Mirror (The Horizontal Line Represents the Contrast Limit for FB1.)...................... 4-23
Figure 4.1-15. 3-DM Sequential Arrangement. The DMs are the 3 surfaces on the right side of the
figure. DMp is at a pupil image.......................................................................................................... 4-26
Figure 4.1-16. Cut Through a Pupil Remapping System........................................................................ 4-27
Figure 4.1-17 An Unfolded Model of an Optical Vortex Coronagraph. Lens (L1) Represents the
Telescope Optics, which Focus the Light from the Entrance Pupil onto an Optical Vortex

xxi
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Mask (OVM). Lens (L2) Collimates the Light forming an Exit Pupil where we Place a Lyot
Stop. A Third Lens (L3) Re-Images the Light to the Final Focal Plane at (FP). ..................... 4-29
Figure 4.1-18 A Comparison of the Relief Patterns of Two Types of m=4 Vortex Phase Masks. a.)
The Helical Relief Pattern of an m=4 Single Spiral Vortex Mask. b.) The Multi-Ramp Relief
Pattern of an m=4 Propeller Vortex Mask. The Topological Charge of the Mask is the Total
Phase Change around the Center of the Spiral/Propeller Divided by 2p.................................. 4-30
Figure 4.1-19 Plots of Contrast vs. Aberration Level (Waves Peak-to-Valley) Depicting the
Aberration Sensitivity of an M=5 Vortex Coronagraph to Low-Order Zernike Modes (Z=2-
12). Only one of each of Tip/Tilt, Astigmatism, Coma, and Trefoil, are Shown Since their
Curves were Nearly Identical. ........................................................................................................... 4-30
Figure 4.1-20. Layout of One of Four IFS Units.................................................................................... 4-32
Figure 4.1-21. Simulation of a CorSpec Observation of a Fanciful Source ........................................ 4-32
Figure 4.1-22. IFS Data Cube .................................................................................................................... 4-33
Figure 4.1-23. Schematic of the Baseline CorECam Design ................................................................. 4-34
Figure 4.1-24. CorECam Filter Complement, Shown with Spectra of Earth, Jupiter, and Uranus 4-34
Figure 4.1-25. Propagation through Starlight Suppression System ...................................................... 4-35
Figure 4.1-26. Planet-to-Star Mean Contrast with Error Bars .............................................................. 4-36
Figure 4.1-27. Raw and Processed Focal Plane Image ........................................................................... 4-36
Figure 4.1-28. On-axis PSFs for an Advanced Hybrid PIAA Design optimized for robustness against
chromatic diffraction propagation effects at 633nm. This particular design can maintain better
than 1e-10 contrast in a 60% bandwidth with a 76% throughput. The PSFs are shown here in
the intermediate focal plane of the PIAA, where a focal plane occulter is placed to block
starlight. Plate scale in this intermediate focal plane is difficult to define, as off-axis sources
exhibit strong aberrations due to the remapping effect. Two plate scale units are therefore
shown: the "chief ray" plate scale, a well-defined unit obtained geometrically by the central ray
of the PIAA system, and the more approximate "effective" plate scale. The "effective" plate
scale indicates approximately where most of the light of an off-axis source falls in this highly
distorted intermediate focal plane. Plate scale is easier to measure in the final focal plane of the
PIAA, which is free of such distortions. For a full PIAA system designed as shown in this
figure, the IWA (where the planet light throughput is 76% x 0.5 = 38%) is approximately 1.9
λ/d. ....................................................................................................................................................... 4-38
Figure 4.1-29. The Deep Parallel Survey of the TPF-C Wide-Field Camera (WFC) will surpass
current and future space-based surveys by order of magnitude in both depth and area. (Shown
for 800 nm.) ......................................................................................................................................... 4-40
Figure 4.1-30. The Improved Resolution and Sensitivity of TPF-C’s WFC Compared with Webb and
Hubble. The Simulated Object is an L* galaxy at z = 4 Observed in a Broadband Filter
Centered at ~900 nm. ........................................................................................................................ 4-41
Figure 4.1-31. The Parallel-Mode Limiting Magnitudes—Approaching or Exceeding 30th
Magnitude—For the two fields of View (FOVs) in the ICS. The Exposure Time is Dictated by
the Coronagraph Searching A V = 4, I = 3.31 Target Star to its Sensitivity Limit (Δmag0 = 25).
The Degradation Of WFC Limiting Magnitudes is Greater than One Magnitude only within
about 20” of the Coronagraphic Aperture...................................................................................... 4-41
Figure 4.1-32. The Limiting Magnitude for Point Sources will be fainter than 30th magnitude for
WFC observations in parallel with planet searches of target stars fainter then 4th magnitude,
which includes 86 of the 100 top-ranked TPF-C target stars. Letters refer to positions in Figure
4.1-31. Red for I band, blue for V band.......................................................................................... 4-42

xxii
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 4.1-33. Simulated Image from TPF-C of an Earth-Like Planet Orbiting Around a G2V-Type
Star at 10 pc. ........................................................................................................................................ 4-44
Figure 4.1-34. Throughput Advantage of Nulling Coronagraph to See More Targets in a Fixed
Observation Period............................................................................................................................. 4-45
Figure 4.1-35. Three Dimensional View of Double ‘Boomerang’ Nulling Coronagraph SSS for TPF-
C ............................................................................................................................................................ 4-46
Figure 4.1-36. Two Top-Down Views of a Boomerang-Configuration Double-Nulling
Interferometer (Our Configuration for the TPF-C Starlight Suppression System): Left–Overall
View and Right–View Revealing Lower Calibration Leg.............................................................. 4-47
Figure 4.1-37. Sugar-Scoop Sunshield Concept ...................................................................................... 4-48
Figure 4.2-1. Test Configuration ............................................................................................................... 4-50
Figure 5.2-1. Technology Demonstration Mirror Design Concept (ITT) ........................................... 5-9
Figure 5.2-2. Technology Demonstration Mirror Core Is Made from Six Outer and One Inner
Segment (Cohen, ITT) ....................................................................................................................... 5-10
Figure 5.3-1. Mask (Left) and Picture (Right) Showing Dark Region When Mask Is Employed.... 5-14
Figure 5.3-2. Interferometric Characterization of Mask Phase Retardance ........................................ 5-15
Figure 5.3-3 Bar Code Masks and Shaped Elliptical Masks................................................................... 5-15
Figure 5.3-4. Xinetics Deformable Mirrors, 32x32 and 64x64.............................................................. 5-18
Figure 5.3-5. Layout of the HCIT with Insets of Focal and Pupil Planes........................................... 5-20
Figure 5.4-1. A 1.2 Million-to-One Servo Null Using a Laser Source ................................................. 5-23
Figure 5.4-2. Experimental White Light Nulling Results....................................................................... 5-24
Figure 5.4-3. Assembly of a Fiber Bundle with Two Lenslet Arrays to Make a Coherent Fiber Array
............................................................................................................................................................... 5-24
Figure 5.4-4. Polished End of the Large Core 496/331 (Triangle/Hexagon) Fiber Array............... 5-25
Figure 5.4-5. Light Output of the Large Core 496/331 Fiber Array When a Collimated HeNe Laser
Beam Is Coupled into the Array via a Lens Array ......................................................................... 5-25
Figure 5.4-6. Schematic Drawing for Constructing a Fiber Bundle in the U Florida Approach ..... 5-26
Figure 5.4-7. (Left) a newly completed 10x10 fiber bundle (6.8mm width, 2.8mm height, and
63.5mm length). (Right) Part of the fiber end illuminated by a microscope.............................. 5-26
Figure 5.4-8. Top and side view of the Boston University MEMS TPF DM architecture for tip/tilt
and piston motion (left). Table summarizing predicted DM performance (right).................... 5-27
Figure 5.4-9. Early Prototype 61 Hexagonal Segmented BU Eformable Mirror ............................... 5-28
Figure 5.4-10. Left, A circuit board with 128 channels of voltage output. Center, An assembly of 4
of 8 boards set up for a laboratory demonstration. Right, ZIF socket for 1000 actuator
deformable mirror (331 segments)................................................................................................... 5-28
Figure 5.4-11. Schematic method for produce a substrate removed HgCdTe array ......................... 5-29
Figure 5.4-12. Quantum efficiency for a substrate-removed 2.3 μm cutoff array produced for a
government customer. The cutoff and the AR coating for TPF-C will be optimized for 0.5-1.7
μm. ........................................................................................................................................................ 5-29
Figure 5.5-1. Code framework schematic................................................................................................. 5-31
Figure 5.5-2. Simple elliptical mirror deformation due to uniform...................................................... 5-32
Figure 5.5-3. Test 2 Temperatures and Time Steps ................................................................................ 5-33

xxiii
TPF-C STDT REPORT

List of Tables
Table 1.3-1. Major terms in the H0 error budget (From Freedman et al. 2001). SIM observations will
address the LMC zero point. TPF-C observations will address the other terms....................... 1-42
Table 1.4-1 Science Requirements Index ................................................................................................ 1-55
Table 1.E-0-1 Summary of Previous TPF Science Requirements (2004)........................................... 1-72
Table 2.1-1 Bibliography of mission studies for TPF-C.......................................................................... 2-1
Table 2.2-1. Models and algorithms defined or referenced by DRM1 and/or DRM2 ...................... 2-4
Table 3.2-1 Definition of Δmag used in Requirements............................................................................ 3-5
Table 3.2-2. Mission Science and Instrument Requirements .................................................................. 3-5
Table 3.2-3. Instrument Parameters............................................................................................................ 3-8
Table 3.2-4 Top-level Engineering Requirements .................................................................................... 3-9
Table 3.3-1. Nominal Mass Estimates for FB-1 Design ....................................................................... 3-24
Table 3.3-2. Optimized Mass Estimate for TPF-C ................................................................................. 3-25
Table 3.3-3. Nominal Power Estimated for FB-1 TPF-C Configuration ............................................ 3-26
Table 3.3-4. List of Open Trades and Status (Orange – done; Green – in progress; Blue – Deferred)
............................................................................................................................................................... 3-27
Table 3.3-5. TPF-C mission description summary.................................................................................. 3-28
Table 3.3-6 OTA Mirror Prescriptions..................................................................................................... 3-31
Table 3.3-7 Dynamic Wavefront Error Allocations for Primary Mirror Shape Change from TPF-C
Error Budget........................................................................................................................................ 3-32
Table 3.3-8 Dynamic Allocations for OTA Rigid Body Motions. ...................................................... 3-32
Table 3.3-9. Secondary Mirror Actuator Requirements for Linear and Angular Resolution, Stroke,
and Bandwidth. ................................................................................................................................... 3-34
Table 3.3-10. OTA Prescription (mm units); the Separation from PM to SM is 12 Meters............. 3-36
Table 3.3-11. Areal Density, Light-Weighting Fraction, and Mass of each Telescope Optic. Light-
Weighting Levels are a Compromise between Launch Weight Limits and Stability
Requirements....................................................................................................................................... 3-37
Table 3.3-12. TPF-C mirror coating requirements.................................................................................. 3-42
Table 3.3-13. Coronagraph trades ............................................................................................................. 3-57
Table 3.3-14 Strehl Ratio and RMS Wave Front Error.......................................................................... 3-61
Table 3.3-15 Summary of Detector Applications on TPF-C................................................................. 3-66
Table 3.3-16. Detector Performance Parameter Summary.................................................................... 3-68
Table 3.3-17. Instrument Volumes Assumed for FB1 ........................................................................... 3-70
Table 3.3-18. Instrument Mass Estimate Breakdown ............................................................................ 3-70
Table 3.3-19. Instrument Power Estimate Breakdown .......................................................................... 3-71
Table 3.3-20. Placeholder Values for Instrument Detector Power Cooling Analysis ....................... 3-71
Table 3.3-21 CorSpec Mass Estimates...................................................................................................... 3-73
Table 3.3-22 CorSpec Power Estimates ................................................................................................... 3-73
Table 3.3-23. Table of Top Level Contrast Requirements in Terms of Contrast .............................. 3-79
Table 3.3-24. Line-of-Sight and Beamwalk Error Allocations .............................................................. 3-79
Table 3.3-25. Optical and Structural Deformation Error Allocations ................................................. 3-79
Table 3.3-26. Physical Motion Requirements .......................................................................................... 3-80
Table 3.3-27. Summary of Control and Sensing Loops and Passive Versus DFP Usage Comments 3-
86
Table 3.3-28. Summary Differences Between Passive and Active Isolation....................................... 3-89
Table 3.3-29. TPF-C Contrast Error Budget Top Level Requirements............................................... 3-96

xxiv
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.3-30. Required Optical Surface Cleanliness .............................................................................3-101

Table 3.3-31. Rolled Up Time-Variable Error Budget Contributors .................................................3-107
Table 3.4-1. PSD Specifications for Optics Modeled in the Contrast Error Budget ......................3-114
Table 3.4-2. Throughput estimate for 500nm and 700nm wavelengths at the Inner Working Angle
(4λ/D) and for the region from 5λ/Δ το 40λ/D........................................................................3-122
Table 3.4-3. Dynamic Contrast Stability Results ...................................................................................3-125
Table 3.4-4. Allowable Strengths and Factors of Safety used for the PM Launch Loads Analysis..... 3-
135
Table 3.4-5. Launch Stress on the FB1 PM Mirror Assembly ............................................................3-135
Table 3.4-6. Summarization of Cases Analyzed in TracePro ..............................................................3-137
Table 3.4-7. Summary of Cassegrain vs. Gregorian Telescope Design Trade Study.......................3-139
Table 4.1-1. System Requirements for a Telescope .................................................................................. 4-2
Table 4.1-2. Prescription of the TMA shown in Figure 4.1-1................................................................. 4-4
Table 4.1-3. Comparison of Two-Mirror and Three-Mirror System Parameters................................. 4-5
Table 4.1-4. Existing Coronagraph Designs as of April 2006................................................................. 4-6
Table 4.1-5. Key Simulation Parameters .................................................................................................... 4-9
Table 4.1-6. Comparison of Several Different Mirror Shapes .............................................................. 4-22
Table 4.1-7. Design Progress...................................................................................................................... 4-39
Table 4.1-8. Number of Potential Targets vs. Wavelength ................................................................... 4-46
Table 5.1-1. Current List of TPF-C Mission Risks.................................................................................... 5-3
Table 5.1-2. Technology and Engineering Risks Addressed by the TPF-C Technology Plan ........... 5-5
Table 5.2-1. Factors Considered in the Primary Mirror Material Trade Study ..................................... 5-8
Table 5.3-1. Deformable Mirror Specifications....................................................................................... 5-19

xxv
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Executive Summary
The Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF-C) is a deep space mission designed to detect and characterize
Earth-like planets around nearby stars. TPF-C will be able to search for signs of life on these plan-
ets. TPF-C will use spectroscopy to measure basic properties including the presence of water or oxy-
gen in the atmosphere, powerful signatures in the search for habitable worlds. This capability to
characterize planets is what allows TPF-C to transcend other astronomy projects and become an his-
torical endeavor on a par with the voyages of the great navigators.

Overall Scientific Goals

The scientific goals of the TPF-C mission⎯to discover and study Earth-sized planets
around neighboring stars⎯are ambitious, exciting and profound, addressing some of the
most important questions humankind can ask about its place in the universe. Scientists have
found a variety of giant planets, and are poised to find smaller planets, more and more like the
Earth. TPF-C will be our first chance to detect large numbers of Earth-sized planets nearby, see
them directly, measure their colors, study their atmospheres, and look for evidence of life there.
These goals make TPF-C a special project in the history of astronomy, one capable of firing human
imagination and revolutionizing the way we think about ourselves and the universe.

The existence of planets around other stars, an unsupported scientific hypothesis until the mid-
1990s, is no longer in doubt. Nearly 200 extrasolar planets have been discovered around other main
sequence stars, most of these using the ground-based radial velocity (RV or Doppler) technique.
Most of these planets found by the RV method are Jupiter-sized or larger, but several may be as
small as Neptune, and the smallest one is only 7.5 Earth masses. A new planet found by gravitational
microlensing may be even smaller, about 5.5 Earth masses.

The next frontier for planet-finding is to look for rocky, terrestrial-type planets around other stars.
NASA's upcoming Kepler mission* and ESA’s Eddington mission† will do this for more than a hun-
dred thousand very distant stars, while the Space Interferometry Mission‡ (SIM PlanetQuest) searches
around nearby stars. Both Kepler and SIM have the capability to detect at least a few Earth-size
planets if they are common. Ongoing ground-based searches may also reveal Earth-mass planets
around very low-mass stars. TPF-C, however, is being designed to search for and characterize Earth-
sized planets (and smaller) around nearby stars. These stars span a wide range of masses both
smaller and larger than the Sun.

How well TPF-C will be able to characterize the planets it discovers depends on the design of both
the telescope and the spectrograph. The baseline design has a wavelength range of 0.5-1.1 μm and a
spectral resolving power, λ/Δλ, of 70. For an Earth twin (planet and star exactly like our Earth and
Sun) seen at 10 pc distance, these capabilities would enable TPF-C to measure absorption bands of
water vapor, oxygen, and possibly ozone. The presence of water vapor is an indicator of potential
habitability, as liquid water is considered to be a prerequisite for life as we know it. Oxygen and
ozone are potential indicators of life itself, because on Earth they come mainly via photosynthesis.
There may be planets on which O2 and O3 can build up abiotically, but for most planets within the

* http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/
† http://smsc.cnes.fr/COROT/index.htm
‡ http://sim.jpl.nasa.gov

1
TPF-C STDT REPORT

liquid water habitable zone, these gases are considered to be reliable bioindicators. Hence, TPF-C is
the first mission with the potential to provide compelling evidence of life on extrasolar planets. We
may not answer this question definitively with TPF-C, but subsequent missions, specifically TPF-I
and Life Finder, will probe even more deeply into this age-old question that encompasses science,
philosophy, and issues of human identity and destiny.

TPF-C can also study giant planets and dust disks — the entire planetary system architec-
ture — at the same time that it looks for Earth-like planets, supporting our studies of the
potential habitability of any Earth-like planet. If our own Solar System is a guide (it still is, by
what we know today), planets like Earth are found in planetary systems that include other small rocky
planets, e.g., Venus and Mars, along with gas giants like Jupiter and Saturn, and ice giants like Uranus
and Neptune. The larger planets are of interest in their own right, but they may also be crucially
connected to the habitability of the Earth-like planets. In our own Solar System, for example, Jupiter
helps shield Earth from collisions with comets, but also perturbs some asteroids into Earth-crossing
orbits. Thus understanding the potential habitability of an Earth-like planet requires study of the en-
tire planetary system architecture. Fortunately, these studies can be done at the same time as terrestrial
planet-finding observations that they support.

TPF-C will also study the dust clouds around stars, to learn about the process of planetary
formation. Some observations of very young stars will be included, though these stars are
not favorable for the terrestrial planet search program. Planetary systems themselves do not oc-
cur in isolation around stars. Collisions between small bodies (asteroids) within the system, and va-
porization of icy planetesimals (comets) from farther out both create dust that orbits the star along
with the planets. This dust reflects starlight, giving rise to the zodiacal light in our own Solar System
and to exozodiacal light in other planetary systems. The planets in a given system must be observed
against these backgrounds of the “zodi” and the “exozodi.” The exozodiacal light in a given system
must be measured and “removed” in order to see the planets. However, it is also known that the
dust distribution can be perturbed by the gravitational influence of planets; thus the exozodi light
may be a powerful tool for finding and studying the planets in a system. For these reasons, the study
of exozodiacal dust clouds is an integral part of the TPF-C mission. Mapping out the exozodiacal
light can be carried out simultaneously with the search for terrestrial planets.

In addition to its primary goal of searching for terrestrial planets and the dusty systems that
accompany them, TPF-C will make substantial contributions in other areas of general as-
trophysics. The telescope will be very large, smooth, and stable, and so will exceed the performance
of HST in several respects, including collecting area, angular resolution, and PSF stability. To take
advantage of this large telescope, a separate instrument—a wide-field camera—is planned, in addi-
tion to the coronagraph. This instrument would channel light along a different optical path, and
hence could perform its tasks either in parallel with planet-finding activities or by using the telescope
in pointed mode. The science that could be performed in parallel includes imaging of distant galax-
ies, similar to the Hubble Deep Fields but with even greater depth and clarity. Such deep fields could
be obtained during the extended time intervals, one day to several weeks, required for planetary de-
tection and characterization. Pointed observations will yield key constraints on theories of Dark En-
ergy, through precise measurements of the Hubble constant and the distance vs. redshift relation.
Observations of collections of stars in the Milky-Way and nearby galaxy will probe the “fossil re-
cord” of star formation, using stars too faint to detect with HST or JWST.

2
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

The science portion of this report (Chapter 1) is organized around a set of detailed science objec-
tives for each part of the mission. These objectives are summarized below. They are explained in
more detail in Section 1.3.

Detailed Science Objectives

Terrestrial Planet Science

Objective 1: Directly detect terrestrial planets within the habitable zones around nearby stars or,
alternatively, show that they are not present.
Objective 2: Measure orbital parameters and brightnesses for any terrestrial planets that are dis-
covered.
Objective 3: Distinguish among planets, and between planets and other objects, through meas-
urements of planet color.
Objective 4: Characterize at least some terrestrial planets spectroscopically, searching for absorp-
tion caused by O2, O3, H2O, and possibly CO2 and CH4. It is highly desirable to measure
Rayleigh scattering and photosynthetic pigments; such information may provide evidence of
habitability and even of life itself.

Giant Planets and Planetary System Architecture Science

Objective 5: Directly detect giant planets of Jupiter's size and albedo at a minimum of 5 AU
around solar type stars, and to determine orbits for such giant planets when possible, given
the finite lifetime of the TPF-C mission.
Objective 6: Obtain photometry for the majority of detected giant planets, to an accuracy of 10%
in at least three broad spectral bands, and in additional bands for the brightest or well-placed
giants.
Objective 7: Characterize some detected giant planets spectroscopically, searching for the ab-
sorption features of CH4 and H2O.

Disk Science and Planet Formation Science

Objective 8: Measure the location, density, and extent of dust particles around nearby stars for
the purpose of comparing to, and understanding, the asteroid and Kuiper belts in the Solar
System.
Objective 9: Characterize disk-planet interactions with the goal of understanding how substruc-
tures within dusty debris disks can be used to infer the presence of planets.
Objective 10: Study the time evolution of circumstellar disks, from early protoplanetary stages
through mature main sequence debris disks.

General Astrophysical Science

Objective 11: Constrain the nature of Dark Energy via precise measurements of the Hubble con-
stant and the angular-diameter vs. redshift relation.
Objective 12: Use the fossil record of ancient stars in the Milky Way and nearby galaxies to
measure the time between the Big Bang and the first major episodes of star formation.

3
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Objective 13: Determine what sources of energy reionized the universe and study how galaxies
form within dark-matter halos, through a program of low-resolution spectroscopy of large
statistical samples, gathered in parallel with the TPF-C planet search program.
Objective 14: Carry out a diverse General-Observer program in the tradition of the Hubble,
Chandra, Spitzer, and James Webb Space Telescope observatories.

From these science objectives, Level 1 science requirements have been derived; these are described
in Section 1.4. The Level 1 requirements are the basic contract by which the performance of the
mission is to be evaluated, before and after launch.

Basic Telescope Concept

The technical challenges for such a mission are great. TPF-C will detect planets by isolating their
faint light from the glare of their host stars, using advanced coronagraphic techniques. The Hubble
Space Telescope (HST) can also make coronagraphic observations but at a sensitivity which is far from
the level required for terrestrial planet discovery. At the visible and near-IR wavelengths where TPF-
C will operate, an Earth-like planet at an Earth-like distance from its star is roughly 1010 times dim-
mer than the star. Isolating the planet’s light requires exceptionally efficient starlight suppression —
eliminating nearly all the light of the star without suppressing the light of its planets. This also re-
quires a very large-aperture telescope, both to gather enough light from the faint planets and to
achieve the needed angular resolution.

In order to examine a statistically significant sample of nearby stars, TPF-C must be able to look at
stars out to a distance of at least 10 parsecs, or about 32 light years. At that distance the host star
and an Earth-like planet orbiting 1 AU away from it would be separated by an angle θ less than 0.1
arcsecond, or 100 mas (milliarcsec). TPF-C is designed to reach closer separations, θ ≅ 60 mas at λ =
0.5 μm. This inner limit is called the inner working angle (IWA). A judicious engineering choice for
the baseline design of TPF-C limits the IWA to θ = 4λ/D; this suggests that the diameter of the
telescope should be at least D ≅ 8 m. However, present launch vehicles cannot accommodate a
monolithic 8 m circular telescope, nor is any such capability under development. Consequently, the
baseline design for the TPF-C primary mirror is an 8 × 3.5 m ellipse, a shape and size that could be
launched with present rockets.

The present baseline mission is limited by light-gathering power (photon statistics) as well as spatial
resolution. Alternative and more powerful starlight suppression systems are being studied (see be-
low) that could conceivably operate at θ = 2λ/D, and provide starlight suppression with nearly a
100% throughput. These might allow equivalent science to be undertaken with smaller aperture, or
might allow a richer science program with the baseline 8 × 3.5 m aperture. However, these alterna-
tive approaches are currently less mature than the 4λ/D systems of the baseline design, for which
detailed engineering analyses have been performed. The baseline design for the telescope and star-
light suppression system is currently the only well-studied approach.

4
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Design Reference Mission

The traditional purpose of a Design Reference Mission (DRM) is to provide benchmarks of scien-
tific output, to be used for comparing different observatory designs. The DRM comprises several
kinds of observations or scientific studies, which are chosen to represent all the principal kinds of
activities over the mission lifetime.

Early work on the DRM for TPF-C also followed this path. A key figure of merit was completeness,
defined as the fraction of all possible habitable zone (HZ) orbits that are examined for the presence
of a planet at least once during the mission. We can also say the probability of a false negative result
for a given star (a planet does exist in the HZ but is never found) is one minus the completeness.
Mission models chiefly focused on the integration time needed to reach a given planet sensitivity for
each star in the catalog, the number of visits needed to achieve a certain completeness, and how
many stars can be scrutinized at that level. One could compare different telescope and coronagraph
architectures based on how many stars they could examine. These early studies said between 35 and
50 stars could be searched for planets, using 2 years out of a 5-year mission lifetime. Another year
was reserved for characterization (mainly spectra) and 2 years for general astrophysics.

Recently, the STDT changed the focus of the requirements: from completeness goals on each star to
the expected value of the total number of planets found and characterized. A mission aimed at com-
pleteness will emphasize the scrutiny of the last few unexamined orbits (hiding places for a planet)
around each star. This will allocate a lot of observing time to stars already shown to have a low
probability of hosting a terrestrial planet. But a mission aimed instead at the total number of discov-
ered planets will spend its next hour(s) on the star most likely to yield a planet. Thus, over the mis-
sion, more stars will be observed, but with lower average completeness per star.

Teams at STScI and JPL expanded their mission studies to include Monte Carlo simulations incor-
porating a novel scheduling tool: an “auction” of observing time based on each star’s “completeness
rate” — estimated probability of yielding a planet per unit time, with the benefit of knowledge from
prior observations. Mission studies showed a promising harvest of planets — typically 30+ planets
found, assuming every star has at least one terrestrial planet in the HZ.

But a set of one-time planet detections cannot be called a successful mission; TPF-C must also char-
acterize its planets. When examining the consequences of that mission requirement, the two teams
uncovered new constraints, mainly arising from the types, scheduling, and total time of follow-up
observations.

We have made substantial progress in understanding how the final scientific output depends on ob-
servatory requirements and mission scheduling. Now we understand that TPF-C, more than any
previous space astronomy mission, relies on just-in-time contingent scheduling of observations to
achieve its greatest scientific harvest. This is mainly because many of the exo-planets we find will be
a surprise, and then their orbital motions limit the times when we can see them again. We will have
some prior knowledge about which local stars have terrestrial planets — mostly heavier planets,
found by SIM. Kepler can only give us an estimate of the fraction of local stars with terrestrial planets,
based on a sample of distant stars. Smaller or more distant terrestrial planets will be undetected or
poorly known before TPF-C. Our Monte Carlo studies show that when we detect a planet for the
first time, we may have as little as two weeks to wait before its orbital motion makes it unobservable

5
TPF-C STDT REPORT

again — too faint, or too close in angle to the star. This means we must be quick to schedule a fol-
low-up observation. There are several reasons why follow-up observations are vital:

ƒ Differentiating between planets and background confusion sources

ƒ Low-resolution color measurements, to categorize the type of planet
ƒ Orbit determination, to distinguish small inner planets from large outer planets, and to help
characterize their habitability.
ƒ Higher-resolution spectroscopy, to search for atmospheric signatures of water, oxygen, and
other molecules.

The same Monte Carlo studies suggest that once a planet disappears, due to either brightness or an-
gular separation, it can be very difficult to find again. We must use our best chances, right after the
first detection, to constrain the possible orbits and thus the range of times it might reappear. This
“recovery” of the planet after its first disappearance plays an important role in characterization.

The recent mission studies (see Section 2), incorporating these impacts, now tell us that the FB1 sys-
tem may not be adequate for the new science requirements the STDT has just adopted. This gap
between capabilities and requirements is understandable, given the history. There has been no design
team available to trade off different ways of relieving the gap. But it appears that modest changes to
the FB1 engineering requirements may be sufficient to close this gap. This analysis will have to wait
for rejuvenated funding.

Some additional work (see Section 2.2) has been focused on how to “front-load” the observing
schedule with stars which are known to harbor planets, either from SIM astrometric detections of
small rocky planets or from giant planet detections (by any method) which suggest the possible exis-
tence of small rocky planets. Some stars may yield tentative detections by SIM that can be confirmed
and strengthened by TPF-C detection and characterization. This is a very useful additional guideline
in the design of a mission observing schedule.

Flight Baseline Design (FB1)

The current design for the TPF Coronagraph, Flight Baseline 1 or FB1, operates in visible wave-
lengths from 0.5 μm to 1.1 μm with an effective inner working angle (IWA) of 65.5 mas or 4λ/D,
an outer working angle (OWA) of 500 mas, a scattered light level equal to 10-10 of the stellar peak
brightness (Δmagi = 25), and stability or knowledge of that scattered light to about 6% (Δmags =
28). The mission will operate in an L2 orbit over a 5 year life cycle.

The observatory design requires a high precision optical system in order to provide a stable, high-
quality wavefront to the coronagraph. The starlight suppression system (SSS) is a stellar coronagraph
designed to eliminate diffracted light and control scattered light, in order to reduce the background
light in the instrument to a level that is less than 10-10 of the incident light. For FB1, diffracted light
is removed with a Lyot-type coronagraph from the region in the image plane where planets might be
found. Other approaches, such as the shaped-pupil coronagraph, are currently under consideration
and might be viable options for further design implementations of TPF-C.

In FB1, scattered light is controlled using a coarse deformable mirror (DM) and a pair of fine DMs.
The coarse DM compensates for large wavefront deviations left in the telescope due to gravity re-

6
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

lease and launch stresses. The fine DMs have a 1 micron stroke and high actuator density; as a pair
they can control both amplitude and phase wavefront distortions up to a spatial frequency limit de-
termined by the actuator density.

The telescope has an 8 × 3.5 m elliptical primary mirror with a system effective focal length of 14 m.
The field of regard is only 5 arcsec, and the field over which aberrations must be corrected is further
reduced through the use of fine steering and deformable mirrors inside the coronagraph. The dis-
tance between the primary and secondary is 12 m at the vertex and the focus is close to the middle
of the primary aperture.

The observatory needs to reject both thermal and jitter perturbations at an extreme level. Thermal
stability is accomplished with large deployable concentric conic-shaped v-groove layers which shed
the solar heat input and isolate the payload from changing sun angles during observational maneu-
vers; and with a thermal enclosure around the payload that actively controls temperatures in the
back end of the telescope. Jitter stability is provided through a two-stage passive isolation system
which offers the required vibration reduction from the reaction wheel disturbances. Alternatively, an
active, non-contact isolation and pointing system capable of providing significant performance mar-
gin is being considered.

This FB1 design is the second in a series of 3 to 4 design iterations expected to be completed prior
to entering Phase A. Each cycle will lead to a progressively more detailed design while continuously
investigating options to improve and optimize performance. For FB1 the design reflects updated
science requirements with a 4λ/D inner working angle, impacting the size of the primary and the
design of the occulting mask. The FB1 analyses investigated the thermal and jitter impact on the
contrast stability requirements, assessed contributors to the static and dynamic error budgets and
scoped out requirements for the active thermal control system. In subsequent design cycles, the en-
gineering team will incorporate models from the Instrument Concept Studies, improve the contrast
capability of the starlight suppression system, add fidelity to the active thermal control system and
optimize the system performance of the end-to-end observatory.

TPF-C Performance Drivers

The performance requirements for TPF-C begin with adequate suppression of starlight. An ordinary
telescope allows starlight to spread across the angular width of the entire planetary system, over-
whelming the faint signal of the planet (typically ten billion times fainter than the star). We know by
analysis and experiment that TPF-C’s advanced coronagraph features—pupil and field masks to sup-
press diffraction, and deformable mirrors to suppress starlight scattered by wavefront errors—can
successfully control both types of stray starlight from 4λ/D to almost 50λ/D. The goal of 10-10 sup-
pression in this region is at the heart of the “static error budget”. It is important that the number
10-10 is chosen only partly to keep the background photon rate small and integration times low.

The observation strategy is the principal reason to aim for 10-10 suppression. The residual starlight
contributes a speckle background which can vary by 100% in the width of the point spread function
(~λ/D). To distinguish these speckles from true planets, we compare two images of the planetary
system taken with a different “roll” orientation—rotation around the optical axis. This pair of im-
ages is called an observation. Through the roll maneuver, speckles are expected to stay fixed on the
telescope and thus on the focal plane, while the planet stays fixed on the sky and moves on the focal

7
TPF-C STDT REPORT

plane, rotating around the star image. During an observation, the speckle brightness pattern must be
stable to much less than the expected planet brightness, so that the image subtraction will unambi-
guously distinguish speckles from planets.

This requires a new performance budget governing all sources of variation in the speckle brightness
pattern. An important consequence of establishing this “dynamic error budget” is the fact that it
places the most stringent constraints on the static error budget. The brighter a speckle is at the start
of an observation, the smaller a thermal or mechanical disturbance it takes to change the speckle’s
brightness by 2 × 10-11 (or whatever 1-σ planet sensitivity floor we might choose).

These two error budgets have been drawn up and are described in Section 3.2. Most of these re-
quirements have been shown to be feasible, either in the laboratory or by detailed analyses of the
FB1 concept, summarized below.

FB1 Performance Assessment

The major result of our FB1 modeling work is that the environmental perturbations during opera-
tion appear to be controlled sufficiently— both thermally and dynamically— to ensure that the im-
age plane contrast remains stable to the required levels. The current sunshade isolates the telescope
and payload adequately. Active vibration control easily isolates the payload from reaction wheel vi-
brations. Passive vibration isolation control could be effective, but it would require more tuning and
would provide less margin. Vibrations from mechanisms in the instruments and starlight suppres-
sion system have yet to be included, but selective damping seems feasible and promising. The next
cycle will include these.

An important feature of this area is that the commercial thermal and dynamic analysis software have
limitations that are becoming well understood, and the team has implemented patches where appro-
priate to produce credible results. For longer term production mode use, better integrated modeling
tools are being developed. These will provide parallel code architectures for much improved analysis
cycle time, efficient inter-operability between the multi-physics analyses (thermal, structural, dynam-
ics, controls and optics) and numerical algorithms required for high accuracy solutions.

Our analysis and modeling have shown that the baseline wavefront control system with realistic op-
tical specifications cannot provide truly broad-band contrast suppression. We have learned how to
modify the dual-DM wave front controller to perform better over a broad band while relaxing wave
front and reflectivity uniformity requirements. The new design also reduces the number of optical
components in the system. These changes will be incorporated in the next design cycle.

The baseline primary mirror concept is a thin monolithic ULE face sheet fused to lightweight ULE
honeycomb core cells and mounted on 3 rigid supports. This has the potential to meet all opera-
tional requirements, but more consideration of fabrication, ground handling and testing accommo-
dations is needed. The FB1 launch loads are too severe around the mounting points, for example.
This complex assembly will need further development to address the full range of difficulties it will
face. Furthermore, the FB1 observatory mass margin is too low for the capability of the chosen
EELV launch vehicle. FB1 was not focused on mass optimization but significant improvements
have already been identified and will be applied to the next cycle.

8
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Within FB1 the active thermal control system was simplified to include only heaters (with no feed-
back) as locally applied power within the thermal enclosure. FB1 was purposely focused only on
meeting those requirements of the active control system, rather than including detailed features
which are not yet well understood. The goal was to use FB1 to understand how difficult and chal-
lenging the active control system will be before addressing how it should be implemented. FB1 sen-
sitivity analyses defined the heater location, power levels and cycles required for maintaining the
thermal stability of the observatory. This information will be used in the next cycle to design a
higher fidelity representation of the active thermal control system.

Conclusions from the FB1 design and analysis cycle, along with open trades for possible design al-
ternatives, will guide the next design cycle toward better performance and deeper detail. The team
and community have gained significant knowledge through this exercise and will continue to do so
as they await the start of the next design iteration, FB2.

Instrument Reports
In February 2005, NASA HQ solicited proposals for several instrument concept studies (ICS) for
TPF-C, as part of the ROSES 2005 NRA. In June 2005, five groups were selected to conduct con-
cept studies of a variety of instruments that might be built for TPF-C. The selected proposals were:

PIAA-AHA, an instrument for starlight suppression, planet detection,

Angel, Guyon
and spectroscopy, using two novel techniques.
Visible Nuller, instrument for starlight suppression and planet detection Shao

Mag30Cam, a wide-field camera for general astrophysics Brown

CorECam, a simple coronagraph camera with color filters Clampin

CorSpec, an integral field spectrometer for spectroscopic study of
Heap
planets in the coronagraph

The reports of these five teams are summarized briefly below and at greater length in Section 4.1.3.

PIAA/AHA Alternative Coronagraph

This is an instrument with integrated star suppression system for imaging and spectroscopy of ter-
restrial exoplanets. It combines the PIAA (Phase-Induced Amplitude Apodization) method to reach
an inner working distance of 2λ/D, (see below) with AHA (Anti-Halo Apodization). AHA is a new
interferometric technique to sense the phase and amplitude of the residual starlight halo, and to sup-
press it by destructive interference with explicitly created anti-halo speckles. The two methods in
conjunction promise not only the improved inner working distance, but much higher sensitivity by
covering a 360 degree field without the losses in resolution and flux inherent in the baseline Lyot
system. The instrument also incorporates dichroic mirrors to allow simultaneous full spectral cover-
age from 0.5–1.5 microns. The combined effect of increased throughput, resolution, field cover and
bandwidth is more than an order of magnitude reduction in integration time compared to the base-
line design. This combined with closer inner working angle allows for a much richer observing pro-
gram.

9
TPF-C STDT REPORT

It should be noted that if this approach is adopted for TPF-C, the HST-JWST paradigm in which
instrument teams are selected independent of the telescope is no longer applicable. This is because
the science imaging and spectroscopy and the star suppression and wavefront correction systems are
necessarily completely integrated, with the same imaging arrays providing the science, wavefront and
speckle nulling data. A silver lining of the extended TPF delay is the time it opens up for develop-
ment of the powerful PIAA and AHA technologies to the technology readiness level needed for a
Phase A selection.

Visible Nuller
The visible nuller (VN) together with the post coronagraph calibration interferometer is being stud-
ied because it provides potential gains in several areas. The nuller has the potential to have an inner
working angle of 2λ/D, significantly expanding the number of potential targets. The detection of
oxygen in the atmosphere of an Earth-like exo-planet is a key goal and a nulling coronagraph at
2λ/D has ~7 times more potential targets than one at 4λ/D. The post coronagraph calibration in-
terferometer (PCCI) is an equally important, perhaps even more important development. The PCCI
relaxes the required wavefront stability of the telescope by about a factor of 1000, from a few pi-
cometers per hour to a few picometers per 3~4 seconds. The PCCI has two functions:

ƒ to measure the wavefront with very high accuracy and high photon efficiency, to ~30 pi-
cometer in ~2 minutes for a ~5 mag star; this is needed to set the deformable mirror to cre-
ate the 10-10 dark hole, and
ƒ to measure the post coronagraph speckle pattern to 3~10% so that the ~10-10 residual
speckle pattern can be subtracted in post processing to ~ 10-11, in order for a 10-10 planet to
be detected with a SNR of 5~10.

The PCCI is being used in a number of ground and space coronagraphic instruments: a nulling co-
ronagraph on a sounding rocket to launch in 2007; the Gemini Planet Imager, the first of the second
generation instruments for the Gemini telescope; and the Planet Formation Imager, an extreme AO
coronagraph for the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT).

Wide-Field Camera
A wide-field camera (WFC) enriches the science return from TPF-C. Even a field of view (FOV) of
only 10 sq. arcmin would be mostly unaffected by scattered light from stars in the coronagraph. It
would obtain parallel images of the deep cosmos at no cost of observing time. In pointed mode, it
would extend Hubble-type imaging to 24 times greater sensitivity and 3 times better resolution. A 50
sq. arcmin FOV in a wedge shape extending to 10 arcmin off axis would produce a parallel survey of
10 sq. deg of sky to below 30th magnitude, which is 1000 times more cosmic volume than the vari-
ous Hubble deep fields and more sensitivity than any of them. A WFC with an FOV of 10-100 sq.
arcmin for the wavelength range 400–1700 nm is compatible with the baseline design for TPF-C. Its
scientific potential would be unrivaled by any currently planned telescope. on the ground or in space.
A WFC is a low-risk, high-benefit option for TPF-C. It would effectively double the mission value at
marginal costs. Recognizing the scientific benefits of such a camera, the STDT has incorporated it
into the minimum, baseline, and desired mission requirements.

10
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

CorECam
The CorECam instrument concept study addressed the requirements and science program for TPF-
C’s primary camera. CorECam provides a simple interface to the Starlight Suppression System (SSS)
provided by the TPF-C Project, and comprises camera modules providing a visible and near-infrared
(NIR) camera focal plane imaging. In its primary operating mode, CorECam will conduct the core
science program of TPF-C, detecting terrestrial planets at visible wavelengths. CorECam additionally
provides the imaging capabilities to characterize terrestrial planets, and conduct an extended science
program focused on investigating the nature of the exo-solar systems in which terrestrial planets are
detected. In order to evaluate the performance of CorECam, we developed a comprehensive, end-
to-end model using OSCAR modeling software, which provided a number of key conclusions on
the robustness of the TPF-C baseline design, and allowed investigation of alternative techniques for
wavefront sensing and control. The CorECam team recommends photon counting detectors be
baselined for imaging with TPF-C, since they provide mitigation against the background radiation
environment, improve sensitivity, and facilitate alternative WFSC approaches.

CorSpec
The coronagraphic spectrograph (CorSpec) team explored an instrument concept that would fulfill
all four scientific objectives of TPF-C by

(1) Spectrally characterizing the atmospheres of detected planets;

(2) Directly detecting terrestrial planets in the habitable zone around nearby stars;
(3) Studying all constituents of a planetary system including terrestrial and giant planets, gas and
dust around sun-like stars of different ages and metallicities; and
(4) Enabling simultaneous, high-spatial-resolution, coronagraphic spectroscopy of AGN’s, super-
novae, and other objects requiring high-contrast spectroscopy.

The instrument concept consists of a set of four integral field spectrographs (IFS), each covering a
spectral band ~22% wide, and together covering the full spectral range of TPF-C. Each IFS has a
134 x 134 microlens array to obtain a R~70 spectrum of each Nyquist-sampled image element in the
coronagraphic field, and each uses a photon-counting charge-multiplication CCD to record the
~18,000 spectra.

The concept assumes that the TPF-C’s starlight suppression system is similarly composed of four
independent units, each optimized for a given spectral band, and that each unit is capable of sup-
pressing the starlight to an acceptable level over a passband 22% wide. Members of the CorSpec
team have developed a preliminary concept design of the starlight suppression system.

Alternative Mission Designs

Several concepts with the potential to improve performance and simplify the design have been pro-
posed. These include changing the telescope from the present Richey-Chretien design to a three-
mirror astigmat (TMA), actuating the primary mirror, and two alternative starlight suppression con-
cepts (captured in the VN and PIAA/AHA studies and their reports). It may also be possible to
employ aluminum coatings on the primary and secondary mirror to enable UV astrometry with the
general astrophysics instrument (GAI).

11
TPF-C STDT REPORT

The baseline telescope is a Richey-Chretien design with a small diffraction-limited field of view. The
field is adequate for planet detection over several arcseconds; it was not designed for wide-field im-
aging. A TMA, on the other hand, can be designed for a field ~ 10 arcmin in diameter, sufficient for
the GAI. It may also have the advantage of relaxing the positional stability tolerances on the optics.
It may, however, require a radical repackaging of the starlight suppression system (SSS).

A major issue confronting the baseline design is the manufacture and on-orbit gravity release of the
primary mirror, which may be as large as several microns. The baseline design includes a coarse de-
formable mirror (DM) to compensate the sag. But the sag is problematic for the GAI, which does
not have its own wavefront control system. An alternative approach under consideration is an actu-
ated primary mirror instead of the coarse DM. Actuation could take the form of a small number of
force actuators to correct a few large-scale modes, enough to bring the residual wavefront error
within the dynamic range of the fine DMs in the SSS. A more radical approach would be to build
the primary as a ~ 1 cm thick meniscus connected via ~ 104 position actuators to a lightweight
welded ULE structural support. The telescope wavefront would be corrected against deformation of
the support by the primary mirror actuators, eliminating the baseline arrangement of coarse and fine
deformable mirrors, conjugated to the primary. This approach would require significant technology
development. Suitable piezo actuators could be developed from the current DM concepts or from
existing commercial actuators with 50 pm readout and 10 micron stroke. Further study is required to
understand and develop solutions for athermalizing and reducing the mass of the actuators, and for
the transition from the launch to operational environment. In addition, concepts are needed to re-
duce the mass of the cables across the 8 m aperture.

The baseline mission design starlight SSS carries both a Lyot coronagraph and a shaped pupil coro-
nagraph. The Lyot coronagraph uses an eighth-order mask that, like the shaped pupil, is very effec-
tive at rejecting thermally-induced changes to low-order aberrations in the system. The baseline car-
ries several masks optimized for discovery and characterization for different stellar classes. However,
none of the masks are useful at inner working angles much below 4λ/D.

Alternative SSS concepts have already been mentioned: the PIAA and visible nuller. Each also has
an associated concept for wavefront sensing and control which might be applicable to Lyot and
shaped pupil systems.

Verification Approach
Because of its large size and extreme stability requirements, TPF-C poses significant challenges for
pre-launch verification. To date, planning for Integration and Test (I&T) has concentrated on the
Optical Telescope Assembly (OTA). It is considered to be the most challenging task because testing
to the required precision may be beyond the capability of facilities that we expect to be available.
Specifically, it may not be possible to test end-to-end performance of TPF-C on the ground because
its extraordinary performance requirements will only be achieved in zero-gravity and in an extremely
stable thermally environment. The baseline solution is to devise an approach that combines test and
analysis in ground-based testing to verify on-orbit performance requirements. Component require-
ments will be verified directly by testing to the highest level of assembly possible, and additional
tests will be performed to verify the analytical models of each component. These component models
will be assembled to form the verified system model, in a manner parallel to the hardware assembly
and verification process. The extent to which requirements will be inferred by analysis rather than by

12
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

direct measurements will be driven by considerations of cost and risk that have yet to be addressed.
As a minimum, we know that for the baseline primary mirror our ability to relieve gravity sag and to
duplicate on-orbit thermal and vibration environments will most likely fall far short of what is neces-
sary to directly verify the flight requirements; for this reason, analytical methods will be required to
infer flight performance from ground test data. The final system test will therefore be limited to
verifying alignment workmanship and to correlating system model parameters, by overdriving the
input thermal and jitter environment.

During the FB1 cycle, integration and test plans were sketched out for the primary mirror assembly:
the necessity of extreme, nanometric precision, when combined with the mirror’s very large size
(8.5×3m) and flexibility, poses major challenges. Plans call for figuring and final measurement of the
primary mirror to be performed on the best zero-G mount possible, however, this is not necessarily
compatible with flight mounting schemes. On the high fidelity zero-G mount, the mirror will be
subjected to mechanical and thermal loads while its optical performance is measured with an inter-
ferometer at the center of curvature. These measurements are as faithful as can be achieved on the
ground to the on-orbit performance of the mirror— they will be used as inputs to the integrated
structural-thermal-optical model. After the mirror is integrated with its flight support to the Aft Me-
tering Structure (AMS) and the Payload Support Structure (PSS), a different gravity unloading
scheme will have to be used. It is assumed that this setup will not be as effective as the high fidelity
zero-G mount used before. Thermal and dynamic loading will be applied in order to observe their
effect on the assembled sub-system with its the flight mount. These data will be used to correlate
model parameters, and the model will then be exercised in a simulated flight environment to analyti-
cally predict on-orbit performance. These analytical results will then be compared to the require-
ments for verification.

The alternative and most definitive verification approach is of the complete TPF-C spacecraft sys-
tem prior to launch. An off-axis collimator would be used to illuminate the full aperture with a scene
of a star and planet at 10-10 contrast, and the ultimate proof would be to see an image showing the
planet obtained by using all the internal wavefront control and star suppression systems working as
on orbit.

A test like this of the baseline design would not be possible, because of uncorrectable gravity bend-
ing of the primary in the spacecraft configuration. But it would in principle be possible for the alter-
native primary described above, with high authority position actuators. The stroke of the actuators
would be matched to the bending of the integrated reference structure, so the primary figure could
be corrected under 1 g load as well as in space. Local quilting of the facesheet would be small and of
high frequency, and would not spoil such a test. The collimator would need to have a clear aperture
and be off-axis, like the primary, but its optical quality need not be significantly better than that of
the primary. The spacecraft star suppression system would take care of the residual collimator wave-
front errors along with those of the primary.

As noted above, such a test would be successful only if the vibration and thermal environment were
adequately controlled. The test facility would have to be designed from the ground up with these
requirements in mind. We recommend that a feasibility study for the complete test facility be in-
cluded when TPF funding again becomes available.

13
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Key Technologies, Development Plan & Progress to Date

Planet detection, characterization, and verification are the core drivers of the TPF-C technology ef-
forts, particularly in the early phase. In order to mitigate this technical risk, TPF-C has developed a
detailed technology plan which lays out the scope, depth and inter-relatedness of activities that will
enable the project to demonstrate sufficient technology maturation to enter into Phase A. Specifi-
cally, there are four milestones which require testbed demonstrations of critical starlight suppression
technologies as well as validated testbed models and error budgets. These milestones are not in-
tended to be all inclusive, but rather serve as benchmarks of progress. Testing of Milestone 1 for
demonstration of narrowband starlight suppression at 1x10-9 contrast has been completed, and test-
ing of Milestone 2 has begun for demonstration of broadband starlight suppression. Milestone 3a
and 3b will validate starlight suppression models and will demonstrate flight system performance.

The challenge is to control diffracted light over a broad spectral range while mitigating the effects of
internal and external errors. Technology development is organized into six areas that address aspects
of this challenge. They are:

1. Fabrication of a pathfinder demonstration mirror that establishes the state-of-the-art in fabrica-

tion of large, off-axis, low-scatter mirrors;
2. Development of a starlight suppression testbed which tests various masks, deformable mirrors
for wavefront correction, wavefront sensing and control approaches and starlight suppression
algorithms;
3. Investigation, analysis and fabrication of more advanced masks and stops;
4. Development of modeling tools that will represent the extreme precision needed to model the
test beds and the flight system so that feasibility for the mission can be understood;
5. Development of testbeds to investigate alternative architectures for starlight suppression;
6. Precision materials properties measurements.

Technology Demonstration Mirror (TDM)

The requirements for the TPF coronagraph primary mirror allocates error for the surface quality in
terms of spatial frequency, and the Technology Demonstration Mirror (TDM) was defined to study
the ability to fabricate a mirror which meets the lower spatial frequency requirements. The TDM is a
1.8 meter diameter mirror composed of six outer core segments and one inner hexagonal core seg-
ment. Each segment is composed of a honeycomb core with a thin front and back facesheet. Fabri-
cation of the TDM using low temperature slumping and fusing techniques will demonstrate whether
state-of-the-art technology can meet the special frequency requirements. The effort will also provide
methodologies to measure the performance of the mirror and to interpret the measured data for re-
quirements verification. Owing to funding cuts, the TDM effort has been put on hold with 2 of the
core segments completed.

Trade studies have resulted in the selection of light-weighted, fuse-bonded ULE as the substrate ma-
terial. The ULE boules being used have tight requirements on coefficient of thermal expansion
(CTE) and have been selected to meet them. Calibration standards to measure the CTE of the se-
lected boules were re-measured to verify calibration and that the CTE requirements were met.

Coating the mirror will be a challenge because coating uniformity requirements are tight. Non-
uniform coatings will cause amplitude errors that will interfere with the starlight suppression re-
quirement. In addition, polarization effects of the candidate coatings are being studies to understand

14
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

the polarization effect on starlight suppression, as well as to develop concepts for mitigation of the
induced polarization of the light.

High Contrast Imaging Testbed

The heart of the coronagraph system is the starlight suppression system that includes wavefront
sensing and control components, as well as various masks and stop elements. The High Contrast
Imaging Testbed (HCIT) enables the exploration of starlight suppression methods and hardware in a
flight-like environment within which various concepts for masks and stops designs, wavefront sens-
ing approaches, and control algorithms are being investigated. The testbed layout is flexible so that
alternate concepts can be tried and guest investigator testing is available. The testbed is installed in a
vacuum chamber and has been measured to have milli-Kelvin thermal stability and Angstrom wave-
front stability. A series of increasingly mature and robust deformable mirrors have been developed,
fabricated, calibrated and installed to demonstrate precise wavefront control.

Current narrow band performance has reached an average contrast of <1x10-9 throughout both the
outer working angle of 4λ/D to 10λ/D and the inner working angle of 4λ/D to 5λ/D using laser
light at 785nm as specified in the technology Milestone 1 definition. Moving torwards the goals of
technology Milestone 2, current broad band contrast has reached an average contrast of about 1x10-8
over the same areas at 785±10 nm. Following that, the testbed is scheduled to explore alternate
mask options and broad band wavelength performance improvements.

Mask and Stops

Developing mask and stop forms, researching candidate mask materials and their related influences,
modeling light propagation and sensitivity to form errors are areas of research supporting the con-
trast goal of 10-10 required to detect and characterize Earth-like planets.

The technology has developed models of polarized light propagation through masks that include
electromagnetic field effects and wave band performance. Such models are used to guide mask fab-
rication sensitivities requirements. Modeling and assessing sensitivity has led to development of a
promising new mask form called an 8th order mask. Two types of 8th order masks have been built to
demonstrate this mask form, using High Energy Beam Sensitive (HEBS) glass and a deposited alu-
minum binary representation. These masks are scheduled for testing in the HCIT.

Materials research has focused on careful measurement of material properties and influences on the
mask performance. This research is expected to lead to mask solutions that increase the bandwidth
of performance and polarization tolerance of future masks.

The TPF Coronagraph will rely heavily on modeling and analyses throughout its mission lifecycle,
thus developing models, validating them, and implementing them are a key task for the project. Cur-
rent modeling activities can be separated into 3 broad areas: predictions of on-orbit performance,
analytical tool development in support of specific Coronagraph needs, and verification and valida-
tion of the analyses.

Development of on-orbit performance models includes modeling the thermal and dynamic re-
sponses of the observatory during operation in space and will be covered in Section 3.0 describing
the observatory design. These models are tied to optical performance models that represent the
propagation of the wavefront through the perturbed surfaces, including diffraction, polarization,

15
TPF-C STDT REPORT

mask and stop effects and optimization algorithms for the deformable mirrors. Broad band wave-
length effects are being added.

Modeling and Simulation

In Modeling process verification and validation will be performed on the HCIT and future testbeds
that are envisioned as the mission progresses. Optical performance modeling is being carried on the
HCIT to verify contrast sensitivity to various error contributors, with the goal of validating a testbed
error budget which parallels the flight system error budget.

Also under development is a fully integrated modeling tool that simulates under a single computa-
tional code the thermal, mechanical, control and optical performance of the flight system. This tool
has structural evaluation, embedded thermal radiation and conduction capabilities, a NASTRAN
native input format for the model description, scalability to very large problems with very efficient
numerics, seamless interface to optical analysis codes, and eventually end-to-end sensitivity and op-
timization abilities. This tool has been used to run simple trade studies for the TPF-C modeling
team.

Alternative Starlight Suppression Testbed

Three additional methods of starlight suppression are being supported by TPF-C. A testbed has
been developed at Princeton University to design, analyze, fabricate and test pupil plane masks. A
testbed has been developed as a joint effort of NOAO and University of Hawaii to build and study a
pupil re-mapping concept. Finally, a testbed has been developed at JPL, using visible light and inter-
ferometric techniques to create a null over a star, enabling imaging of orbiting planets.

Precision Material Properties Measurements

A critical step in predicting TPF-C system performance is to use material data of the highest accu-
racy and precision. The JPL Dilatometer laboratory is a state-of-the art facility which measures
thermal strains from room temperature to 20oK at an accuracy of about 2 ppb. Active thermal con-
trol allows the samples to maintain a stability of 5 moK for as long as necessary, allowing the meas-
urement of thermal relaxation, a form of dimensional instability and material nonlinearity. Such ca-
pability is required to measure variations in CTE distributions in ULE or nonlinear behavior of Ze-
rodur.

The JPL tribometer is also being designed to study the physics and material properties of sub-
Coulombic friction as a function of temperature, pre-load and interface materials. This is an imma-
ture field which is critical for the representation of deployment mechanisms along the optical path.

Conclusions
When it eventually flies, TPF-C will be one of the most scientifically exciting missions ever launched
by NASA. A positive indication of extraterrestrial life, or even the detection of a habitable planet
similar to Earth, would alter the way in which humans look at themselves and at the universe. Most
of the technology required to perform this mission already exists. The parts that do not, especially
the coronagraphic techniques required to achieve 10−10 starlight suppression at close distances to the
star, can likely be developed over the next year or two, given a modest amount of funding. We hope
that this report will help provide the motivation to finish off these development tasks and to get the
TPF-C mission itself restarted in as short a time as possible.

16
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Blank Page

17
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Blank Page

18
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

1.0 TPF-C Science Requirements

1.1 Introduction
The search for planets has flourished since the initial planet discoveries in the past decade. The dis-
covery of pulsar planets in 1991 (Wolszscan and Frail, 1992) was soon followed by the discovery of
planets around main sequence stars in 1995 (Mayor and Queloz, 1995). At present, more than 155
extrasolar planets have been identified (see http://www.exoplanet.eu; also http://exoplanets.org).
Most of these planets orbit main sequence stars, although one planet has been identified around a
white dwarf (Sigurdsson et al., 2003). By far the majority of these planets have been detected by the
radial velocity method (e.g., Marcy and Butler, 1998), in which the back-and-forth reflex motion of
the star is determined spectroscopically by measuring the Doppler shift of multiple spectral lines.
This method is most sensitive to massive planets located in short-period orbits close to their parent
stars. As time progresses, such planets are being found farther and farther away from their parent
stars. Several Neptune-mass bodies (~15 Earth masses) close to their host stars have now been dis-
covered (e.g., Butler et al., 2004). The smallest planet detected by radial velocity is a ~7.5 Earth-mass
object orbiting the M star GJ 876 (Rivera et al., 2005). An even smaller (~5.5 Earth-mass) planet has
been reported recently from a gravitational microlensing survey (Beaulieu et al., 2006), although the
mass of the planet (and lensing star) is only inferred statistically.

Interest is now beginning to shift to the next frontier—that of detecting and characterizing Earth-
sized planets around other stars. Such planets are too small to be found around sun-like stars using
the radial velocity method, as the velocity change induced by the planet’s motion is well below the
velocities of convective cells on the star’s surface. Hence, a variety of other space-based astronomi-
cal techniques are being explored. NASA’s Kepler mission, currently scheduled for launch in 2008,
will attempt to find Earth-sized planets by looking for transits. Kepler will monitor ~100,000 fairly
distant stars simultaneously for 5 years, looking for a periodic drop in light intensity of the order of
0.01 percent. ESA’s Corot mission works on this same principle but is somewhat less ambitious. Ke-
pler and Corot will measure the size distribution of low-mass planets. After Kepler and Corot, NASA’s
proposed SIM mission will attempt to find planets that are Earth-sized or slightly larger, by perform-
ing accurate, space-based astrometry. SIM should be able to look for planets that are 3-4 Earth
masses around a substantial number of nearby stars and may be able to find 0.5 Earth-mass planets
around the very closest stars. SIM will characterize the mass distribution of low-mass planets.

NASA’s twin Terrestrial Planet Finder missions represent the next step beyond Kepler and SIM and will
be capable of direct imaging. TPF-C, the topic of this document, is a visible/near-IR coronagraph
that will search for Earth-sized planets by looking for starlight scattered from the planets’ atmos-
phere and surface. The difficult part of this mission is observing a planet near its parent star, which
is roughly 1010 times brighter at these wavelengths. This requires extremely efficient suppression of
the star’s own light. This document describes how this difficult feat may be accomplished. TPF-I,
which is currently scheduled to fly roughly 5 years after TPF-C, is an interferometer that will operate
in the thermal infrared. Such an instrument can observe the planet’s own emitted radiation. TPF-I is
currently envisioned as a set of four free-flying spacecraft, each with its own mirror. The beams
from each mirror would be combined coherently at a fifth spacecraft to perform nulling interfer-
ometry. Again, the radiation from the star would be suppressed, allowing the much dimmer planet(s)
to be seen around it.

1-1
TPF-C STDT REPORT

An exciting new feature of both TPF missions compared to Kepler and SIM is the capability of per-
forming spectroscopy. The light (or infrared radiation) from the observed planet will be broken
down into different wavelength bins to form a spectrum. That spectrum should contain absorption
bands that may provide information concerning the composition of the planet’s atmosphere and the
nature of the planet’s surface. Of particular interest are features that indicate whether the planet
might be habitable, or perhaps even inhabited by life. For example, both TPF-C and TPF-I should
be able to look for H2O absorption bands. Liquid water is essential to life as we know it, and so its
presence in the gas phase is probably a prerequisite for planetary habitability. In addition, TPF-C is
sensitive to O2, while TPF-I is highly sensitive to its photochemical byproduct, O3. Most of Earth’s
oxygen was produced by photosynthetic organisms, so the presence of O2 or O3 in a planet’s atmos-
phere would be strongly suggestive of life. There are, of course, caveats that must be added to this
statement, some of which are mentioned below. The important point, though, is that the two TPF
missions, especially when considered together, may provide the first real data bearing on the exis-
tence of extraterrestrial life. Hence, these missions should be of great interest to astrobiologists, as
well as astronomers and planetary scientists. It is exciting that telescope/spacecraft technology has
advanced far enough to make such missions possible.

In addition to its primary mission of searching for, and characterizing, terrestrial planets, TPF-C
should also be capable of advancing astronomical knowledge in several related areas. In particular,
TPF-C will be useful for studying planetary system architectures (including giant planets) and for
studying circumstellar and protoplanetary disks. TPF-C will also have capabilities that may be useful
for studying non-planetary astrophysics. These auxiliary science areas are considered to be an inte-
gral part of the TPF-C mission, and each is accorded its own discussion in the document that fol-
lows.

1.2 Definition of Scientific Terms

Prior to discussing the scientific requirements of TPF-C, the scientific terms used herein must be
precisely defined. Some of these terms are still under debate among scientists. The definitions used
here are for the purposes of clearly specifying the scientific needs of TPF-C. They are not meant to
be interpreted as a contribution to these debates, rather as a cogent set of terms from which the re-
quirements can be accurately described. However, an attempt has been made to make these defini-
tions fit with current understanding of the science as much as is possible.

1.2.1 Planet
A planet is an object that is gravitationally bound and supported from gravitational collapse
by either electron degeneracy pressure or Coulomb pressure, that is in orbit about a star,
and that, during its entire history, never sustains any nuclear fusion reactions in its core. Re-
liance on theoretical models indicates that such objects are less massive than approximately 13 times
the mass of Jupiter (MJ) for objects with metallicities close to that of the Sun. Objects with masses
between 13 and 75 MJ (known as brown dwarfs) fuse deuterium for a portion of their youth (Sudar-
sky et al., 2003, and references therein). Objects with masses above 75 MJ are known as stars. A
lower mass limit to the class of objects called planets has not been convincingly determined.

1.2.2 Terrestrial Planet

A terrestrial planet is a planet which is primarily supported from gravitational collapse
through Coulomb pressure, and which has a surface defined by the radial extent of the liq-
uid or solid interior. Terrestrial planets are often referred to as “rocky planets.” A gaseous atmos-

1-2
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

phere may exist above the surface, but this is not a defining feature of a terrestrial planet. Theory
suggests that most terrestrial planets will have masses less than about 10 times Earth’s mass (M⊕), as
planets larger than this are likely to capture gas during accretion and develop into giant planets. Ter-
restrial planets that undergo final accretion after their protostellar nebula has dissipated may, how-
ever, achieve larger masses while still remaining “rocky.”

1.2.3 Habitable Planet

A habitable planet is a terrestrial planet on whose surface liquid water can exist in steady
state. This definition presumes that extraterrestrial life, like Earth life, requires liquid water for its
existence. Both the liquid water, and any life that depends on it, must be at the planet’s surface in
order to be detected remotely. This, in turn, requires the existence of an atmosphere with a surface
pressure substantially above the triple point pressure of water, 6.1 mbar, and a mean surface tem-
perature somewhere between 0oC and 374oC (the critical point for water). Planets habitable by
Earth-like life must have surface temperatures below ~120oC. For the purposes of the mission, the
lower-mass limit for a habitable planet is set at 1/3 M⊕ . Objects smaller than this are unlikely to
hold onto their atmospheres effectively and are therefore lower priority targets for TPF-C.

Caveat: Some planets (or moons) that do not have liquid water at their surfaces may indeed
be habitable, or even inhabited. Jupiter’s moon Europa is widely believed to have an ocean of
liquid water, or a water-ammonia mixture, beneath its icy surface, in which life could conceivably be
present. However, if life is present on Europa, it is not detectable from Earth, and it would certainly
not be detectable from a planet orbiting a distant star. Mars is another planet where subsurface life is
possible. Indeed, measurements of CH4 in Mars’ atmosphere (Mumma et al., 2003; Formisano et al.,
2004; Krasnopolsky and Owen, 2004) suggest to some researchers that life may be present. The
quantities of gas detected, however, are extremely small, and are best detected at very high spectral
resolutions (R ≅ 50,000 for the ground-based measurements) and sensitivities that are unlikely to be
accessible to TPF-C. Remote detection of subsurface life on extrasolar planets is possible in theory,
but it will not be considered here.

1.2.4 Habitable Zone and Continuously Habitable Zone

The habitable zone, or HZ, is the region around a star in which a planet may maintain liq-
uid water on its surface. Its boundaries are defined empirically in Section 1.3.1.1.1, based on the
observation that Venus appears to have lost its water some time ago and that Mars appears to have
had surface water early in its history. The continuously habitable zone, or CHZ, is the region
that remains habitable over some finite period of time as a star ages. All main sequence stars
brighten with time, and so the HZ moves outward with time. For our own Solar System, the CHZ is
usually defined over the entire solar lifetime, ~4.6 billion years (Hart, 1978).

Caveat: These definitions do not preclude the possibility that other planetary bodies (or moons) may
support liquid water, and even life, beneath their surfaces. Such life is probably not detectable re-
motely, however, and thus is not something that can be searched for by TPF.

1.2.5 Potentially Habitable Planet

A potentially habitable planet is one whose orbit lies within the habitable zone. This includes
planets that have high eccentricities, but whose semi-major axis is within the habitable zone. In this
document, the habitable zone boundaries are defined generously, so as not to exclude any possibly

1-3
TPF-C STDT REPORT

habitable planets. But this definition implies that some planets within the habitable zone may not
actually be habitable.

1.2.6 Earth-like Planet

An Earth-like planet is a habitable planet of approximately one Earth mass.

1.2.7 Earth Twin/Solar System Twin

An Earth twin is a planet of exactly one Earth mass and one Earth radius with Earth’s al-
bedo and atmospheric composition. A Solar System twin is a system of 9 planets orbiting a
G2V star, i.e., a star like the Sun that is identical in every respect to our own Solar System.

1.2.8 Eta_Earth (η⊕)

(Eta_sub_Earth) Eta_Earth is the fraction of stars that have at least one potentially habitable
planet (PHP). In other words, it is the fraction of stars that have at least one planet within their
habitable zone. For this document, this is interpreted to mean the fraction of observed stars that have
at least one PHP, as it is used to estimate an expectation value for the number of potentially habit-
able planets, NPHP, that will be found throughout the duration of the mission.

1.2.9 Direct Detection

Direct detection is the detection of a planet by separating the light emitted or reflected by
the surface or atmosphere of a planet from that of the star it orbits. The words “direct” and
“directly,” when used in reference to “detection,” are specifically meant to distinguish between the
TPF-C mission and the vast majority of work in exoplanetary science to date, which has relied on
precise measurements of nearby stars to reveal the existence of planets. We also use direct detection
to include recording as much information about the planet light as is technically feasible. More gener-
ally, direct detection refers to the ability to distinguish the light emergent from a particular celestial
object from that of any other. In the case of TPF-C, the primary issue is that for every 1010 photons
that arrive from a nearby star, only one is expected from an accompanying Earth-like planet. Detect-
ing these few photons from the planet requires extraordinarily precise instrumentation.

1.2.10 Giant Planet

Giant planets are those with masses substantially greater than terrestrial planets but less
than brown dwarfs, e.g., 0.03 MJ < M < 13 MJ (~10 M⊕ < M < ~4000 M⊕). Our Solar System
retains two types of giant planets (Figure 1.2-1); other types are seen in extrasolar planetary systems.
Jupiter and Saturn are gas giants, characterized by an extended thick atmosphere composed primarily
of hydrogen, with bulk masses of MJ and 0.3 MJ respectively. Their interiors are thought to contain a
substantial fraction of metallic hydrogen surrounding a rocky core. Their visible "surfaces" are usu-
ally defined to be the cloud-top level at a pressure of roughly 1 bar, typically ammonia clouds for
Jupiter and Saturn. Giant planets younger or more massive than Jupiter will show bright water
clouds instead of ammonia clouds. Giants that are even warmer (or young) will be cloud free. Ice gi-
ants, represented locally by Uranus and Neptune at 0.046 and 0.054 MJ, respectively, (14 and 17 M⊕)
have hydrogen/helium envelopes like gas giants. However, their interiors contain a thick mantle of
briny ices, likely water, that surround a rocky core. Their visible cloud-tops (the “surface”) are com-
posed of methane clouds. The term “Hot Jupiter” refers to a planet with mass comparable to or
greater than Jupiter (but less than the deuterium-burning limit of ~13 MJ) that is located close to its
primary star (e.g., within 3 AU). similarly, a “Hot Neptune” will have very different spectral properties

1-4
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

than an ice giant in our solar system. Observing giant planets with a variety of temperatures will elu-
cidate important processes in giant planet atmospheres and the evolution of these planets over time.

Figure 1.2-1. Planetary radius (in units of 10^4 km) as a function of planet mass for zero-
temperature homogeneous spheres of various composition (Zapolsky & Salpeter 1969). The
masses and radii of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are shown.

1.2.11 Planetary System Architecture

Planetary system architecture refers to the location and masses of the various components of
a planetary system, including planets, small bodies, and dust. The presence and properties of
giants in a planetary system alters the formation and dynamical evolution of all planets, including any
terrestrial planets, residing around their common host star. A systematic determination of giant
planet dynamical properties, including orbital eccentricity and inclination, would permit identifica-
tion of locations of enhanced formation and islands of stability, not only of giant planets but also
terrestrial planets in multiple planet systems.

1.2.12 Exozodiacal Dust

Exozodiacal dust is the extrasolar analog of zodiacal dust. Zodiacal dust is the Solar System
cloud of 10-100 μm diameter silicate grains (e.g. Grun et al., 1985) produced by collisions among as-
teroids and by the outgassing of comets. This sparse disk of zodiacal dust is the most luminous
component of the solar system after the sun. Zodiacal dust can be seen by the naked eye at a dark
site as a triangle of light along the ecliptic plane.

1.2.13 The “Zodi” Unit

The unit “zodi” is defined to mean an exozodiacal cloud with the same surface density and
scattering properties (i.e, analogous to) the solar system zodiacal cloud. The zodi is not a unit
of surface brightness or flux because the surface brightness of an exozodiacal cloud changes de-

1-5
TPF-C STDT REPORT

pending on the luminosity of the central star. For different numbers of zodi, we provide the corre-
sponding surface brightness for different realizations (orientation, etc.) of exozodiacal clouds in Ap-
pendix 1. B, using ZODIPIC, an IDL code that evaluates the zodi for any given star and disk orien-
tation.(Publicly available online at http://eud.gsfc.nasa.gov/Marc.Kuchner/home.html.).

1.2.14 Pericenter Shift

Pericenter shift refers to a disk asymmetry that occurs when the disk contains a planet on an
eccentric orbit, and the orbits of the debris particles acquire a forced eccentricity in re-
sponse to secular planetary perturbations. For example, the solar zodiacal cloud contains a
pericenter shift of approximately 0.01 AU in response to Jupiter’s eccentricity of 0.048. The offset
scales as the eccentricity of the perturbing planet’s orbit. When an asymmetric exozodiacal cloud
with pericenter shift is imaged through a coronagraph, the coronagraph may accentuate the disk
asymmetry, producing an image with an apparent peak near the inner working angle that can easily
be as bright as an Earth-like planet. In order not to confuse a pericenter shift with an extrasolar
Earth-like planet, TPF-C should be able to operate under the assumption that exozodiacal clouds
commonly have 0.07 AU of pericenter shift, the amount the solar zodiacal cloud would have if Jupi-
ter had an eccentricity of 0.35, the median for exoplanets.

1.2.15 Protoplanetary, Debris, and Exozodiacal Disks

Circumstellar disks are the host environments of planet formation, and signposts of asteroid and
comet populations in mature planetary systems. In wavelength-integrated light, disks can be many
orders of magnitude brighter than individual extrasolar planets. Disks are often classified into the
following categories:

Young stellar object (“protoplanetary”) disks are disks of gas and dust with radii of several
hundred astronomical units, and masses of 0.001–0.01 M~. They are often found around pre-
main sequence stars. While the mass of these disks is mostly molecular hydrogen gas, their opacity is
dominated by dust grains. They are highly optically thick in scattered light: τ ~ 102–104. These disks
have sufficient mass to form a solar system like our own, and are considered analogous to the early
solar nebula. They are often referred to as protoplanetary disks even if the presence of a forming
planet within the disk has not been established observationally. Their central objects are either T
Tauri stars or Herbig Ae stars, the pre-main sequence analogs to solar-type and 2-3 M (sun stars re-
spectively. The nearest significant young stellar object populations are located at distances of 120–
140 pc; the host stars range in brightness from V= 6–16, and the disk angular radii range from 0.3-
3.0 arcsec. Due to their high optical depths, these disks can be relatively bright in scattered light. Im-
aging at contrasts of ~106 would enable significant advances over results from HST, and should be
straightforward for TPF-C.

Debris disks are dusty products of collisions between remnant planetesimals. One out of
every seven main sequence stars possesses an infrared excess indicating the presence of cir-
cumstellar dust. Given that the timescales for removal of dust particles via radiation pressure and
P-R drag are much less than these stellar ages, the dust particles cannot be residual material from the
protoplanetary disk. Instead, ongoing dust production from asteroid collisions and cometary pas-
sages is required. Debris disks are highly tenuous and optically thin; the brightest example, β Pic-
toris, contains only a few lunar masses of dust. Little or no gas is found in debris disks, but studies
of the gas component are nevertheless important to understanding the dust production and trans-
port mechanisms. The dust in debris disks is usually quite cold, with > 90 % of such systems show-

1-6
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

ing detectable infrared excesses only at wavelengths longer than 30 microns. This corresponds to
dust in the region 10 to 100 AU from the central star, analogous to the Kuiper Belt region of our
own solar system. Perhaps two hundred debris disks are known from infrared photometry to date,
but only 10 relatively high optical depth systems have resolved images at any wavelength. The host
stars are located over the distance range 3–100 pc, the host star brightness ranges from V= 0–12,
and the disk angular sizes range from ~0.3 to 150 arcsec.

Exozodiacal Dust Disks are tenuous disks of dust, analogous to our solar system’s zodiacal
dust cloud. Exozodiacal dust disks are interesting in their own right as signposts of planets and as-
teroids, and not just noise for terrestrial planet detection. See Sections 1.2.12 and 1.3.3.

1.2.16 Parallel Observations

Parallel observations are those that are made in parallel with planet-searching/characterization. Such
observations include studies of exozodiacal dust clouds (under disk science) and deep-field studies
of galaxies and quasars (under general astrophysics).

1.2.17 Pointed Observations

Pointed observations refer to science investigations that are carried out separately from planet-
searching/characterization, looking at targets that are not included in the normal TPF-C target star
list. Examples include observations of dust disks around very young stars and astrophysical observa-
tions of non-stellar objects.

1.3 Science Objectives

A list of TPF-C science objectives, stated in general terms, was given in the Executive Summary.
These objectives are repeated and elaborated on in the subsections that follow. They are not meant
to directly drive mission design. Specific science requirements and goals are given in Section 1.3.5.

1.3.1 Terrestrial Planet Science

1.3.1.1 Detecting Potentially Habitable Planets

Objective 1: To directly detect terrestrial planets that exist within the habitable zones
around nearby stars or, alternatively, to show that they are not present

Fulfilling Objective 1 is a primary goal of the TPF-C mission. Deciding how best to do this requires
making assumptions about a number of different parameters. These include the location of the hab-
itable zone around each star, the types of stars to be included in the search, and the size range of
planets for which to look. The following three subsections present the information used to support
values adopted in this SRD. The last subsection discusses the difficult question of how big the tele-
scope needs to be in order to have a reasonable chance of finding a potentially habitable planet.

1.3.1.1.1 Habitable Zone Location and Width

Summary
In order to search for planets within the habitable zone (HZ), one needs to define the HZ around
different star types. The HZ limits used in this SRD are 0.75 AU for the inner edge and 1.8 AU for
the outer edge, scaled by the square root of stellar luminosity.

1-7
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Discussion
These HZ boundaries are empirical limits based on observations of Venus and Mars. Venus’ semi-
major axis is 0.72 AU. Radar maps of Venus’ surface suggest that liquid water has not been present
there for at least the last 1 billion years (Solomon and Head, 1991). The Sun was ~8% dimmer back
at that time, according to standard solar evolution models (e.g., Gough, 1981). Thus, the solar flux at
Venus’ orbit then was equal to that at a distance of 0.72 AU (1/0.92)1/2 ≅ 0.75 AU today. The outer
edge of the HZ is based on the observation that Mars, which orbits at 1.52 AU, looks as if it may
well have been habitable at or before 3.8 billion years ago (Pollack, 1979; Pollack et al., 1987). The
Sun is thought to have been ~75 % as bright at that time. Hence, the solar flux hitting Mars back
then was equivalent to that at a distance of 1.52 AU (1/0.75)1/2 = 1.8 AU.

The empirical HZ values adopted for this SRD can also be justified theoretically. The inner edge of
the HZ is thought to be set by loss of surface water (Rasool and DeBergh, 1969; Ingersoll, 1969;
Kasting, 1988). Photodissociation of stratospheric H2O by stellar UV radiation, followed by escape
of hydrogen to space, causes an ocean to be lost with a geologically short period of time—tens to
hundreds of millions of years. The outer edge of the HZ is determined by condensation of CO2.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that keeps the planet warm enough for liquid water. If a planet is too far
from its parent star, CO2 begins to condense out of the gas phase into CO2 ice and the temperature-
stabilizing CO2 feedback cycle (Walker et al., 1981) disappears.

Although 1-D climate models have been used to calculate the HZ boundaries (Kasting, 1988, 1991)
they are incapable of accurately simulating the effects of clouds (H2O or CO2) on the planetary radia-
tion budget and hence are not reliable. They do, however, serve to illustrate the importance of vari-
ous climatic feedback processes. For example, the CO2 weathering feedback is the reason why the
HZ is now considered to be relatively wide (Kasting et al. 1993), rather than narrow (Hart, 1978,
1979). The CO2 weathering feedback is a strong negative feedback in the inorganic carbon cycle, or
carbonate-silicate cycle. CO2 is produced by volcanism and is lost by weathering of silicate rocks on
land, followed by deposition of carbonate sediments in the oceans. As a planet’s surface temperature
decreases, the silicate weathering slows down, and this allows CO2–a major greenhouse gas—to ac-
cumulate in the planet’s atmosphere. Planets near the outer edge of the HZ can thus compensate for
the low incident stellar flux by developing a large greenhouse effect.

The 0.75 AU and 1.8 AU HZ boundaries apply to planets orbiting a Sun-like star. The Sun is a 4.5
billion-year-old G2V star with an effective temperature of ~5700 K. The HZ around more or less
massive (i.e., more or less luminous) stars are shifted by a factor of (L/L~)0.5. The approximate loca-
tion of the HZ around different main sequence stars is illustrated in Figure 1.3-1. For illustration,
the boundaries shown in the diagram are the zero-age-main-sequence (ZAMS) values, based on
theoretical “runaway” and “maximum” greenhouse limits from Kasting et al. (1993). An additional
complication is that the HZ moves outwards, at different rates for different types of stars, as the
stars age. Also, see Kasting et al. (1993) for additional correction factors to this (L/L~)0.5 scaling for
different star types, based on their effective temperatures. These correction factors can shift the HZ
boundaries inward (outward) by up to 10 percent for stars that are hotter (cooler) than the Sun.

1-8
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 1.3-1. The instantaneous habitable zone around different stars at the time when they first
entered the main sequence. The dotted curve shows the distance at which a planet’s rotation
would become locked within 4.5 Gyr. The nine planets in our own Solar System are shown as well.
(Modified from Kasting et al. 1993).

1.3.1.1.2 Types of Stars to be Searched

Summary
Stars of type F, G and K are of greatest physical interest because they are expected to be the most
suitable for finding Earth analogues, based on our solar-system-centric viewpoint of stellar lifetimes
and radiation environments. Designed to be most capable of finding planets around these stars,
TPF-C is not well-suited to surveying earlier (i.e., more massive) or later (i.e., less massive) star types.

Discussion
A TPF-C design to survey G-type stars specifies a contrast ratio and angular separation capability.
This precludes massive bright stars or low-mass faint stars from being studied by TPF-C. Massive
stars that are very bright, ‘A’ stars for example, have HZs that lie far away from the star. Because the
massive stars are so luminous, the planet-star contrast ratio is exceedingly small (for a planet with an
Earth-like albedo). So, even though the HZ angular separation for massive stars may be favorable
for TPF-C, the planet-star contrast is too low. This precludes seeing Earth-sized planets at the inner
edge of the HZ around stars earlier than about F0. For low-mass stars, M stars in particular, a differ-
ent problem arises. Their HZs lie close to the star; hence, the contrast ratio of a habitable planet is
favorable, but the angular separation of the planet from the star is typically very small. Only a few M
stars may be accessible to TPF-C, given an inner working angle of roughly 60 mas. (A free-flying
TPF-I with a variable baseline may be able to observe more such late-type stars.) See the TPF-C De-
sign Reference Mission and/or http://sco.stsci.edu/TPF_top100/ for potential lists of stars acces-
sible to TPF-C.

1-9
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Stars of all types are of interest for planet finding, and indeed many arguments have been presented
arguing for and against life on planets around F stars and M stars, for example in Turnbull (2005),
Turnbull and Tarter (2003), Kasting et al. (1993), and Segura et al. (2003).

1.3.1.1.3 Terrestrial Planet Mass Distribution

Summary
The mass distribution of terrestrial planets is unknown. Therefore, the SRD (see Section 1.3.5) rec-
ommends simply assuming a delta function mass distribution at 1 M⊕ in designing the mission and
in planning search strategies. The typical arguments for the terrestrial planet mass distribution are
inconclusive.

Discussion
The inner Solar System contains two relatively large terrestrial planets (Earth at 1 M⊕ and Venus at
0.82 M⊕) and two small ones (Mars at 0.11 M⊕ and Mercury at 0.055 M⊕). Extrapolating this ob-
served mass distribution reliably to other planetary systems is essentially impossible. One can also
examine the radial velocity planet mass distribution. Radial velocity measurements of over 155 extra-
solar giant planets suggest that the number of planets dN between mass M and M+dM follows a
power law distribution with dN/dM ∝ M−1.0 (Marcy et al., 2005). Here, N(M) is the number of plan-
ets with mass > M. Integration of this power law from a smaller mass M1 to a larger mass M2 yields
the result that the number of planets with masses in this range is proportional to log(M2/M1). If this
were true for terrestrial planets as well, then there should be as many planets at 10 M⊕ (or 0.1 M⊕) as
at 1 M⊕. In this case, TPF-C would find predominantly heavier planets because these would be the
easiest to detect. There are, however, good reasons not to follow such an extrapolation. The giant
planet mass distribution function is only good up to ~3 MJ. Above this range, the power law is
closer to dN/dM ∝ M−2.0 (G. Marcy, private comm., 2005). In this regime, the number of planets
between mass M1 and M2 is ∝ (1/M1−1/M2), implying that that there should be ten times as many
planets at 1 M⊕ as at 10 M⊕—a completely different conclusion from the one just drawn. There are
simply not enough observational data to construct a reliable terrestrial planet mass distribution.

The potential of a planet to hold onto its atmosphere and to support life clearly does depend on its
mass; thus, it is still useful to speculate on the lower and upper mass limits for a planet to remain
habitable. A reasonable lower limit on the mass of a habitable planet is ~1/3 M⊕. Planets much
smaller than this are unlikely to be habitable, for two reasons. First, small planets have a good
chance of losing their atmospheres over time. Mars, which has half Earth’s radius, one fourth of
Earth’s surface area, and one ninth of Earth’s mass, does seem to have lost most of its atmosphere
over the course of its history, much of it by way of sputtering by solar wind particles (Kass and
Yung, 1995; Jakosky and Phillips, 2001). Second, small planets like Mars cool off more quickly than
do large planets, leaving them without sufficient internal energy to drive volcanism or plate tecton-
ics. Earth system models show that volcanism and/or plate tectonics is essential to long-term cli-
mate stability because it provides a mechanism for recycling carbonate rocks back into gaseous CO2
(Walker et al., 1981; Kasting, 1993). Earth itself would likely not have remained habitable for billions
of years were it not for the recycling of CO2 by plate tectonics. The lower limit on planetary size to
maintain such activity for 4 billion years or more is not well known. Observationally, Mars appears
to have lost most of its volcanism (and its initially warm climate) within the first 1 billion years of its

1-10
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

history (Pollack, 1979; Carr, 1989). Placing the lower limit for planetary habitability at ~3 Mars
masses is a reasonable assumption.

The upper limit on terrestrial and habitable planets is undetermined. Conventional arguments state
that a planet much larger than ~10 M⊕ should capture significant amounts of gas from its nebular
disk followed by runaway growth into a giant planet (e.g., Pollack et al., 1986). Alternatively, a plane-
tary core that accretes gas after its nascent disk has dissipated, or forms in a hot region of the disk,
can be predominantly rocky even up to 20 to 60 M⊕ (Rafikov, 2004). Planetary habitability is not
necessarily much affected by large mass. Large planets would presumably have hotter interiors than
does Earth and, hence, greater volcanic activity. As long as a planet is big enough to have volcanism,
the basic factors affecting the evolution of its climate and atmosphere are expected to be more or
less the same.

1.3.1.1.4 Planetary Albedo/Contrast

Summary
Detecting Earth-sized planets close to their parent stars requires that the TPF-C telescope be able to
achieve high contrast. As discussed below, the required contrast ratio, C, is ~1.15×10−10 for an
Earth-like planet orbiting a Sun-like star at quadrature (i.e., half illuminated). For the inner and outer
edge of the habitable zone, C is 1.78 times larger and 3.24 times smaller, respectively.

Discussion
If one assumes that a planet scatters light like a Lambertian sphere, i.e., equally in all directions, then
it should be dimmer than its parent star by a factor (Sobolev, 1975)

(1.1)

Here, A is the planet’s Bond (bolometric) albedo, r is its radius, a is its orbital distance (assumed
constant for simplicity), and α is the phase angle of the planet defined as the planet-star-observer
angle. C(α) is wavelength-dependent, so technically A needs to be defined for the wavelength range
of interest (the spherical albedo). At quadrature (α = π/2), C = (2/3)A(r/a)2/π. For an Earth-like
planet orbiting a Sun-like star, A ≅ 0.3 (Goody and Yung, 1989, p. 1; Goode et al., 2001), r = 6371
km, and a = 1.5×108 km, so the contrast ratio C is ~1.15×10−10. In reality, Earth is not a Lambertian
scatterer, so this value is only approximate.

From Eq.(3.1), one can see that the contrast ratio will be better (worse) for planets that are bigger
(smaller) than Earth. If one neglects the possible variation with mass in a planet’s density, a mini-
mum-mass potentially habitable planet of 1/3 M⊕ would have a contrast ratio that is worse than that
of Earth by a factor of (1/3)2/3 ≅ 0.5. A ten-M⊕ planet would have a contrast ratio 102/3 ≅ 4.6 times
higher than Earth. Contrast ratios at the outer edge of the HZ, 1.8 AU, are worse than 1-AU values
by a factor of 1/(1.8)2 ≅ 0.3.

1-11
TPF-C STDT REPORT

1.3.1.1.5 Zodiacal and Exo-zodiacal Backgrounds

Summary
TPF-C must be able to achieve Objective 1 under the assumption that all exoplanetary systems have
an unknown quantity of exozodiacal dust of up to 3 zodis with an unknown pericenter shift of up to
0.07 AU. TPF-C must also be designed to take into account the local zodiacal background—a rela-
tively smooth background of 22–23 magnitudes per square arcsecond that varies slowly around the
sky. The inclusion of exozodiacal dust is essential because the exozodi could complicate planet
searching in two ways: First, it is potentially substantially brighter than the local zodiacal cloud. Sec-
ond, it likely has structure, both radial and azimuthal, on the scale of the resolution of TPF-C.

Discussion
Although its optical depth is only ~10−7, a patch of the solar zodiacal cloud only 0.3 AU across has
roughly the same surface area as an Earth-sized planet. Our zodiacal cloud is comparable to a single
10–100 km diameter asteroid ground to dust, so it is easy to imagine that similar and even brighter
clouds may be common in other planetary systems and that exozodiacal dust may often dominate
the scattered light from the habitable zones of nearby stars. This challenge for TPF was discussed at
length at a dedicated meeting at NASA Ames in 1997 (Backman et al., 1997); the results of that
meeting inform this document.

Figure 1.3-2 shows simulated 0.5-μm images of the solar system as viewed by TPF-C from a distance
of 10 pc. To show how the zodiacal cloud dominates the scattered light, the direct starlight has been
completely removed, revealing only light scattered from the Earth and the solar zodiacal cloud. The
left panel shows the scene with no masks or stops in place; the starlight is magically removed with-
out these aids. This view reveals the central concentration of the zodiacal light. The right panel
shows the same view with an eighth-order mask and matched Lyot stop in place. In this view, the
central light from the dust is blocked, showing the Earth’s light on the right side of the mask, form-
ing an image comparable in brightness to the limb of the zodiacal cloud. Even when the image mask
helps block the zodiacal light, this light still dominates the images.

Coronagraph schemes each provide different rejection of exozodiacal background (See, e.g., Guyon,
2003). For example, coronagraph designs that block the pupil plane with pupil plane masks and Lyot
stops are intrinsically more sensitive to diffuse sources, like dust clouds, compared to point sources,
like planets. The planet/disk contrast decreases with the size of the final PSF; it is highest for the
pupil-mapping scheme, and lowest for the apodized pupil.

As defined in this subsection, the zodi represents today’s zodiacal cloud only. Measurements of He
concentrations in sea floor sediments suggest that the concentration of dust in the solar system has
varied over factor of ~5 during the last 100 million years, from roughly 0.4 to 2 zodis except for rare
peaks tied to individual collisional cascades (Farley et al., 2001). These measurements are probably
accurate to ~50%, based on differences in measurements from detectors located around the Earth.
TPF-C must tolerate a 3-zodi background based on the range of dust fluxes identified in this study.
Are exozodiacal clouds expected to be similar to the Solar System zodiacal cloud? The answer is
“yes” for the following reasons: An exozodiacal cloud is expected to flow from a cloud of small
bodies with a very different distribution than the small bodies in our solar system. A saving grace is
that the secular decay in semimajor axis, a, due to Poynting-Robertson drag, da/dt, is roughly in-

1-12
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

versely proportional to the distance from the star (Wyatt & Whipple 1950); thus, continuity dictates
that a steady state cloud that is not collisional approaches a uniform face-on optical depth interior to
the source of the particles. Sometimes it makes sense to use an approximation for the zodi—for ex-
ample, in an observing simulation limited by computer time. In this circumstance, it is common to
use a 23 magnitude per square arcsecond uniform background for a solar type star. This is not rec-
ommended here, because the zodi brightness should scale with the star’s brightness (i.e., absolute
magnitude). Using a constant zodi background will therefore confuse the target star choice. A sec-
ond reason for not adopting a uniform zodi background is that the zodi brightness scales with disk
inclination. A limitation to the zodi usage proposed here (Appendix 1.B) is that dust clouds that are
>100 times denser than our zodiacal cloud may be collisionally depleted in their centers; hence, the
utility of the solar-system analogy begins to fail at ~100 zodis. Therefore, in the range of 1–100 zo-
dis we adopt as our model a cloud with uniform optical depth and infinite radial extent.

Figure 1.3-2. The solar system, viewed by TPF-C from 10 pc away, at λ=0.5 µm: (left) with no
masks, but the direct starlight magically removed, and (right) with an eighth-order mask and
matched Lyot stop. Zodiacal dust dominates the images.

The pericenter shift is important because a coronagraph may accentuate the disk asymmetry, pro-
ducing an image with an apparent peak near the inner working angle that can easily be as bright as an
exoearth. Although only one debris disk—the solar system—clearly shows resonant trapping of dust
by a planet, several known debris disks (HR 4796, Fomalhaut, Vega) show large-scale asymmetries
that may reflect secular perturbations from an extrasolar planet on an eccentric orbit. In an optically-
thin disk, the main secular effect caused by a planet on an eccentric orbit is a translation in the cen-
ter of light from the disk along the direction away from the pericenter of the planet's orbit, an effect
called pericenter shift. When an exozodiacal cloud with pericenter shift is imaged through a corona-

1-13
TPF-C STDT REPORT

graph the coronagraph may accentuate this asymmetry, producing an image with an apparent peak
near the inner working angle that can easily be as bright as an exoearth. Fortunately, this translation
and the resulting surface brightness peak are stationary on time scales of tens of thousands of years,
so re-observation of a system and spectroscopic measurements should allow one to distinguish this
dust cloud feature from a real orbiting planet.

Figure 1.3-3. The effect of pericenter shift. The same system as in Figure 1.3-2, but with no Earth
and with 0.1 AU of pericenter shift in the zodiacal cloud, creating a brightness asymmetry that
mimics a terrestrial planet.

1.3.1.1.6 Number of Stars to Search

Summary
The number of stars TPF-C should search depends on η⊕, the assumed frequency of Earth-like
planets, and the required completeness per star. Here η⊕ is defined as the fraction of observed stars
that have at least one potentially habitable planet (see Section 1.2.8). Estimates for the value of η⊕
are highly uncertain because no terrestrial-mass planets around main sequence stars have been de-
tected. Even though the true value of η⊕ is not yet known, one must assume something about its
value in order to decide how many stars TPF-C should observe. Assuming η⊕ = 0.1 is reasonable
and conservative, based on the arguments below.

Discussion
The only empirical data that bear on the value of η⊕ come from ground-based planet searches,
mostly from radial velocity (RV) data. According to these data, the fraction of single stars for which

1-14
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

planetary companions have already been found is ~0.07 (Marcy et al., 2005). The detected planets,
~155 total (as of 6/16/05), were mostly found using RV and are within 5 AU of their parent stars.
The RV technique is clearly biased towards finding large planets that are close their parent stars and
that have short orbital periods. Extrapolation of the RV data based on residual stellar motions (indi-
cating companions for which only part of an orbit has been seen) suggests that ~12% of stars have
giant planets within 20 AU (ibid.). The difference between these two fractions (0.12−0.07 = 0.05)
represents the fraction of stars that have giant planets between 5 AU and 20 AU and, hence, may
resemble our Solar System. If these planetary systems do indeed contain terrestrial planets, then a
conservative estimate for η⊕ is 0.05. More realistically, many of the observed stars that do not ex-
hibit measurable residual motions may still have sub-Jupiter-sized giant planets at large distances,
along with terrestrial planets at small distances. So, the real value of η⊕ could be as high as 0.8–0.9.
The only stars that almost certainly do not have habitable planets are those for which a giant planet
has been found orbiting near or inside the HZ.

If planets are distributed randomly around nearby stars, a conservative estimate of the expectation
value for the number of potentially habitable planets that will be found is NPHP = η⊕ Nstars, where
Nstars is the number of stars searched. (NPHP could be greater than this if some stars have more than
one potentially habitable planet.) This estimate assumes a 100% complete search of each star’s entire
habitable zone. A minimal requirement for TPF-C is that the expectation value for the number of
potentially habitable planets found should be greater than one. If one stipulates that NPHP should be
3, then Nstars would need to be ~30. For a search that was 90% complete, Nstars would need to be
30/0.9 ≅ 33 in order to have an expectation value of 3 potentially habitable planets found.

A star sample size of ~30 would also provide a strong upper bound on η⊕ should planets not be
found. If a 100% complete search of 30 stars revealed no planets, the odds that η⊕ ≥ 0.1 would be
0.930 ≅ 0.04. Hence, one could say with >95% certainty that η⊕ ≤ 0.1. This does not imply that the
mission should only search for planets around the closest 30 stars. Exactly the same expectation
value for NPHP and nearly the same upper limit on η⊕ could be derived by surveying half the habit-
able zone around 60 stars. The actual mission should be designed to search for planets as efficiently
as possible by targeting stars for which the chances of finding potentially habitable planets are the
highest.

Maximizing the probability of finding potentially habitable planets is a sensible way to optimize the
TPF-C mission; however, it should not be the only consideration. In practice, any such optimization
process will entail making assumptions about planetary orbital distances, eccentricities, albedos,
phase functions, and most importantly planetary size distributions. None of these factors can be ac-
curately known in advance of the mission; hence, no search strategy can be truly “optimal”. Given
this constraint, it makes sense to also ensure that TPF-C will be able to find potentially habitable
planets in systems with which we are familiar, i.e., in our own Solar System. It would be a grave mis-
take, for example, to design a system that was capable of finding 10-M⊕ planets, but was incapable
of finding Earth. After all, there may be no terrestrial planets larger than Earth. So, regardless of the
desire to maximize the number of potentially habitable planets located, TPF-C must also be capable
of finding terrestrial planets like the ones in our own Solar System.

1-15
TPF-C STDT REPORT

1.3.1.2 Characterizing Planetary Orbits

Objective 2: To measure orbital parameters for any terrestrial planets that are discovered

1.3.1.2.1 Determination of Planetary Orbits

Summary
Determination of planetary orbits is an integral part of identifying potentially habitable planets. In-
deed, one cannot know for sure whether a planet resides in the habitable zone of its parent star
without having at least a crude determination of its orbit. A more distant planet, viewed from a posi-
tion somewhat behind the star, may appear to be close to it based on a single observation. Hence,
multiple observations of each planet-harboring star will be required. The number of visits needed in
order to determine a planet’s orbit depends on the measurement error, which is something that is
not yet known at this stage of mission planning.

Discussion
Estimating the planetary orbit is important for at least three reasons: (1) The planetary distance from
the star regulates the planetary temperature and therefore determines habitability. (2) The dynamical
structure of a planetary system, which comprises the size, shape, and alignment of the orbits, can be
interpreted in terms of the formative and evolutionary history of the system. (3) Predicting the fu-
ture observability of a planet, which is critical for efficiently scheduling TPF-C, demands an estimate
of the orbit.

The theory of the photometric orbit is the union of the theory of the Keplerian revolution with the
theory of planetary photometry:

Aeff Φ(β )
Δmag = –2.5 log (1)
πr2

where Δmag is the ratio of the planetary flux to the stellar flux, expressed as a stellar magnitude; Aeff
is the effective area, defined as the area of the planetary disk times the geometric albedo; Φ(β) is the
phase function; and r is the distance between the planet and star. Therefore, aside from the phase
function, a solution for the photometric orbit comprises seven parameters, six dynamical and one
photometric. The dynamical parameters are (1) semimajor axis, (2) eccentricity, (3-5) three Euler an-
gles to orient the orbit in space, and (6) the mean anomaly at some specific time. The photometric
parameter is (7) Aeff.

For Earth-like planets, the constant factor in Kepler’s Third Law, relating the orbital period and the
semimajor axis, involves only the stellar mass, which can be estimated from the spectral type of the
star.

Logically, the unknown phase function introduces additional parameters, which future analysis of
actual data may require for good fits. For now, however, a reasonable first step in the analysis phase
of the TPF-C project is to assume the Lambertian phase function in both the preparation of Monte
Carlo planets and in the analysis of datasets based on computer “observations” of those planets.

1-16
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

This assumption effectively removes phase-functional parameters from consideration in the orbital
solution, with little or no compromise to the validity of the analysis of the requirement for estimat-
ing the orbit. (The practical implications of assuming the Lambertian phase function could be ex-
plored by using alternative phase functions to prepare the Monte Carlo planets, while retaining the
Lambertian phase function in the orbital solutions.)

Solving for the photometric orbit from a direct-imaging data set is a new research problem. Each
data point is a seven-vector comprising the two-dimensional position relative to the star and the un-
certainties (x, δx, y, δy), the relative brightness and its uncertainty (Δmag, δΔmag), and the time (t). A
solution of the photometric orbit is a minimum of χr2 in the seven-dimensional space of the theo-
retical parameters, where the reduced χ2 statistic is defined as:

⎡⎛ 2 2 2⎤
N
X(t k ) − xk ⎞ ⎛ Y (t k ) − yk ⎞ ⎛ ΔMAG(t k ) − Δmagk ⎞ ⎥
∑⎢⎜⎝ δ x ⎟⎠ + ⎜⎝ δ y ⎟⎠ + ⎜⎝
⎢
δΔmagk
⎟
⎠ ⎥⎦
k =1 ⎣ k k
, χ r2 ≡ (2)
N −7

where N is the number of data points. A unique solution is a global minimum of χr2.

Three measurements are sufficient for an orbital solution, which may or may not be useful. It is pre-
cisely this question that must be addressed by Monte Carlo studies: how many data points, of what
quality, are needed to obtain a useful orbital solution for a given planet (or a faction of possible
planets) detected for a given TPF-C target star. Meanwhile, before such an analysis has been com-
pleted, it is still possible to make some basic statements about the situation:

1. Using the technique of “Monte Carlo projection” introduced by Brown (2004, ApJ 610:1079–
1092), it is possible to obtain probabilistic predictions of future detectability even when the data set
does not support an accurate orbital solution. This technique may be helpful recovering planets
based on observations at the first epoch of detectability, which will never cover a complete orbit.

2. Monte Carlo projection can also be used to determine the probability that a given data set is com-
patible with a habitable-zone orbit, even when the data set does not support an accurate orbital solu-
tion.

3. As illustrated in Figure 1.3-4, observational access to the photometric orbit is limited. A proper
analysis may find that the inner working angle, limiting sensitivity, and astrometric accuracy of TPF-
C must be improved to enable a useful orbital solution with sufficient probability.

4. Assuming photon-limited astrometry, and specifying that the coordinates x and y lie in the direc-
tions of the long and short dimensions of the elliptical primary mirror, respectively,

FWHM thin FWHM fat

δ x = 0.5 d and δ y = 0.5 d
SNR SNR

where SNR is the signal-to-noise ratio, d is the stellar distance, and FWHM is the full width at half
maximum of the point-spread function. Thus, astrometric accuracy can be improved by both nar-

1-17
TPF-C STDT REPORT

rowing the point-spread function—by increasing the mirror size or reducing or eliminating a Lyot
pupil mask, for example—or by achieving high SNR, by longer integration times.

Figure 1.3-4. Limited access to the photoastrometric orbit for the purposes of determining the or-
bit and predicting future observability. The curves depict the variations in separation and delta
magnitude over one orbital period for ten randomly selected habitable-zone planets around a Sun-
like star. Each curve is suppressed where the planet is not detectable, which is for separations
smaller than the inner working distance (vertical red line) and for delta magnitudes greater than
the limiting sensitivity (horizontal red line). (This plot assumes a limiting delta magnitude of 25,
and a value of the product of the distance to the star and the angular size of the central field ob-
scuration equal to 0.68 AU.) For exposures of the same depth as the searching observations, only
the unsuppressed portions of the curves can be detected and contribute data points for the orbital
solution and estimations of future observability.

1-18
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

1.3.1.2.2 Orbital Phase Space

Summary
In order to model TPF-C’s detection potential it is necessary to make assumptions about orbital ec-
centricities and semi-major axes. Uniform distributions of eccentricities < 0.1 and uniform spacing
of the logarithm of the semi-major axis are adopted for this SRD.

Discussion
A reasonable assumption is that most planets reside in planetary systems. There is little or no reason
to base TPF search strategies on the orbital characteristics of observed extrasolar giant planets, many
of which are highly eccentric, as this distribution is heavily biased by selection effects.

A better basis for estimation of eccentricities is provided by the two most massive terrestrial planets,
Venus and Earth. Located in or near the habitable zone in our own Solar System, both planets have
eccentricities < 0.1, and they retain these low eccentricities over time scales comparable to the life-
time of the solar system (Laskar, 1994). Mars also has an eccentricity < 0.1, but its value may occa-
sionally increase to ~0.2 as a consequence of gravitational perturbations by Jupiter and the other
planets (ibid.). However, Mars is smaller than the lower mass limit adopted here (0.3 M⊕) for a habit-
able planet. The SRD adopts the reasonable assumption that potentially habitable planets have ec-
centricities < 0.1.

Planetary semi-major axes are consistent with geometric spacing in our own Solar System and in sys-
tems with multiple giant exoplanets (Kuchner, 2004). The reason for this is likely related to consid-
erations of dynamical stability. Planets tend to space themselves geometrically in orbital distance (e.g.,
Gladman, 1993), meaning that the ratio of orbital periods of adjacent planets is comparable. For ex-
ample, for the solar system planets this ratio is between 1.6 and 2.5 (neglecting only the pair Mars-
Jupiter). The stability requirement can also be given in terms of orbital spacing. A given system is
stable if the planets are spaced by more than a given number of Hill radii, where RHILL = a
(M/3M*)1/3 (Chambers et al., 1996). Here, a represents a planet's orbital distance, M is the planet’s
mass, and M* is the stellar mass. If planetary spacing, da, depends on RHILL, which in turn scales line-
arly with a, then da/a is constant (or at least independent of a), implying logarithmic (or geometric)
spacing.

1.3.1.3 Characterizing Planets by Their Color

Objective 3: To distinguish among planets, and between planets and other objects, through
measurements of planet color

Summary
Measurements of planet brightness in several broad wavelength bands, at a spectral resolution of
roughly 4, are useful to estimate a planet’s nature. The ratio of these values to the star’s intrinsic
brightness in the same bands provides information about the wavelength dependence of the planet’s
albedo. With observations in at least 3 such bands, the planet’s color can be determined and com-
pared with other planets.

1-19
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Discussion
Once the existence of a planet has been established, a zeroth-order estimate of its nature can be ob-
tained from its semi-major axis and its brightness in the detection wavelength band. The planet
brightness can be expressed as a planet-star contrast or “delta-magnitude” with respect to its parent
star. The absolute planet brightness is derived from the TPF-C measured planet-star contrast to-
gether with a ground-based stellar brightness measurement. One can make a zeroth-order classifica-
tion of the planet as a gas giant or terrestrial planet, based purely on its intrinsic brightness. At a
given orbital radius, a gas giant planet should be brighter simply because it is bigger.

To get a better estimate of the planet’s nature, the next step will be to measure its brightness in sev-
eral broad wavelength bands, at a resolution of roughly 4. Assuming observations in at least 3 such
bands, the planet can be placed on a color-color diagram. Filters that match particular absorption
bands, such as methane, would provide an even finer level of characterization.

Figure 1.3-5 illustrates the utility of color. The planets in our Solar System cluster in distinct areas of
the diagram, according to their types. The rocky planets with little or no atmosphere (Mercury,
Moon, Mars) cluster together in the “red-red” corner of the diagram, and the most methane-rich gas
giants (Uranus, Neptune) cluster on the opposite “blue-blue” corner of the diagram. In between
these extremes, the less methane-rich gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn) and Titan cluster. Finally, Earth and
Venus each occupy distinct positions, owing to their flat spectra with a blue up-turn and down-turn,
respectively. One may anticipate that extrasolar planets exhibiting varied surface and atmospheric
composition, geologic histories, and cloud types will populate other regions of such a diagram.

Figure 1.3-5. Color-color diagram for Solar System objects. (Courtesy of W. Traub)

Great care must be taken when interpreting color, however, because multiple physical processes
might produce similar colors. A Venus with different particle size clouds, for example, might have a
similar color to an object like Earth’s moon with somewhat different fractions of maria and high-
lands terrain. Experience gained from higher resolution spectral characterization of the most acces-

1-20
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

sible planets will ultimately determine the utility of color for reliably characterizing planets. Certainly
color will be useful for recognizing new classes of objects and for setting priorities for planning ob-
servations. In the most favorable case, if solar system trends are found to generally hold, color might
be indicative of albedo, and hence allow one to estimate planetary radius and mass for objects below
the SIM detection threshold.

1.3.1.4 Characterizing Planets by Spectroscopy

Objective 4: To characterize at least some terrestrial planets spectroscopically, searching for

absorption caused by O2, O3, H2O, and possibly CO2 and CH4. It would also be highly desir-
able to measure Rayleigh scattering and photosynthetic pigments. Such information may
provide evidence of habitability and even of life itself.

1.3.1.4.1 Spectral Range

Summary
TPF-C is designed as a planet characterization mission, as well as a planet detection mission. For
stars not too different from the Sun, planet detection is accomplished most easily at wavelengths in
or just beyond the visible, 0.5-0.8 μm, where the photon flux is highest and where silicon-based
CCDs are most sensitive. Given sufficient spectral resolution (R ≡ λ/Δλ > 70), this wavelength
range would permit the detection of O2, H2O, and possibly O3 on a planet like present Earth (Des-
Marais et al., 2002; Figs. 1 and 2). Extended wavelength coverage to 1.1 microns, or even 1.7 mi-
crons, would be desirable.

Discussion
The strongest O2 band is the A band at 0.76 μm. O2 is considered an excellent biomarker gas, at
least for planets orbiting within the liquid water HZ (Owen, 1980; Sagan et al., 1993). Possible “false
positives” for life, i.e., mechanisms for producing high abiotic O2 concentrations, have been identi-
fied for planets orbiting outside the HZ (Kasting, 1997; DesMarais et al., 2002). Specifically, runaway
greenhouse planets like early Venus or frozen planets somewhat larger than Mars might build up
high atmospheric O2 concentrations abiotically. However, knowledge of the planet’s orbit, combined
with other spectroscopic indicators, could be used to decide whether the presence of O2 is evidence
for life. Models of phase-dependent terrestrial planet spectra currently under development suggest
that there may be optimal phases at which to observe specific spectral features (e.g., O3 ; V. Mead-
ows, in preparation).

Although data over a spectral range of 0.5–0.8 microns would provide useful information about a
planet like the modern Earth, being confined to this wavelength region would greatly limit the ability
of TPF-C to characterize other types of terrestrial planets. For example, Venus and Mars are both
relatively featureless at visible wavelengths but show well-defined absorption features in the near-
infrared (a). In particular, CO2 has bands at 1.05, 1.2, and 1.6 μm that should be detectable at a spec-
tral resolution R = 70, especially for planets with dense CO2 atmospheres (b). Identifying CO2 in a
planet’s atmosphere would provide strong confirmation that it was a terrestrial (rocky) planet. Giant
planets lack appreciable CO2 because equilibrium chemistry generally favors CH4 in their cool, re-
ducing observable atmospheres, and CO at depth.

1-21
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 1.3-6. Spectra of Venus, Earth, and Mars. a) Full-resolution synthetic disk-averaged albedo
spectra (from Meadows, 2006). Synthetic Earth spectra are shown for both uniform high cirrus
cloud cover, and as a fit to Earthshine observations of the gibbous Earth. The Venus spectrum
was approximated to a disk average and has been multiplied by 0.6 to fit the plot. The Mars and
Earth spectra are disk-averages of 3-D spatially- and spectrally-resolved Virtual Planetary Labora-
tory models of the Earth and Mars (Tinetti et al., 2005, 2006). For the observed Earth, which was
ocean-dominated with relatively little cloud cover, the Rayleigh scattering (0.45-0.6 μm) is pro-
nounced, but the ozone is less apparent. The ozone absorption is much more pronounced for the
Earth with cloud cover, increasing the difficulty of identifying the Rayleigh scattering component.
b) Degraded albedo spectra (R = 70) of the Venus, Earth (gibbous phase), and Mars
spectra shown in panel ‘a’

1-22
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Extended wavelength coverage would also be useful in characterizing a planet like the early Earth.
Geologists are fairly certain that O2 and O3 were virtually absent from Earth’s atmosphere prior to
~2.3 billion years ago, despite the fact that life had originated by 3.5 billion years ago or earlier (Hol-
land, 1994; Farquhar et al., 2000). Hence, a TPF-type mission launched by aliens from some extraso-
lar planet at some arbitrary time during the last 4.5 billion years would stand a good chance of miss-
ing the fact that Earth was inhabited, if that mission searched only in the visible. A mission that
searched out to ~1.1 μm, however, would likely have picked up the signal of CH4 at 1.0 μm (Figure
1.3-6a,b). (CH4 has absorption bands at even shorter wavelengths, but these are weaker and would
be difficult to distinguish from overlapping H2O bands.) Computer models of an anoxic Archean
Earth (2.5-3.8 billion years ago) predict that the atmosphere may have contained as much as 0.1-1
percent CH4, most of which was produced by biological activity (Pavlov et al., 2000, 2001; Catling et
al., 2001; Kharecha et al., 2005). Seeing such a signature would not necessarily prove that life was
present, as CH4 can also be produced abiotically by such processes as serpentinization of ultramafic
rocks (Berndt et al., 1996; Kelley et al., 2001; Kasting and Catling, 2003). However, even if CH4 is
not a reliable bioindicator, seeing it in a planet’s atmosphere would provide an indication of atmos-
pheric redox state and would likely promote further observation to determine whether the signal was
indeed biological in origin.

It may be possible, around some stars at least, to look even further into the near infrared. A mission
that was capable of taking spectra out to 1.7 μm would be capable of looking for the signal of CO2
at 1.6 μm. This might be useful in characterizing certain early-Earth type planets, as the shorter
wavelength CO2 bands may be unobservable because of their weaker band strengths and/or overlap
with H2O and CH4 bands (a). Although the 1.6-μm CO2 band is not observable at R=70 on a planet
like modern Earth (b), it might well be observable on planets farther out in the HZs of their parent
stars. As discussed earlier (Section 1.3.1.1.1), such planets are expected to build up dense (0.1–10
bar) CO2 atmospheres as a consequence of the negative feedback provided by the carbonate-silicate
cycle. This information would be particularly useful for planets on which CH4 was also detected, as
CH4 is often considered as being characteristic of giant planets.

1.3.1.4.2 Spectral Resolution

Summary
A high enough spectral resolution is needed to resolve absorption features of interest to TPF-C. A
minimum spectral resolution of 70 over the entire TPF-C bandpass is required. This minimum num-
ber is set by the O2 feature in Earth’s spectrum, as well as to enable TPF-C to search for absorption
bands of unspecified gases or surface minerals.

Discussion
The reflectivity spectrum of the Earth, for many different abundances of its main detectable atmos-
pheric constituents, was studied by Des Marais et al (2002). In that paper the appearance of spectral
bands of H2O, CO2, O3, CH4, N2O, and O2 was calculated. The effect of clouds on these spectra was
also estimated. In particular, the location and full-width at half-maximum of each major spectral
band was tabulated, along with the strength of each band as a function of atmospheric mixing ratio.
From this tabulation, one can obtain first-order estimates of the width and depth of each spectral
band, for any value of mixing ratio, all assuming an Earth-like atmosphere. See 1.4.1 for a reproduc-
tion of the table.

1-23
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 1.3-7. a) Synthetic spectra of hypothetical Earth atmospheres at various times during the
planet’s history (from Meadows 2006). Modern—335 ppmv CO2, 1.6 ppmv CH4; Proterozoic (1.5
Gyr ago)—335 ppmv CO2, 100 ppmv CH4; Archean (3.0 Gyr ago)—2000 ppmv CO2, 1000 ppmv CH4.
Model atmospheres and spectra calculated using techniques described in detail in Segura et al.
(2003). b) Same spectra, degraded to R = 70 resolution.

Other factors besides spectral resolution are important for TPF-C to be able to identify spectral fea-
tures. In addition to knowing the width and wavelength location of a given feature, one also needs
to specify the likely depth of each feature, or alternatively the depth that one would like to be able to
detect. Here one needs to consider the likely effect of clouds, which will make spectral lines less

1-24
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

deep that in a clear atmosphere, and also the effects of mixing ratios and pressure, both of which are
roughly equally important for saturated lines.

For each case posed, the count rate in each detection channel can be estimated and the integration
times determined. One will need to make sure that reference continuum levels can be measured in a
given spectrum. One should also consider the effects of spectral confusion, if the noise is too great
or the spectral resolution not adequate to distinguish features, or if we encounter a planet with a
completely unexpected spectral signature.

1.3.2 Giant Planets and Planetary System Architecture Science

The central science of the “Giant Planets and Planetary System Architecture” theme is: to understand
the range of planets and planetary architectures in other systems. The architecture of each stellar system re-
flects the planetary formation process and influences the evolution of all the planets within the sys-
tem, including those within the habitable zone. An understanding of system architecture leads to a
more complete understanding of how an evolving planetary system becomes habitable.

The presence, distribution, and atmospheric composition of giant planets within a planetary system
provide information on the formation of that system. Giant planet atmospheres may provide the
most accessible record of the abundance and distribution of key volatile species—particularly wa-
ter—in remote systems. Furthermore, the planets in a planetary system are coupled like masses on a
string; the presence of a planet (especially a giant planet) on an eccentric orbit anywhere in a system
can cause an otherwise habitable-looking terrestrial planet to have eccentricity variations that would
take it far from the habitable zone every 10,000 to 100,000 years. Thus, a terrestrial planet discov-
ered by TPF-C can be most thoroughly assessed for habitability if the other planets in the planetary
system are identified and characterized.

From a planetary architecture perspective, the properties of a planet that are of greatest interest are:
mass, radius, effective temperature, orbit, and atmospheric composition. Mass and radius provide
information on bulk composition. Effective temperature traces both evolutionary history and at-
mospheric energy balance; understanding the latter requires knowledge of the planet's orbital pa-
rameters. Atmospheric composition yields clues to the origin and evolution of the planet. In our So-
lar System, the non-noble gas atmospheric composition of solar system giants (Figure 1.3-8) pro-
vides a fingerprint of early planetary formation processes, a starting point for discussions of the ori-
gin and volatile enrichment of giant planet atmospheres. By comparing atmospheric composition as
a function of mass and orbital distance among different stellar systems, an entirely new framework
for understanding the origin of giant planets can be constructed. In turn, the chemical and dynamical
environment of any terrestrial planets in the habitable zone will be elucidated.

Giant planets influence the position and spacing of the terrestrial planets, as well as the material
available to build them, by regulating the transport of volatiles within a planetary system. Interac-
tions of small, organic-rich planetesimals with migrating giant planets are thought to play a signifi-
cant role in delivering comets and perhaps asteroids into the inner solar system, and thus in estab-
lishing the prebiotic inventories of planetary objects, including Earth (e.g. Pierazzo & Chyba, 1999).
The most volatile-rich meteorites, carbonaceous chondrites, are known to contain several types of
amino acids; comets appear to contain up to ten times more organics than carbonaceous chondrites.

1-25
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Objects larger than few kilometers in diameter are the most important contributors of extraterres-
trial material to Earth (Anders, 1989). In the past, their usefulness in delivering complex organic
molecules to a planetary surface was thought to be weakened by the extreme thermodynamic condi-
tions occurring during an impact event. However, theoretical and laboratory studies have recently
suggested that non-negligible fractions of complex organics can survive the shock events associated
with large impacts, and secondary organics have been synthesized in strong shock events in the labo-
ratory (Peterson et al., 1997; Blank et al. 2001). The atmospheric compositions of the detected giant
planets yield clues to the magnitude of the bombardment flux in the inner stellar system of TPF-C
target stars. Determination of the orbital state (semimajor axis, eccentricity, and orbital plane) of ex-
trasolar giant planets could also have significant implications for the habitability of terrestrial planets
with that system.

Figure 1.3-8. Compositional variation of giant planets in our Solar System. The measured atmos-
pheric composition of solar system giant planets (neglecting the noble gases), expressed as a
ratio to solar abundance (Lodders 2003), provides a fingerprint of the giant planet formation proc-
ess. For example, the near-uniform enrichment of volatiles in Jupiter’s atmosphere has been in-
terpreted (Owen et al. 1999) as evidence that planetesimals bombarded the atmosphere over time
(e.g., Atreya et al. 2003). Such planetesimals could also have delivered volatiles to the Solar Sys-
tem's habitable zone.

Finally, giant planets that formed in or migrated into the habitable zone, though not themselves hab-
itable, may have moons. Thus, giants in the HZ may offer a habitable abode even while they disrupt
the formation of a terrestrial planet. similarly, if a water-rich world like the ice giant Neptune resided
at 3 AU (as is seen elsewhere), would it be habitable? By studying ice giants and how they are placed
in other systems, a different definition of "habitable environment" might emerge.

High-precision radial velocity methods on the ground, and SIM in space, may measure or place use-
ful limits on the mass and orbital parameters for most massive planets detectable by TPF-C. Never-
theless, TPF-C working alone-or in synergy with other spacecraft-will be able to place limits on the
radii, albedos, and effective temperatures of detected planets and, in particular, probe their atmos-

1-26
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

pheric composition. Only by characterizing all of these aspects of detected giants will TPF-C be able
to address issues such as those raised above.

1.3.2.1 Detecting Giant Planets and Solar System Twins

Objective 5: To directly detect giant planets of Jupiter's size and albedo at a minimum of 5
AU around solar type stars, and determine orbits for such giant planets when possible, given
the finite lifetime of the TPF-C mission

Summary
In our Solar System—the only known habitable planetary system to date—Jupiter was the primary
mass driver for planet formation and evolution. The presence of a Jupiter-like planet is therefore
important to understanding terrestrial planet formation and the origin of the exozodiacal dust. Jupi-
ter’s (mass-scaled) location at 5 (M/M~)2 AU thus sets an absolute lower boundary for the outer
working angle (OWA) of the telescope. An outer working angle of 10 (M/M~)1/2 AU for giant
planet detection is desired to permit an assessment of systems with architectures similar to our Solar
System (e.g., to detect Saturn-like planets).

Figure 1.3-9. Model evolutionary scenarios compared with observed extrasolar planets. By com-
paring architectures of other stellar systems with theory, new insights can be gained into the
planetary formation process. TPF-C should have the capability of detecting a Jupiter twin out to
an Outer Working Angle of 10 AU in systems harboring an Earth twin (diagram courtesy D. Lin).

Discussion
Conventional sequential-formation scenarios for planets also call for a larger OWA than that re-
quired to study terrestrial planets in the HZ. In such theories formation of solid cores with several
M⊕ is followed by the accretion of gas. A critical demarcation point in these scenarios is the location
where the Keplerian velocity of planetesimals around the host star is a substantial fraction (~1/3) of
the escape velocity from the surface of a few-M⊕ core. For ice giant formation in our Solar System,
this demarcation point apparently delineated an outer boundary at around 10 AU, and simulations
also limit the ice-giant formation domain to be of order 10 (M/M~)1/2 AU, independent of host
star metallicity and disk-depletion time scales (Figure 1.3-9). Other factors (e.g., planetary migration,
planetesimal scattering, internal dynamical instability, external stellar perturbation) influence the

1-27
TPF-C STDT REPORT

outer boundary, but only at a fractional level. Thus, for planetary systems like our own, it is desirable
to set the upper limit for the outer working angle to this criterion of 10 (M/M~)1/2 AU.

1.3.2.1.1 Direct Detection of Giant Planets

Summary
Giant planets are interesting in their own right, so the TPF-C camera filter sets should include search
filters optimized for detecting and characterizing giant planets. The TPF-C capability for giant plan-
ets is important because for many primary stars TPF-C could be the major facility for finding giant
planets with semi-major axes at 5 to 10 AU, or giant planets substantially less massive than Jupiter.

Discussion
TPF-C giant planet detection space is complementary to ground-based planet searches, even though
many giant planets visible to TPF-C will already have been detected by other means. For example,
early-type stars and giant planets substantially less massive than Jupiter at 5 to 10 AU from their star
are outside of the current radial velocity (RV) survey planet detection range. RV detections also re-
quire long observational baselines at radii greater than 5 AU, although some massive planets may
show at least linear acceleration trends before TPF-C launches. Ground-based extreme AO (Gemini,
VLTI) may also detect Jupiters at 20 AU (Figure 1.3-10). But challenges increase for ExAO as or-
bital distances decrease (see Section 1.3.4 for further discussion about ground-based capabilities).

Figure 1.3-10. Parameter space uniquely accessible to TPF-C. The purple curve shows the ex-
pected contrast of TPF-C as a function of angular separation from a target star. Crosses indicate
known precise-Doppler planets. The red lines indicate the parameter space potentially accessible
from the ground via interferometry and extreme AO on existing telescopes.

1-28
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

TPF-C giant planet detection space will be complementary to SIM. Because of their large astrometric
signal, giants in large orbits will be readily detected by SIM even though the observational baseline
will be much less than an orbital period. For stars at greater than 6 pc distance, a Neptune-mass
planet at 10 AU could escape SIM detection and yet, depending on its composition (and thus radius
and albedo), still be detectable by TPF-C. Also, should TPF-C survey a set of stars at greater dis-
tances in order to bring the 5–10 AU region within the OWA, this extended set of stars would likely
not have been surveyed by SIM; this would also be true should TPF-C survey young, more distant
stars. Furthermore, some TPF-C survey targets will not be in the SIM sample.

1.3.2.1.2 Giant Planet Orbit Determination

Summary
The orbits of giant planets must be determined in order to know their eccentricities and semi-major
axes. These parameters are important for understanding the giant planets’ gravitational perturbations
on the planetary system. The semi-major axis prescribes the incident radiation on the planet, which
is key for interpreting giant planet colors and spectra. Orbital properties are needed to understand
multiple planet systems and interactions.

Orbit determination is a highly nonlinear problem that will need to be supplemented by any infor-
mation available from radial velocity and from SIM astrometry. (Note that TPF-C is aided greatly by
the maximum SIM time baseline, so launch of SIM 5-10 years before TPF-C would be ideal.) In gen-
eral, the distant giant planets detected by TPF-C will make significantly less than a complete orbit
during the lifetime of TPF-C; hence, the accuracy of the giant planet orbit determination will be a
direct function of astrometric accuracy of TPF-C. Orbital degeneracies may remain even after the
TPF-C nominal mission. Astrometric measurements of giant planet positions should be a high prior-
ity in an extended mission.

Discussion
In general, astrometric accuracy is approximately equal to the PSF width divided by the signal-to-
noise of the point source. All giant-planet orbital determinations will ultimately be limited by finite
astrometric accuracy; thus, TPF-C must achieve a high level of astrometric accuracy. This require-
ment includes, but is not limited to, any effects from an uncertain position of the center star, any
field distortions, and any pixel size uncertainties.

Combining the decade-long astrometric data from SIM and TPF-C with accurate (m/s) radial veloc-
ity surveys over a similar time span, the masses of gas giants can be determined with sufficient accu-
racy to infer their mass-period distribution. This distribution provides vital information on the onset,
rate, and termination of planetesimal coagulation and gas accretion. According to current conven-
tional theoretical models, gas giants can form interior to the snow line only in relatively massive
disks. But around disks with modest masses, gas giants can form rapidly near the snow line and mi-
grate inward during their active accretion phase. Gas-giant growth is terminated by the formation of
gaps, and giant migration may eventually lead to the observed logarithmic semi-major axis distribu-
tion. The early emergence of the gas giants also promotes the accumulation of planetesimals, the
emergence of critical-mass cores, and the formation of additional gas giants just beyond the outer
edge of the gap.

1-29
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Many stars with known planets bear signs of additional planets. The determination of the multiplic-
ity, masses, semi-major axes and dynamical properties of gas giants in multiple-planet systems can
provide valuable constrains on (1) the planet-formation efficiency and time scale, and (2) the origin
of planetary dynamical diversity, such as their semi-major axis and eccentricity distributions.

It will be particularly fruitful to search for gas or ice giants around stars with relatively short-period
planets. The kinematic distribution of such systems (semi-major axes, eccentricities, and inclinations)
can be used to isolate the dominant processes which lead to planetary dynamical diversity. Ideally,
three astrometric points are sufficient to determine the 6 parameters that define a planetary orbit
(assuming the mass of the central star is known). In the realistic limit of finite astrometric accuracy,
meaningful constraints on the planet orbit are only obtained when the planet is seen at a number of
positions widely spaced compared to the astrometric accuracy over a time significant compared to
the orbital period.

1.3.2.1.3 Studies of Known Giant Planets: Orbits, Radii, and Masses

Summary
Many extrasolar giant planets discovered by ground-based radial velocity surveys or by SIM will be
accessible to TPF-C (Figure 1.3-10). Ideally, TPF-C should study many of these planets for orbital
properties and to constrain their radii. The planet radius can be determined for moderate-mass, old
giant planets by using TPF-C and TPF-I data. A planet's radius is key for extracting many of its
properties, including albedo and thermal emission. Together with mass (as determined by radial ve-
locity surveys or by SIM), knowledge of the planet’s radius yields insight into bulk planetary compo-
sition, providing new data for planetary origins studies. A measured radius is equally important for
recognizing new kinds of planets such as super Earths and ocean planets (e.g., Kuchner 2003; see
Figure 1.3-2). Some fraction of TPF-C time should be devoted to targeting known giant and inter-
mediate-mass planets at favorable positions in their orbits to facilitate determinations of mass (with
SIM) and radius (with TPF-I).

Discussion
TPF-C can help to determine orbits or masses for known radial velocity planets. For the radial veloc-
ity planets, for which only M sin(i) is known, TPF-C orbit determinations will provide the inclination
and thus the actual planet mass. SIM will determine the masses and orbits of many of these planets.
However, TPF-C detection of planets measured by SIM breaks degeneracies in the SIM astrometry,
and thus allows lower and/or more accurate masses to be determined.

TPF-C can be used to estimate planet radius. Visible-light-only measurements of planet flux from
TPF-C give the product of planetary albedo and area. Model-based estimates of the albedo (perhaps
informed by the observed phase function for very bright planets) will allow some limits to be placed
on the planetary radius. Mid-infrared measurements of planet thermal emission from TPF-I will con-
strain the combination of planetary temperature and area. Since the planet’s atmospheric tempera-
ture depends upon the absorbed incident radiation and any internal luminosity, a combination of the
visible and mid-IR measurements allows the planetary radius and albedo to, in principle, be derived
if the internal luminosity is known or is small.

Radius is important because giant planets are born hot with large radii, and they contract and cool as
they age (e.g., Baraffe et al. 2003; Burrows et al. 2003). An accurate radius provides a window into a

1-30
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

planet's gross composition, evolutionary history, and the presence of any large unaccounted-for inte-
rior energy source. The well-studied extrasolar giant planet HD209458b, for which the radius has
been determined from transit data, provides an example. The derived value of 1.42 Jupiter radii
(Cody and Sasselov 2002) indicates that the planet is composed predominantly of H and He. Yet
theoretical evolutionary calculations without an added interior energy source disagree with the ob-
served radius by 20–30%.

For some giant planets, however, radius will be challenging to extract since an internal luminosity
must be assumed. For young or massive planets the internal heat flux dominates the atmospheric
energy budget over absorbed incident radiation. For example, nearly half of Jupiter’s current thermal
emission is intrinsic luminosity. As a planet ages, the contribution of the incident flux becomes rela-
tively more important, with intrinsic luminosity paying a lesser role. As main sequence stellar (and
hence planet) ages are typically not known to high accuracy, and as the planet mass will not be per-
fectly known, model-based estimates of the internal luminosity will in some cases be uncertain to
50% or more. Furthermore, internal processes (such as He differentiation, as seen on Saturn) can
substantially affect the internal luminosity. Thus, radii derived by the combination of TPF-C and
TPF-I for massive or young giant planets will generally have an appreciable (up to 30% (Marley et al.
2006)) uncertainty and have limited utility for constraining bulk planetary composition. For planets
older or less massive than Jupiter, the radius uncertainty will be dominated by photometric errors
rather than internal luminosity, and is thus expected to be relatively small, and hence useful.

1.3.2.2 Colors of Giant Planets

Objective 6: To obtain photometry for the majority of detected giant planets, to an accuracy
of 10% in at least three broad spectral bands, and in additional bands for the brightest or
well-placed giants

Summary
As discussed in Section 1.3.1.3, colors can provide some information about giant planets. Colors are
especially sensitive to clouds, as clouds control the amount of scattering in the red, and hence de-
termine the continuum brightness. Colors may be particularly useful for distinguishing ice giants that
are very dark in the red due to strong methane absorption (Neptune/Uranus) from gas giants have
much higher red flux (Jupiter/Saturn). As discussed in Section 1.3.1.3, the limitations of the color
observations are mitigated by spectroscopic observations. The accuracy limit is required to allow
meaningful comparisons to TPF-I data, enabling the determination of albedo and radius.

1.3.2.3 Spectroscopy of Giant Planets

Objective 7: To characterize some detected giant planets spectroscopically, searching for

the absorption features of CH4 and H2O

Summary
TPF-C offers a unique opportunity to spectroscopically characterize a wide variety of planets, includ-
ing those with no solar system analogs in terms of size and mass. Twenty-five of the known precise-
Doppler planets are within reach of TPF-C spectroscopy, providing a ready-made target list for spec-
troscopy even before any new planets are discovered.

1-31
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Discussion
Low-resolution spectra can elucidate the structures and compositions of extrasolar planet atmos-
pheres, even for planets without measured masses or radii. Model spectra for generic planets of a
variety of masses and ages have been computed at a range of wavelengths (e.g., Marley et al. 1999;
Burrows et al. 2003; Burrows et al. 2004). Low-resolution spectroscopy can provide a first estimates
of planetary size, surface gravity, and temperature by detecting molecular species (e.g., signatures of
H2O, CH4, alkali metals, and Rayleigh scattering). Giant planet spectra are highly sensitive to clouds
(Marley et al. 1999). Metallicity and photochemistry also play a role in determining spectral shape.
Different spectroscopic features are present at different temperatures; for example, the hottest plan-
ets will likely show alkali metals, cooler planets will contain H2O vapor features, while on planets as
cold as Jupiter almost all water has condensed into clouds, leaving CH4 and NH3. Measurements of
atmospheric composition as a function of orbital radius (obtainable with low resolution spectra, at
least for methane and water) can elucidate the radial variation of composition, and hence degree of
volatile enrichment.

As an illustration, Figure 1.3-11 shows optical spectra of Solar System giants with their prominent
methane absorption lines. Even the low resolution expected of TPF-C permits discrimination be-
tween gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn) and the colder ice giants (Uranus, Neptune). Thus, clouds indicate
the first-order temperature structure of a planet’s atmosphere. The strong CH4 bands present on all
four solar system giants are likely to be weaker on terrestrial planets, where those species have been
photodissociated, and their H escaped to space.

1-32
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 1.3-11. Spectra of the local giant planets.

Top: Ground-based spectra adapted from Karkoschka (1994). Bottom: Same spectra degraded to
the minimum spectral resolution of 70. The difference between ice giants (blue) and gas giants
can be easily discerned, as can the dominant methane absorption features at 619, 727, 790, and
890 nm. However, R=70 resolution results in significant loss of structure that is diagnostic of de-
tailed atmospheric chemistry.

However, sometimes physical parameters (including the presence and composition of clouds, the
mixing ratios of the atomic and molecular species, and atmospheric structure) can be degenerate at
visible wavelengths. Modest extension of the wavelength range to beyond the 0.889-µm methane
band would be extremely useful for interpreting the spectra of colder planets. Optimal coverage for
more massive planets would be greatly enhanced by pushing the wavelength coverage out to 1.7 µm
(Figure 1.3-12).

1-33
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 1.3-12. Model Spectra of Giant Planets.

Figure 1.3-12 demonstrates the advantages of pushing beyond 1 µm for planet characterization. Top:
Four giant planet models are shown, each at 5 AU and with Jupiter's mass. At Jupiter's age, wave-
lengths longward of 1 µm provide the best discriminator between a Jupiter "twin" (black) and mod-
els with higher metallicity (red) or less fractional cloud cover (orange). A younger Jupiter (green)
would be warmer, showing thermal emission and ammonia absorption. In general, the near-IR of-
fers: significantly enhanced sensitivity to methane since the absorption bands are stronger; greater
wavelength coverage to characterize Mie scattering by clouds; and sensitivity to thermal emission in
warmer planets. Bottom: the model spectrum of a Jupiter "twin" (orange in this panel; black in the
upper panel) is compared with an actual Jupiter spectrum shortward of 1 µm (Karkoschka 1994); the
dash line longward of 1 µm is from Clark and McCord (1979) scaled to match the short-wavelength
spectra at 1 µm. Models courtesy Jonathan Fortney and Mark Marley.

1.3.3 Circumstellar Disks and Planet Formation Science

TPF-C is likely to find significantly more dust disks around nearby stars than it will Earth-like plan-
ets. This section discusses requirements for TPF-C that will allow it to perform groundbreaking disk
science. Since disks around young stars are considered the site of planet formation, this chapter also
touches on planet-formation issues that TPF-C can potentially address. Disks as an astrophysical
noise source are discussed in Section 1.3.1.1.5.

1-34
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

1.3.3.1 Survey of Dusty Debris around Solar-type Stars

Objective 8. To measure the location, density, and extent of dust particles around nearby
stars, in order to develop a comparative understanding of asteroid and Kuiper belts.

Along with giant planets and terrestrial planets, small bodies (asteroids and comets) form the third
major component of a planetary system. The location and density of small body populations can
affect terrestrial planet habitability by determining the frequency of climate-altering impact events.
To fully understand the long-term habitability of a terrestrial planet, knowledge of any surrounding
small body population is needed. Do all planetary systems contain asteroid and Kuiper Belts? Can
asteroid belts form at any orbital semi-major axis location, intermixed between any combination of
terrestrial and giant planets, or are they preferentially found at the inner edge of the “snow line” be-
tween the terrestrial and giant planet zones? What is the relative frequency of cold debris disks and
exozodiacal dust disks over the optical depth range 1-100 zodis? Do the properties of debris disks
and exozodiacal dust disks depend on the host star age or spectral type? To address these key issues
in comparative planetology, imaging of exozodiacal dust disks and Kuiper Belts is needed across a
broad sample of solar-type stars.

For the region corresponding to the inner solar system (orbital radii of 0.7–5 AU), TPF-C’s terres-
trial planet detection survey will simultaneously accomplish a sensitive survey for exozodiacal dust
down below an optical depth of 1 zodi. To provide a uniform survey of exozodiacal dust, first-
epoch planet search imaging should be completed around all the survey targets, even if the target is
quickly determined to have a dust inventory that is too high for terrestrial planet finding. Imaging in
a single optical band will be sufficient and should be carried out early in the mission so as to maxi-
mize the time available for follow-up studies of dust orbital motion.

Imaging of dust at orbital distances beyond 10 AU (extrasolar Kuiper Belts) will be made difficult by
the finite outer working angle of TPF-C's coronagraphic dark hole (currently sized at 1 arcsec at λ =
0.7 μm). Disk studies can be carried out beyond this radius, but will probably be limited to 100 zodi
optical depths or brighter if the coronagraphic camera provides a continuous imaging field of view
from the outer edge of the dark hole to radii of ~10 arcsec. Studies of the inner regions of extended
nearby debris disks such τ Ceti, Fomalhaut, Vega, and β Leo require a field of view at least this large.
In addition, studies of dust populations in the Kuiper Belt region could be accomplished at highest
sensitivity by observing a more distant stellar sample (d~ 50 pc), for which the Kuiper debris disk
would largely fall within the coronagraphic dark hole. This can be left as a candidate General Ob-
server project.

1.3.3.2 Characterizing Disk-Planet Interactions

Objective 9. To characterize disk-planet interactions and to understand how substructures

within dusty debris can be used to infer the presence of planets.

Disks provide a continuous medium of test particles that are responsive to the gravity of any ac-
companying planets. Planets can sweep out central holes and radial gaps in disks; inclined planets
can induce midplane warps (seen in the disk of β Pic); eccentric planets can induce an eccentricity in

1-35
TPF-C STDT REPORT

an otherwise circular disk (seen in the Fomalhaut ring); and dust particles can become trapped in
mean-motion resonances with planets, leading to asymmetric or clumpy dust density distributions
(possibly seen in the disk of ε Eri). The theory of such interactions is steadily improving and pro-
vides hope that observed disk properties may eventually be inverted
to indirectly measure the mass and orbital properties of extrasolar planets. A solid theoretical under-
standing of these effects is crucial, as asymmetries in the distribution of exozodiacal dust can mimic
the signal of an extrasolar terrestrial planet, potentially confusing TPF-C's primary mission.

Figure 1.3-13. HST/ACS scattered light image of the dust debris ring around Fomalhaut. (Kalas et
al. 2005). The ring center is clearly displaced from the stellar position, indicating that the ring is
intrinsically eccentric. Apsidal alignment of the ring particle orbits can only be maintained
through the perturbations of an unseen interior planet on an eccentric orbit. This is the most
clear-cut example to date of debris disk structures pointing toward an unseen planetary perturber.

The key missing piece in our understanding of disk-planet interactions is the simultaneous direct de-
tection of a planet and a perturbed disk structure in the same extrasolar system. Early in its mission,
TPF-C should conduct an imaging search for dust structures around a significant number of stars
already known to possess extrasolar planets, and for which the planetary ephemerides are well-
known. Such a dataset would calibrate the dynamical models, validating their predictive power for
indirect detections of planets that would be otherwise go unrecognized in TPF-C datasets.

Planets orbiting at semi-major axes beyond roughly 10 AU have orbits too long to permit detection
via radial-velocity or astrometric techniques within a human lifetime, and they will be too faint for
TPF to detect in reflected light. But these coldest planets may tell critical chapters of the planet for-
mation story. New models of planet-disk interactions (Type III migration) suggest that planets can
easily migrate out to the outermost parts of protoplanetary disks (Masset and Papaloizou, 2003). Is
this mechanism the dominant migration mechanism? Or do planets mostly migrate inwards, as the
existence of 51 Pegasi-type planets suggests? The outermost planets can excite inner planets by dy-
namically coupling them to passing stars (Zakamska and Tremaine, 2004). Could this mechanism
explain the large eccentricities of the observed precise-Doppler planets? The recent announcement

1-36
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

of a massive planet candidate found ~50 AU from a young brown dwarf in the TW Hydrae associa-
tion (Chauvin et al., 2004) is an existence proof that objects up to 5 Jupiter masses can exist in this
region.

The only way to detect these most distant planets around stars of solar age and mass may be to
study the structures of debris disks. Resolved images of extrasolar debris disks reveal resonant struc-
tures that probably indicate the presence of planets buried in the dust. Recent advances in debris
disk dynamics (e.g., Kuchner and Holman, 2003) allow detected structures to be used to infer the
mass and eccentricity of a perturbing planet as small as ~10 Earth masses. A direct imaging detec-
tion of a Neptune analog, at a contrast of 3 × 10-12, would be impossible for TPF-C. However, given
a sufficient amount of Kuiper Belt dust, the existence of such a planet could easily be inferred from
its gravitational effects on the surrounding disk. The same technique might enable the detection of
Mars-mass planets by their effects on inner exozodiacal disks. Multi-epoch imaging will be particu-
larly important in such cases, where the orbital periods will be only 1-2 years, and where dust asym-
metries should have mean motions commensurate with the period of the perturbing object.

The requirements for studies of disk/planet interactions are continuous disk imaging from the IWA
to radii of 10 arcsec (as in Figure 1.3-14), and a sufficiently large sample of disk structures imaged in
systems with known planets so that the dynamical models can be validated for broad application to
TPF-C data.

Figure 1.3-14 Orbital eccentricities and semimajor axes of known extrasolar planets detected by
the precise-Doppler method (see http://exoplanets.org) and models of collisionless dust disks
containing planets of various masses and eccentricities (inset). Observing these structures with
TPF can fill in the gap at > 10 AU, where the planets are too faint to detect directly, and orbital pe-
riods are too long for indirect methods, like the Precise Doppler method.

1-37
TPF-C STDT REPORT

1.3.3.3 Disk Evolution and Planet Formation

Objective 10. To understand the time evolution of circumstellar disk properties, from early
protoplanetary stages through mature main sequence debris disks

Planet formation takes place within the circumstellar disks of young stars. The evolutionary path
from a dusty primordial disk toward terrestrial planets is believed to follow a sequence of dust
sedimentation to the disk mid-plane, dust grain growth, the build-up of solid planetesimals, the run-
away growth of planetary cores, and a final phase of accretion and dynamical clearing of the system.
While this scenario has a sound theoretical foundation, most of it remains to be confirmed by direct
observation. These events appear to take place quickly (within the first 10 MYrs of a star's life),
within a disk approximately 100 AU in radius, and (for the nearest known systems) on sub-
arcsecond angular scales. The youngest debris disks are particularly important targets for study, as
they form the evolutionary link between massive primordial disks and remnant debris disks. The
distances of young disks (typically 150 pc) render their host stars as faint as V magnitude 17. To en-
able studies of disk evolution, TPF-C must be able to guide on sources as faint as this for corona-
graphic observations.

The structural evolution of circumstellar disks can be traced with high spatial resolution, high con-
trast imaging. Direct measurements of disk vertical thickness as a function of radius can indicate the
progress of dust settling. As an optically thick disk flattens, it becomes fainter: measurements of the
radial surface brightness profile can thus indirectly probe the radial variation of disk thickness.
When protoplanets form, they are expected to clear their feeding zone, and open central holes or
radial gaps in the continuous disk. They may also induce broader disk perturbations and asymmetries
like those discussed in the previous section. TPF-C can resolve these structures with a typical spatial
resolution of 2 AU, and nominal inner working angle of 8 AU. Since young disks are expected to be
relatively bright (contrasts of about 10^-6), they should be accessible at a more aggressive inner
working angle of 2 λ/D if suitable coronagraphic masks are provided.

The growth of dust grains is a key part of the story of planet formation. At visual wavelengths, grain
properties can be diagnosed from the wavelength dependence of the opacity, the scattering phase
function, and the strength of the polarization induced by scattering. Small grains preferentially scat-
ter in the blue, strongly forward scatter, and produce a strong polarization signature. As grains grow
beyond several microns in size, their opacity loses its wavelength dependence across visible wave-
lengths, their phase function becomes isotropic, and the induced polarization becomes much
weaker. If the scattering geometry is understood, high resolution imaging with TPF-C can provide
direct measurements of these dust properties. Constraints on dust grain sizes are crucial for under-
standing if a disk is dominated by primordial material or grains released by shattering planetesimal
collisions, and thus for classifying a disk's evolutionary state. Polarimetric imaging capable of detect-
ing 1% polarization at the 5 sigma level would be a desirable added capability for TPF-C. Polariza-
tion discontinuities in dust disks may help distinguish clumpy disk structure from the light of an em-
bedded planet.

At visible wavelengths, circumstellar disks primarily appear in scattered stellar continuum light.
However, a few notable gas spectral features are also accessible. Very young stars possess collimated
jets, fed by disk accretion, that emit strongly in the lines of H alpha 656 nm, [S II] 671 nm, and [O I]
631 nm. TPF-C studies of these jets will resolve their collimation region, illuminating the magnetic

1-38
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

field structure that permeates the entire disk. Gas within a disk itself will also be accessible to imag-
ing with TPF-C: resonant Na I 588 nm emission has been mapped in the disk of beta Pictoris
(Olofsson et al., 2001), revealing a significant gas component that still strongly affects the spatial
distribution of dust particles. The observatory design should provide for narrowband imaging stud-
ies in these various lines, at spectral resolutions of 70 or better.

1.3.4 Comparison with Ground-Based Capabilities

1.3.4.1 Competing Ground-Based Facilities for Direct Detection and Spectroscopy
of Extrasolar Giant Planets
Planned extremely-large-aperture ground-based telescopes probably cannot perform spectroscopy of
giant planets like those found in a planetary system like our Solar System. The aggressively optimistic
study of Dekany et al. (2005) demonstrates this point vividly. Dekany et al. (2005) modeled the per-
formance of a 30-m ground-based telescope assuming: the optimum combination of wave-front
sensing and science detection simultaneously in the same wavelength band (H = 1.6 µm); and use of
an efficient servo system and a ultra-fast ultra-large deformable mirror (100 times as many elements
as any used today, sampling the atmosphere 100 times faster than any current AO system). They
found that under these assumptions, a Jupiter analog around a solar-type star at 10 pc would be 30
times fainter than the background speckles. Even if such a theoretically perfect ground-based system
could be built and 97% of the background speckles subtracted, strong telluric water absorption
bands in the near IR would prevent this idealized telescope from measuring the most interesting ex-
trasolar planet absorption features.

1.3.4.2 Competing Ground- and Space-Based Facilities for Circumstellar Disk

Studies
More precise measurements of the exozodiacal dust levels around nearby stars probably require re-
moving the bulk of the starlight from the photometric signal, as a coronagraph or nulling interfer-
ometer do. The Keck Interferometer (KI) and the Large Binocular Telescope Interferometer (LBTI)
are designed to perform this task and to survey nearby main sequence stars for exozodiacal dust.
The nominal performance goal for the KI nuller is 10 zodis, and the nominal performance goal for
the LBTI is 3 zodis. These tools will likely have the power to dramatically redirect TPF efforts, if
they discover that, for example, all G type stars have 30 zodi disks.

Ground-based nulling interferometry is new technology, and both the KI and LBTI experiments
presently lag years behind their original timetables. The information garnered from these experi-
ments will be statistical; these interferometers cannot survey all the TPF- target stars, since they are
located in the northern hemisphere, and even a survey of all the accessible TPF-C target stars would
probably represent an impractical use of telescope time because of the faintness of many of the
stars. And, most saliently, a feature of the Keck Interferometer and the LBTI not captured by Figure
1.3-15 is that these mid-infrared interferometers are much more sensitive to exozodiacal dust
around intrinsically more luminous stars. LBTI and the Keck Interferometer may tell us little about
the dust environments of the K stars in the TPF-C survey. At a given mid-IR flux, an F star has a
much larger habitable zone angular size than a K star. But IR bright K main sequence stars are rare--
-a flux-limited interferometer survey will contain few K stars, and the typical K star interferometer
targets will be fainter than typical F star interferometer targets. Consequently, the Keck Interferome-
ter and LBTI exozodiacal dust surveys will probably not be as sensitive to circumstellar dust around

1-39
TPF-C STDT REPORT

K stars; they will provide only poor statistical information about this class of targets, not much bet-
ter than Spitzer photometry. The later spectral types may have the same statistical distribution of
exozodiacal clouds as the F and G stars in the TPF-C sample, or they may not; these types will have
a different age distribution which may be reflected in their zodi distribution.

Currently, we can only reason by extrapolating and by making analogies with the solar system. Bry-
den et al. (2005) point out that debris disks with Ldust/L ≥ 10-3 are rare around old FGK stars, and
that the disk frequency in this population increases from 2±2% for Ldust/L ≥ 10-4 to 12±5% for
Ldust/L ≥ 10-5. Figure 1.3-15 shows this trend compared to the projected sensitivities of the Keck
interferometer and the LBTI for solar-type stars. Figure 1.3-15 also depicts the likely range in dust
concentration in our own solar system over the last hundred million years.

Figure 1.3-15 Our present knowledge of the prevalence of exozodiacal clouds

around sun-like stars.

1.3.5 General Astrophysics Objectives and Requirements

For the purpose of this document, general astrophysics includes all of astrophysics apart from the
search and characterization of planets or disks around nearby stars.

General astrophysics is broad, the questions are changing, and the questions that motivate general
astrophysics on TPF-C also motivate the development of other missions and ground-based facilities.
Because general astrophysics is not the primary driver for TPF-C, the goals in this area are con-
strained by what is realizable without compromising the planet search and characterization. The ob-
jectives outlined below may exceed what can be accomplished with parallel-mode observing and
only 25% of the primary “pointed” time. In contrast to the primary mission, it is acceptable that for
general astrophysics more can be accomplished with the facility than resources will allow. Progress
in astrophysics will require a large, diffraction-limited optical space telescope, whether or not it is
optimized for finding terrestrial planets.

1-40
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

While the terrestrial planet search will require a highly optimized mission that will need to be care-
fully planned before launch, the remaining parts of the mission need not be as carefully scripted.
Scientific peer review after launch may be the optimal means to achieve an appropriate balance be-
tween general astrophysics, planet characterization, and general research on planetary and proto-
planetary systems.

The science programs described in the next three subsections have been chosen because they are
scientifically compelling and are likely to require TPF-C capabilities. The fourth subsection lists other
programs that may be suitable for a General-Observer program.

1.3.5.1 Cosmology, Dark Energy, and Dark Matter

Objective 11: To constrain the nature of Dark Energy via precise measurements of the
Hubble constant and the angular-diameter vs. redshift relation.
Fractional Deviation for Δw = 1/3

Redshift
Figure 1.3-16. This figure shows the deviation in four dark-energy observables as a function of
redshift between two models: one with w = -1 and the other with w = -2/3. Other cosmological pa-
rameters have been adjusted to leave the CMB fluctuations unchanged. H is the Hubble parame-
ter, D is the co-moving angular-diameter distance, H0D is a relative distance (e.g. from comparing
the apparent magnitudes of high-z supernovae to a local sample), and G is the growth rate of den-
sity fluctuations from self gravity. Fixing the CMB observables changes the perspective on where
the largest deviations from the fiducial ΛCDM model occur. Given that the CMB is a high-redshift
probe, the largest effect on distances and growth is seen as z → 0. In fact, the single most useful
measurement that would complement the CMB distance measure is a Hubble constant measure-
ment that is accurate to the percent level. From Hu (2005).

Recent observations have improved our knowledge of the cosmological parameters greatly, but have
also demonstrated that we understand very little about the underlying fabric of the universe.
Roughly 73% of the energy density of the universe appears to be in the form of “dark energy,”
which is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. We do not know what dark energy is,
how it relates to the known forms of energy, or to dark matter (which represents 23% of the mass-
energy density of the universe and is also poorly understood). Dark energy is often characterized by

1-41
TPF-C STDT REPORT

its equation of state p = wρc2 , where p is pressure, ρ is density, c is the speed of light, and w is a pa-
rameter which may be a constant or a function of time or expansion factor. The cosmological con-
stant has a present-day w0 = -1 and w'= 0. Concepts for measuring w0 and w' have been widely dis-
cussed and debated. Constraining w0 to better than ±0.1 and w' to better than ±0.2 appears achiev-
able using high-redshift Type Ia supernovae. However, complementary approaches are essential to
overcome systematic errors in any one technique. It is important that the complementary techniques
achieve comparable levels of precision. TPF-C has the potential to do so with two distinct observing
programs.

1.3.5.1.1 The Hubble Constant

Viable dark energy models must reproduce the fluctuations in the microwave background. With the
CMB fluctuations held fixed, Hu (2005) argues that to measure the equation of state of the dark en-
ergy, the best complement to current and future CMB measurements is a measurement of the Hub-
ble constant that is accurate at the few percent level. SIM’s measurements of distances to Galactic
stars and to the LMC should significantly improve the local calibration of the distance scale. Further
improvements in H0 accuracy will require measurements of more nearby host galaxies of Type Ia
SNe and/or observations of primary distance indicators for galaxies distant enough to be moving
with the Hubble flow. With its higher resolution and greater sensitivity, TPF-C will be able to detect
Cepheids at 2.5 times the distance of Hubble. This will enable accurate distance measurements to
more than 10 times the number of galaxies, providing a better calibration of the absolute magnitude
of Type Ia SNe, and providing better control of systematics such as dependence on metallicity and
reddening and providing Cepheid distances for galaxies in the Hubble flow. Combining 2% uncer-
tainties in H0 with Planck’s cosmic microwave background measurements should yield a precision of
±0.04 of in w from these observations alone.

This program requires pointed observations with a relatively wide field of view. The high spatial
resolution afforded by TPF-C is essential for overcoming crowding in the Cepheid measurements.
Absolute calibration will require careful attention.

Table 1.3-1. Major terms in the H0 error budget (From Freedman et al. 2001). SIM observations will
address the LMC zero point. TPF-C observations will address the other terms.

1-42
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

1.3.5.1.2 Gravitational Lensing

With detailed modeling, the distribution of gravitational arc radii as a function of redshift in clusters
of galaxies provides a measurement of the angular-diameter distance vs. redshift relation and an in-
dependent, purely geometrical, measurement of the effect of dark energy. The Planck mission is ex-
pected to detect roughly one cluster per square degree via the Sunyaev-Zeldovich (S-Z) effect, and
the Atacama Large Millimeter Array and the South Pole Telescope will add to that sample. By 2010,
studies of this large, relatively unbiased, sample of clusters will be a major focus of observational
cosmology.

Pointed observations with TPF-C will provide the deepest, highest resolution observations of gravi-
tationally lensed arcs and arclets in these clusters. Dalal et al. (2005) have noted that noise due to
intervening large-scale structure, combined with uncertainties in the mass profiles of the lensing
clusters, limit the usefulness of a single cluster. TPF-C will be able to observe a substantial sample of
clusters with a modest investment of observing time. A photometric and spectroscopic grism survey
of 50 clusters would yield hundreds of arc and arclet positions and redshifts as well as positions and
redshifts for thousands of foreground galaxies. Combined with X-ray and velocity-dispersion con-
straints on the cluster mass profile, it may well be possible to achieve constraints on dark energy that
are competitive with (and completely independent of) other proposed techniques.

Figure 1.3-17. From Dalal et al. (2005). Cosmological parametersderived from fitting sets of 50
strongly lensed sources between redshifts zsrc = 0.8 and 5, generated by ray-tracing through N-
body simulations with full light cone tiling. Each point corresponds to a realization of the interven-
ing planes and lensed images. An input cosmology of ΩM=0.3, w = -1 was used to generate the
lensed images. In this simulation, constraints on the mass and mass profile of the cluster came
from lensing alone. Constraints could be significantly stronger when information on the cluster
shape and density profile from X-ray, S-Z and velocity dispersion measurements are included.
With a sufficiently large cluster sample, this technique will be a powerful additional
probe of Dark Energy.

The same observations will yield valuable constraints on the nature of dark matter. N-body simula-
tions and analytical models suggest that dark-matter halos should have a nearly universal density
profile, characterized by two power-law slopes and a scale radius. The ratio of the scale radius to the
virial radius is expected to vary with halo mass, and to show a distribution of values at fixed halo
mass. The values of the parameters that describe halo profiles depend on the small-scale power

1-43
TPF-C STDT REPORT

spectrum and hence the nature of dark matter (e.g. whether it is warm or self-interacting). Measure-
ments via gravitational lensing of the mass-density profiles of a large sample of S-Z selected clusters
will thus constrain the nature of dark matter.

Measurements of strong lensing by individual galaxies will also provide important constraints on the
nature of dark matter. The spectrum of density fluctuations in CDM has sufficient power on small
scales that dark matter halos in galaxies are expected to be lumpy. This lumpiness has been invoked
to explain “flux anomalies” in several well-known gravitational lens systems. However, the extent to
which the flux anomalies support CDM is hotly debated. With follow-up of large optical and radio
surveys, we expect roughly 600 lens systems will be known by 2015, of which 10% will be useful for
substructure tests. TPF-C will provide precise positions and fluxes of the components of the lensed
images, grism redshifts for some of them, and will reveal faint additional images below the current
limits of detection. Combined, this data set will allow a critical test of the substructure predicted by
CDM theory on galactic scales.

This program requires pointed observations with a relatively wide field of view. The high spatial
resolution afforded by TPF-C is essential for overcoming crowding in the Cepheid measurements.
Absolute calibration will require careful attention. This program would benefit from both an optical
and a near-infrared channel, because the Cepheid amplitudes are higher at shorter wavelengths, but
their period-luminosity relation has smaller scatter in the near infrared.

1.3.5.1.3 Supernova Cosmology

A wide-field parallel camera would allow a supernova search in parallel with the planet search. If the
camera is equipped with a grism, the supernova redshift, type, and phase in its light curve can be de-
termined from a single observation. The estimated occurrence rate of SNe Ia at interesting redshifts
is 1 per 60 arcmin2 per 45-day period. The Mag30Cam proposal estimate is a sample of 450 SNe
over 5 years. While not as ambitious as SNAP and other JDEM concepts, this survey would be ex-
tremely important if JDEM is not primarily a supernova-search mission.

1.3.5.2 The Fossil Record of Galaxy Formation

Objective 12: To use the fossil record of ancient stars in the Milky Way and nearby gal-
axies to measure the time between the Big Bang and the first major episodes of star for-
mation

Observations of very distant galaxies represent a major focus of present research with the Hubble
and Spitzer observatories, and are at the core of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) mission. These
observations will give us tremendous insight into the first billion years of galaxy evolution, showing
where and when the first stars began to form. However, the observations do not tell us where the
first (or even second or third) generations of stars ended up.

Detailed studies of stellar populations in nearby galaxies (including the Milky Way and its satellites)
are the natural complement to observations of high-redshift galaxies. Observations of Milky-Way
globular clusters and resolved stellar populations in nearby galaxies are currently among the most
challenging for HST and represent a significant fraction of the observing time. TPF-C will expand
the accessible volume for such studies by more than an order of magnitude, allowing study of a
range of galaxy types with different star-formation histories SF(t).

1-44
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

1.3.5.2.1 Milky-Way Globular Clusters

SIM will improve distance measurements to globular clusters and the absolute calibration of the
main sequence. Nevertheless, it is hard to predict the magnitude of the remaining uncertainties in
absolute ages of the oldest stars in the Milky Way. Current theoretical models do not match the ex-
act morphology of the main-sequence and sub-giant branches of globular clusters, suggesting prob-
lems with the theoretical treatment of element diffusion, semi-convection, and/or model atmos-
pheres. The white-dwarf cooling curve provides an age estimate that is sensitive to different physics
than the main-sequence turnoff. Regardless of theoretical advances in the next decade, this is a cru-
cial test of stellar evolution theory: the results for ages derived this way must agree with the results
for ages derived from main-sequence fitting.

To date only one cluster (M4) has been measured, with heroic effort, with HST and a second more
metal-poor cluster (NGC 6397) has just been observed but no results are as yet available. TPF-C can
do the measurement with a few hours observing time out to ~7 kpc, which brings 32 globular clus-
ters (and the Galactic bulge) within reach. Uncertainties in this technique are currently dominated by
sampling statistics, bolometric corrections, distance uncertainties, and uncertainties in the chemical
composition of the outer layers of the white dwarfs. TPF-C will reduce these uncertainties enough
that ages to an absolute accuracy of better than 0.5 Gyr may be possible. With improved age accu-
racy, a comparison of the relative ages of the globular clusters will provide new and detailed insight
into the star-formation history of the Milky Way within its first few billion years. This should help
reveal whether globular clusters formed before or after reionization, and whether they primarily
formed in situ or were accreted over time from other galaxies.

All stars with masses greater than the mass of the Sun that formed in the early stages of the Universe
have since evolved into some sort of remnant (black hole, neutron star, white dwarf). The white
dwarf population in a globular cluster has evolved from stars with initial masses up to about 8 times
that of the Sun. A careful analysis of the luminosity distribution of cluster white dwarfs can yield the
initial mass distribution of their progenitors. Dynamical studies of globular clusters, which will
greatly benefit from TPF-C astrometry, will yield valuable constraints on the neutron star and black-
hole populations. Together, these observations will provide perhaps our best handle on the mass-
function of this early generation of stars, which played a crucial role in the early chemical evolution
of our galaxy.

This program requires pointed observations a wide-field camera with broad-band filters.

1.3.5.2.2 Star-Formation Histories beyond the Local Group

With HST it is possible, with major investments of observing time, to measure the main-sequence
turnoff (MSTO) in any galaxy in the Local Group. This provides the gold-standard for estimating
ages and metallicities. However, there are only two giant galaxies in the Local Group (the Milky Way
and M31). All the rest are subluminous relative to the characteristic luminosity of galaxies (L*).
There are no giant ellipticals in the Local group. TPF-C will allow measurements of the MSTO in
galaxies to a distance of 4 Mpc, a volume that includes more than 200 galaxies, including several L*
galaxies of various types in the Ursa Major and Sculptor groups. Measurements of a suitable statisti-
cal sample will indicate whether or not galaxies started forming stars simultaneously and will test our
inferences from observations of high-redshift galaxies. These observations constrain the star-

1-45
TPF-C STDT REPORT

formation histories in the outer disks, outer bulges, and halos of galaxies, because even TPF-C will
be limited by crowding in the inner regions.

Hierarchical CDM models suggest that the accretion of dwarf galaxies onto giant galaxies could be a
way of building the stellar halos of galaxies. The Sagittarius dwarf and the M31 tidal stream are ex-
amples that this process continues to the present, although it is unclear whether it is the dominant
mechanism for creating halos. Horizontal-branch stars in halos can be detected to 10 Mpc, and the
red-giant branch can be detected to 100 Mpc, enabling characterization of the spatial distribution
and metallicities of halo stars in thousands of galaxies. Model predictions for these statistical distri-
butions can only be tested by observations of a sufficiently large statistical sample of galaxies, which
is not feasible with HST, but can be done with a few hundred hours of TPF-C observing time.

These investigations require pointed observations with a relatively large-field camera.

Figure 1.3-18. For stellar population studies, TPF-C can reach a 12Gyr main-sequence turnoff out
to 4 Mpc in 200 hours of exposure time per field in V and I bands. (From Wide Field Camera In-
strument Concept Study.)

1-46
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

1.3.5.3 Galaxies, Dark Halos, and Reionization

Objective 13: To determine what sources of energy reionized the universe and to better un-
derstand how galaxies form within dark-matter halos, through a program of low-resolution
spectroscopy of large statistical samples, gathered in parallel with the TPF-C planet search
program.

While the current hierarchical paradigm of galaxy formation is spectacularly successful at reproduc-
ing the clustering properties of galaxies on large scales, there are potentially serious failures on small
scales: discrepancies in the predicted galaxy luminosity function (particularly the relative numbers of
dwarf and giant galaxies), difficulties in reproducing the number of massive old galaxies at high red-
shift and the number of strong sub-mm sources, difficulties in explaining the entropy of gas in clus-
ters of galaxies, and difficulties in explaining the properties of damped Ly-α absorbers along the line
of sight to distant quasars. It is clear that the theory of galaxy formation is still incomplete and it
seems likely that surprises will continue to emerge as our observations improve.

TPF-C will resolve substructure in galaxies, measure the clustering properties of distant galaxies as a
function of size, stellar populations and morphology, and constrain the topology and time-sequence
of reionization. While these topics will be addressed in part by HST and JWST, detailed study is
likely to await TPF-C’s greater sensitivity, better spatial resolution, and larger field of view. Because
these are primarily statistical studies of field galaxies, the observations can be done in parallel with
the planet search, provided the scattered background in the parallel camera field of view is suffi-
ciently low and uniform.

1.3.5.3.1 The Evolution of Galaxy Internal Structure

TPF-C will provide a resolution of better than 100 pc for galaxies at any redshift. Neither Webb nor
JDEM will approach these resolutions. Very large (20–30 m) ground-based telescopes with adaptive
optics (AO) may achieve similar resolution over small fields in the infrared (λ> 1 μm). However,
TPF-C’s gain over Hubble and ground-based AO is not just resolution: for typical L* galaxies at red-
shift z > 3, studies of resolved structures are limited primarily by S/N, even in the Hubble Ultra-
Deep Field. (L* is the luminosity typical of the Milky Way galaxy and M31.) Even with vast im-
provements expected in AO, the giant ground-based telescopes planned for the next decade will suf-
fer the same problem due to the high near-IR sky background. TPF-C will thus be unique in provid-
ing the most detailed view of the internal structures of distant galaxies, and will do this for samples
of order 106 galaxies in narrow slices of redshift. With this resolution and sensitivity, the study of
galaxy evolution enters a new realm. Instead of modeling the global properties of barely resolved
objects, star-formation histories can be constrained for many independent regions of individual gal-
axies. By this time, hydrodynamical simulations will be making believable, testable predictions for
the internal structures of galaxies. Viewing galaxies with this resolution over a wide range of look-
back times, we may finally be able to determine whether galaxies form from the inside out, the out-
side in, or primarily through mergers. With large statistical samples, it will be possible to determine
whether star-formation occurs primarily in disks (punctuated by merger events), or primarily during
the merger events themselves.

1-47
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 1.3-19. TPF-C’s Improved Resolution and S/N Compared with Webb and Hubble. The simu-
lated object is an L* galaxy at z = 4 observed in a broadband filter centered at ~900 nm.

1.3.5.3.2 Reionization
Reionization was the last major phase transition for most of the baryonic matter in the universe. Po-
larization of the microwave background measured by WMAP suggests that substantial ionization
had begun as early as z ~ z ~ 11 (Page et al. 2006). Luminosity functions of Ly-α galaxies show that
the neutral fraction was already ≤30% at z ~ 6.5 (Malhotra & Rhoads, 2004), and spectra of z > 6
quasars show opaque Gunn-Peterson troughs (Becker et al. 2001), indicating that reionization was
not fully complete before z ~ 6.2. At z ~ 6, the Ly-α line is at 850 nm, where TPF-C will offer
greater sensitivity and resolution than Webb. This will allow a direct census of galaxy and quasar
populations at 5.5 < z < 7 down to unprecedented flux levels. An optical grism survey could accu-
rately determine the luminosity function and spatial distribution of galaxies and active galactic nuclei
at redshifts up to z ~ 7, providing a census of possible ionizing photons. Redshifts up to z ~12
could be probed with a near-infrared channel. (If the sources remain insufficient to account for the
ionization—as some current studies suggest—more exotic explanations, such as decaying particles,
may be required.) A census from 65 independent lines of sight near high-latitude TPF-C target stars
would be particularly valuable if galaxies are highly clustered and reionization is inhomogeneous.
The Gunn-Peterson trough optical depth can be measured for sources brighter than 24th magnitude
(and constrained on average through a stacking analysis of fainter sources). Ly-α transmission is
strongly suppressed in a neutral IGM, so we should see a sharp decline in the number beyond the
redshift of reionization. The spatial distribution and topology of the Ly-α emitters in a neutral IGM
can be used to find the central “overlap phase” of reionization. Prior to overlap, the detectable Ly-α
galaxies should be found in isolated clumps, each corresponding to one ionized bubble in the IGM.
The size of these bubbles is expected to be a few arcmin—easily detected with TPF-C.

1.3.5.3.3 Galaxies and Dark-Matter Halos

In contemporary theories of galaxy formation, galaxies form at peaks in the underlying dark-matter
density field, and reside in virialized dark-matter halos either as the central galaxy or as satellites or-
biting within a larger halo. The observed properties of galaxies, such as color, morphology, or lumi-
nosity, depend on the mass and assembly history of their dark-matter halos. The environmental de-
pendence of galaxy properties arises from their correlation with halo mass as well as the correlation
of halo mass with collapse history and with the larger-scale density field.

Clustering measurements of galaxies are essential for making the connection between observations
and hierarchical models. The models robustly predict the number-density of halos above a fixed
mass threshold and the correlation function of those halos. Measuring the correlation function of

1-48
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

galaxies thus establishes the mass scale for the dark-matter halos in which they reside. The compari-
son of the number-density of galaxies to the number density of halos indicates how many galaxies
on average occupy each halo.

Clustering studies require large samples and large volumes. A grism survey with TPF-C could yield
redshifts for more than 106 galaxies, with well-determined colors and morphologies from the ac-
companying broad-band imaging. Tracing the Halo Occupation Distribution (Berlind & Weinberg
2002) vs. redshift will test the paradigm that galaxies form at dark-matter density peaks, and allow us
to trace the origin of Hubble sequence back to the underlying dark-matter physics. TPF-C will com-
plement efforts from the ground and JWST by providing the best measurements of position, lumi-
nosity function, and morphology and evolution of satellite galaxies orbiting within dark-matter halos
at redshifts z>1.

1.3.5.4 General-Observer Program

Objective 14: To enable a diverse General-Observer program in the tradition of the

Hubble, Chandra, Spitzer, and James Webb Space Observatories

The success of all the Great Observatories has depended critically on having a General-Observer
Program, administered by peer review, that has access to a significant fraction of the available ob-
serving time. TPF-C should be no different. A few examples of programs that might be carried out
in this manner are given below.

Examples of Possible General-Observer Programs:

(1) Measurements of the mass spectrum of bodies in the outer solar system (e.g. the Kuiper
belt).
(2) Obtaining precise distances to millisecond pulsars to improve tests of general relativity and
better constrain the properties of nuclear material.
(3) Micro-lensing parallax measurements to measure the mass function of isolated black holes
and neutron stars in and towards the Galactic bulge.
(4) Coronagraphic observations of galaxies responsible for the damped Lyman-alpha lines in the
spectra of quasars.
(5) Parallax distances to 30% precision for white dwarfs and brown dwarfs out to distances of
10 kpc.
(6) Proper-motion measurements of stars in the Galactic halo to search for the effects of CMD
substructure on stellar orbits.
(7) High-resolution observations of star-forming regions to explore the physics of star-
formation and interactions between young stars and their environment.

1.4 Specific Science Requirements

Following is a list of specific science requirements for the TPF-C mission. Baseline mission require-
ments are listed first, followed by minimum mission requirements and goals for an even more capa-
ble, desired mission. These requirements are derived from the scientific objectives listed above and
the accompanying explanatory text. They will ultimately form the basis for the Level 1 requirements

1-49
TPF-C STDT REPORT

for the TPF-C mission once the mission planning reaches that stage. A brief explanation for how
these requirements were derived is given below.

1.4.1 Baseline Mission Requirements

(1) TPF-C shall be able to detect an Earth twin in a Solar System twin at a distance of 10 pc.
(2) TPF-C shall be able to detect a Jupiter twin at quadrature in this same system.
(3) *TPF-C shall be able to find ~30 potentially habitable planets if all target stars have one such
planet. Equivalently, TPF-C shall have an excellent chance (95%) of detecting at least one
planet that is potentially habitable, assuming that ten percent or more of all target stars have
such a planet (η⊕ = 0.1). The following assumptions are to be made in estimating these
numbers:
1. Planetay semimajor axes uniformly distributed in log space
2. Planetary mass distribution: delta function at 1 M⊕
3. Planetary eccentricities randomly distributed between 0 and 0.1
4. Exozodi = 3×local zodi (as viewed from various observing angles)
5. Lambertian phase function
6. Planet visible spherical albedo = 0.3 (geometric albedo = 0.2)
7. Habitable zone 0.75 to 1.8 AU scaled by the stellar luminosity
8. Target detection should be completed within three years of mission lifetime

(4) *For at least 50 percent of detected planets whose angular separation at discovery lies within
the projected habitable zone of their parent star, TPF-C shall measure the actual semi-major
axes to within 10 percent. TPF-C shall also measure their orbital eccentricities to an absolute
accuracy of ±0.3.
(5) TPF-C shall be able to detect photons within the spectral range from 0.5 μm to 1.1 μm.
(6) TPF-C shall be able to measure the absolute brightness of the Earth twin planet in Require-
ment (1) in at least one bandpass to within 10%.
(7) For the Earth and Jupiter twins in Requirements (1, 2), TPF-C shall be able to measure the
relative brightness in at least three broad spectral bands to a relative accuracy of 10% or bet-
ter.
(8) TPF-C shall be able to detect O2 and H2O in the atmosphere of the Earth twin planet speci-
fied in Requirement (1). Relevant absorption bands and required resolutions are listed in
1.4.1. TPF-C shall also be able to detect CH4 in the atmosphere of a Jupiter twin in this same
system. Detection is defined as the ability to measure the equivalent width of a spectral band
to within 20% accuracy.
(9) TPF-C shall have a minimum spectral resolution of 70 over the entire bandpass specified in
requirement (5) to allow the mission to search for absorption bands of unspecified gases or
surface minerals.
General astrophysics requirement:
(10) To support general astrophysics, TPF-C shall have a camera with a field of view of at least
10 square arcminutes, capable of operating in parallel to the planet search, and capable of
zodiacal-light-limited broad-band imaging over the TPF-C spectral range. The calibration
shall provide 1% absolute photometric accuracy. The guiding system shall allow diffrac-
tion-limited observations with this camera over more than 99% of the sky.
Disk science requirements:
(11) TPF-C shall be able to guide on stars as faint as VAB= 16.
(12) TPF-C shall be able to detect disk emission lines of Na I, H α, [S II], and K I.

1-50
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

(13) TPF-C shall be capable of optical imaging at inner working angles of 2 λ/D (or half the
normal inner working angle) at contrast levels of 10-6.
(14) Further details on requirements (3) and (4) are given in Section 4.4 below.

1.4.2 Minimum Mission Requirements

(1) TPF-C shall be able to detect an Earth twin in a Solar System twin at a distance of 8 pc.
(2) TPF-C shall be able to detect a Jupiter twin at quadrature in this same system.
(3) TPF-C shall be able to find ~14 potentially habitable planets if all target stars have one such
planet. Equivalently, TPF-C shall have an excellent chance (95%) of detecting at least one
planet that is potentially habitable, assuming that twenty percent or more of all target stars
have such a planet (η⊕ = 0.2). The assumptions to be made in estimating this number are
the same as in the baseline mission.
(4) Same as for the baseline mission, but for a system at 8 pc.
(5) The spectral range for the minimum mission is 0.5–0.85 μm.
(6) Same as for the baseline mission.
(7) Same as for the baseline mission, but for a system at 8 pc.
(8) TPF-C shall be able to measure those absorption bands listed in the baseline mission that fall
within the minimum mission spectral range.
(9) Spectral resolution of 70 over the entire bandpass is not required for the minimum mission.
(10-13) Same as for the baseline mission

1.4.3 Desired Mission Requirements

(1, 3, 6) Same as for the baseline mission
(2) TPF-C shall also be able to detect a Saturn twin at quadrature in a Solar System twin at a dis-
tance of 10 pc.
(4) Same as for the baseline mission, except that planetary eccentricities shall be measured to an
absolute accuracy of ±0.1.
(5) The desired spectral range is 0.4 μm to 1.7 μm.
(7) Measurements of brightness in more than 3 bandpasses are highly desirable for bright or
well placed planets.
(8) In addition to O2 and H2O, TPF-C shall be able to detect O3 for the Earth twin in Require-
ment (1) and CH4 for a planet like the early Earth. It shall also be able to detect CO2 in the
atmosphere of a Venus twin orbiting in a Solar System twin at a distance of 5 pc.
(9) Same as for the baseline mission, but over the extended spectral range.
General astrophysics requirement:
(10) To support general astrophysics, TPF-C shall have a camera capable of surveying 10 square
degrees to a point-source limiting magnitude V = 30 (10 σ) while operating in parallel with
the planet search. This camera shall be capable of zodiacal-light-limited broad-band imaging
over the TPF-C spectral range. The calibration shall provide 1% absolute photometric accu-
racy. The guiding system shall allow diffraction-limited observations with this camera over
more than 99% of the sky.
Disk science desired requirements:
(11-13) Same as for the baseline mission.

1-51
TPF-C STDT REPORT

(14) TPF-C shall be capable of continuous imaging coverage extending from the central star to
radii of 10 arcsec. This is a requirement on the detector imaging field of view, not on the
outer working angle of the high contrast dark hole.
(15) TPF-C shall have a coronagraphic dark hole outer working angle of 2 arcsec at at least one
wavelength.
(16) TPF-C shall have polarimetric imaging capability.

1.4.4 Rationale behind these Requirements

Requirements (1)– (4) determine the necessary size of the telescope mirror, the efficacy of the star-
light suppression system, and the general capabilities of the spacecraft itself. Requirement 1 sets a
constraint on the coronagraph inner working angle and contrast. It may be superceded by Require-
ment (3), but it ensures that TPF-C can find an Earth twin, if it exists, regardless of other assump-
tions made in the mission modeling. Requirement 2, detecting a Jupiter twin at quadrature, deter-
mines a minimum outer working angle for the coronagraph. The minimum outer working angle is
doubled for the desired mission by requiring that it detect a Saturn twin at quadrature. Surveying
extrasolar planetary systems to the equivalent distance of Saturn is highly desired because it would
provide much more information about planetary system architecture. Saturn is the natural outer limit
for such a search because its contrast ratio to the star is similar (~10−10) to that of Earth.

Requirements (3) and (4)) are the most general and should have the most significant impact on mis-
sion design, as they impose constraints on the complete spacecraft system. Demonstrating that these
requirements can be met requires detailed modeling of the entire mission sequence, as is done in the
Design Reference Mission that follows in the present report. Such modeling necessarily involves
making assumptions about parameters, e.g., the mass distribution of terrestrial planets, which are not
well known. But Requirement (1) ensures that TPF-C will still be able to detect an Earth.

The minimum mission is also designed to have a 95% chance of finding at least one potentially hab-
itable planet (requirement 3), but in this case it has been assumed that data from other missions (e.g.,
Kepler) has shown that η⊕ is at least 0.2, as opposed to the baseline assumption of η⊕ = 0.1. If stars
are randomly distributed in space, then the distance to which the telescope must be able to observe
is reduced by a factor of 21/3 ≅ 1.25. Hence, the distance to which an Earth twin must be detectable
is reduced from 10 pc to 8 pc (requirement 1). Because the actual value of η⊕ is not known, descop-
ing to the level of the minimum mission is extremely risky and is not to be considered unless Kepler
(or some other mission) demonstrates that terrestrial planets are reasonably abundant. Given the
delay in the TPF-C mission, such information may become available prior to the design phase for
TPF-C.

Requirement (4) begins the process of planetary characterization by constraining the orbits of de-
tected planets. Both this requirement and requirement (3) came under intense discussion near the
end of the activities of the present Science and Technology Definition Team. Results of modeling
studies performed for the Design Reference Mission, described later in this report, show that satisfy-
ing requirement (4) for all detected planets would be difficult or impossible for the FB1 mission de-
sign. As written, this requirement is applied to 50 percent of detected planets whose angular separa-
tion at discovery lies within the projected habitable zone of their parent star. In reality, these de-
tected planets may include giant planets in orbits well beyond 1.8 AU that simply appear to be close
to the parent star because of the angle at which they are being viewed.

1-52
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Scientifically, one would like to know the orbits of all detected planets. The parameter of greatest
physical interest is the planet’s semi-major axis. This must be known in order to determine whether
or not the planet resides within the habitable zone, in a time-averaged sense. (See Section 3.1.2.1.)
Hence, requirement (3) cannot be fully satisfied without having this information. The semi-major
axis can be derived from a planet’s period, using Kepler’s 3rd law; however, guaranteeing that a par-
ticular planet will be observed enough times during the course of the mission in order to do this is
not an easy task. The planet’s eccentricity is somewhat less important, as the large heat capacity of
the ocean would moderate surface temperatures on a planet like Earth. Planets with high eccentrici-
ties may not be suitable for land-based life, as a consequence of high seasonal surface temperature
variations. Measuring a planet’s eccentricity accurately is considered difficult, and so the baseline re-
quirement is not very strict. Measuring the eccentricity more accurately is reserved for the desired
mission.

An alternative form of requirements (1)– (4) that may remove some of the ambiguities identified
above is given in Appendix 1.D. These alternative requirements have not been discussed in detail by
the committee; hence, they should be viewed cautiously. They are included here so as to provide
guidance to the next group that works on designing this mission.

In requirement (5), the baseline spectral range, 0.5–1.1 μm, is the region where CCD detectors are
most sensitive. Their sensitivity falls off dramatically between 1.0 and 1.1 μm, so the ability to char-
acterize a planet may not be uniform over this entire wavelength range. The minimum mission spec-
tral range of 0.5–0.85 μm is the region where solar-type stars are brightest and planets are easiest to
detect. Reducing the wavelength coverage may relax requirements on various parts of the telescope
optical system. The desired spectral range, 0.4–1.7 μm, allows for an increased chance of measuring
Rayleigh scattering at the short end and for detecting spectral features of various atmospheric gases
(especially CH4 and CO2) at the long end. The desired mission would thus provide much improved
characterization capability for both terrestrial and giant planets.

Requirement (6) expresses the desire to obtain absolute photometry of the observed planets. The
true radius, albedo, and effective temperature of detected terrestrial planets will eventually be deter-
mined by equating the emitted flux measured by TPF-I to the difference between the incident flux
and the reflected stellar flux measured by TPF-C. While the effective temperature is proportional to
only the fourth root of this quantity, the radius goes as the square root and the albedo is linearly de-
pendent. Planetary spectra are typically highly wavelength dependent, so achieving a reliable estimate
of the planetary albedo requires an absolute measurement of the reflected flux over one bandpass,
combined with knowledge of the relative brightness of different bandpasses (Requirement 7). Ideally
this quantity would be measured at several phase angles to properly account for the angular depend-
ence of scattering.

Color determination (Requirement 7) does not require absolute photometry, but it requires accurate
relative photometry in different spectral bands. This requirement is not expected to be difficult to
satisfy and is therefore applied uniformly to the baseline, minimum, and desired missions.

Requirement (8) places detailed constraints on the spectral resolution required to search for different
trace gases that we might expect to find on terrestrial and jovian planets. Detecting O2 and H2O for
Earth is considered essential. The H2O band at 0.94 μm is much easier to detect than other H2O bands

1-53
TPF-C STDT REPORT

at shorter wavelengths, according to the outcome of design studies for the CorSpec instrument (this
report). That is why this particular band has been chosen. The spectral resolution requirement is dif-
ferent for different spectral bands, so the spectrograph resolution may vary with wavelength. Detec-
tion of CO2 requires that TPF-C have good sensitivity to wavelengths beyond 1.0 μm and, hence, is
reserved for the desired mission. Detection of O3 is considered difficult as well due to the extreme
broadness of the absorption feature at 0.6 μm, and so is reserved for the desired mission.

Requirement (9) specifies that the spectral resolution should be 70 over the entire wavelength range.
This would enable the mission to detect spectral features and identify spectral continuum regions
that are not anticipated based on the planets in our own Solar System. It is listed here as a baseline
requirement because it is considered so desirable for planetary characterization that it would be re-
laxed only under great pressure. It might, however, preclude certain telescope/instrument designs
for which the spectral resolution varies with wavelength. This requirement should be revisited
should it pose an insuperable problem for the coronagraph design.

Requirement (10) ensures that the mission will include a wide-field camera of some sort that would
be capable of doing more general astrophysical observations in parallel with the search for planets.
Pointed observations with this instrument are also envisioned, but this capability is intentionally not
allowed to drive the design of the mission. The difference between the baseline requirement and the
desired mission requirement is that the baseline version specifies only the field of view of the cam-
era, whereas the desired mission requirement specifies a total sky area that must be surveyed . This
latter requirement was moved from the baseline to the desired mission only after the final instru-
ment reports came in. The GA report indicates that carrying out a successful sky survey of this mag-
nitude may require alterations to the FB1 2-mirror design for the front end of the telescope. The sky
survey requirement also assumes that the telescope main mirror is elliptical, and hence will need to
be cycled through at least 3 different roll positions. Such role maneuvers may not be needed if the
final telescope design is spherical. The sky survey requirement further assumes that η⊕ is low, so
that most of the mission will be spent in search mode, rather than in planet characterization. If η⊕
turns out to be high, then much of the mission time may be spent in planet characterization. The
mission will then be a huge success, but this could result in a smaller total area of sky being surveyed
for background objects.

Requirement (10) for the minimum mission is the same as for the baseline design. TPF-C will include
a capable wide-field camera for doing general astrophysics. The only question is how that capability will be
exercised.

Requirements (11)– (13) in the baseline mission are included specifically to enable the study of pro-
toplanetary disks around young stars that might not otherwise be observed by TPF-C. Requirement
(11) ensures that TPF-C can point at a star that may be largely obscured by dust. Requirement (12)
ensures the capability of detecting spectral features of interest to disk science. Requirement (13) en-
sures that TPF-C will be able to image disks around distant stars for which the required inner work-
ing angle is less than the baseline value. This is considered possible because the contrast ratio be-
tween such disks and their parent stars (~10−6) is much less than the constrast ratio for terrestrial
planets.

The desired mission contains 3 additional disk science requirements. Requirement (14) expresses a
desire that the telescope have continuous imaging capability from close to the star out to 10 arcsecs.

1-54
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Requirement (15) extends the outer working angle of the coronagraph out to 2 arcsec. Requirement
(16) expresses a desire to look at disks in polarized light. All 3 of these requirements may impose
constraints on the design of the telescope/coronagraph and, hence, are listed as desired features to
be added if possible.

Table 1.4-1 below points to sections of the Science Requirements Document (SRD) that support the
Requirements listed in the previous section.

Table 1.4-1 Science Requirements Index

Science Requirement Supporting Section of the SRD

1 Detect an Earth twin at 10 pc 1.3.1.1.6
2 Detect a Jupiter twin at 10 pc (at quadrature) 1.3.2.1
3 Find 30 potentially habitable planets (η⊕ = 1) 1.3.1.1.6
Specific assumptions
Planetary spacing 1.3.1.2.2
Planetary mass distribution 1.3.1.1.3
Planetary eccentricities 1.3.1.2.2
Exozodi background 1.3.1.1.5
Lambertian phase function 1.3.1.1.4
Planetary albedo 1.3.1.1.4
Habitable zone boundaries 1.3.1.1.1
Target detection time See Design Reference Mission (Section 2.0)
4 Measure semimajor axes and eccentricities 1.3.1.1.1
5 Detect photons from 0.5-1.1 μm 1.3.1.4.1
6 Measure the absolute brightness of the Earth twin 1.4.4
7 Measure the color of the Earth and Jupiter twins 1.3.1.3
8 Detect O2 and H2O for the Earth twin 1.3.1.4
Detect CH4 for the Jupiter twin 1.3.2.3
9 Minimum spectral resolution of 70 1.4.4
10 General astrophysics camera field of view 1.3.5
Disk science requirements
11 Guiding on faint stars 1.3.3.3
12 Detecting emission lines of Na, H, S, and K 1.3.3.3
13 Working at 2λ/D at lower contrast ratios 1.3.3.3
Desired mission requirements
14 Continuous imaging out to 10 arcsec 1.3.3.3, 1.3.3.2
15 Dark hole outer working angle of 2 arcsec 1.3.3.1
16 Polarimetric imaging capability 1.3.3.3

1-55
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Appendix 1.A TPF Spectral Lines (Desmarais et al., 2002)

1-56
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

1-57
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Appendix 1.B Zodi brightness table and ZODIPIC description

ZODIPIC is a computer code that performs an iterative calculation of the cloud surface brightness
to distribute computing power evenly in logarithmic intervals of circumstellar radius, thereby provid-
ing an accurate calculation of the total zodiacal cloud flux. The ZODIPIC model contains several
levels of detail beyond a simple face-on cloud of isotropic scatters. Some of this detail is probably
not relevant to TPF. Figure 1.B-1 compares a few different zodiacal cloud models at 0.5 microns,
each computed by ZODIPIC. The first model (black line) is a simple, circularly-symmetric face-on
cloud with isotropic scattering. Each subsequent model adds one new detail—first a non-zero incli-
nation, then a realistic scattering phase function, then a pericenter shift. The information in this fig-
ure appears in Table 1.B-1. These details amount to at most, corrections of 1 magnitude---in the ab-
sence of a coronagraph. However, in the presence of a coronagraph, the central peaking of the zo-
diacal brightness and the pericenter shift can make a big difference, as discussed in Section 1.3.1.1.5.

Figure 1.B-1. Four Exozodiacal Cloud Models from ZODIPIC with Increasing Complexity: face-on,
isotropic scattering (black line), same model, 60 degrees from face-on, major axis (dotted line),
same as previous, with forward scattering phase function from Hong (1985) (dashed line), same as
previous with 0.07 AU pericenter shift (grey line).

Table 1.B-1 contains the surface brightness at 0.5 microns for four exoodical cloud models com-
puted by ZODIPIC. These models are discussed in Section 1.3.1.1.5. The model in the fourth col-
umn of this table is the one that should be used as the standard 1-zodi exozodiacal background. For
higher exozodiacal backgrounds, multiply by the desired zodi background. The physical basis used in
ZODIPIC, and hence the data in the table, are not valid over 100 zodis.

1-58
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 1.B-1 Various 1-zodi models. Surface brightness in magnitudes per square
arcsecond at λ = 0.5 µm, at a range of distances from the star. Models are for a solar twin
(Kelsall et. al. 1998) in various cases. (1) face-on disk, isotropic scattering, outer radius at
5 AU, albedo =0.2; (2) same disk seen at the median inclination, 60° from face-on; (3) the
resulting disk profile using a Hong phase function (forward-scattering) instead of iso-
tropic scattering; (4) the resulting disk assuming 0.07 AU pericenter shift (7× the solar
system value).

R (AU) face-on +60° incl +Hong +Pericenter

-4.92 27.224912 27.125381 27.268370 26.973110
-4.84 26.946017 26.776519 26.936202 26.728681
-4.76 26.756849 26.519609 26.692447 26.569458
-4.68 26.634985 26.351643 26.533004 26.459467
-4.60 26.548928 26.235510 26.422412 26.358045
-4.52 26.467940 26.128134 26.319718 26.264177
-4.44 26.382423 26.010033 26.207425 26.175056
-4.36 26.322455 25.936437 26.136098 26.091286
-4.28 26.254425 25.848631 26.052002 26.011151
-4.20 26.189449 25.765095 25.971523 25.944446
-4.12 26.131180 25.696107 25.904309 25.869314
-4.04 26.068342 25.617798 25.828727 25.803569
-3.96 26.010976 25.550756 25.764030 25.739994
-3.88 25.952312 25.483624 25.698356 25.674421
-3.80 25.893164 25.415693 25.631832 25.602720
-3.72 25.831361 25.342177 25.560462 25.538173
-3.64 25.770354 25.274703 25.494197 25.472730
-3.56 25.709964 25.206930 25.427684 25.406667
-3.48 25.648100 25.138799 25.360645 25.339747
-3.40 25.585504 25.069974 25.292882 25.272159
-3.32 25.522429 25.001545 25.226024 25.207986
-3.24 25.458684 24.934562 25.159587 25.137923
-3.16 25.393005 24.864034 25.089888 25.068192
-3.08 25.324826 24.790786 25.017688 24.996104
-3.00 25.255621 24.717020 24.944623 24.923141
-2.92 25.184237 24.641834 24.870291 24.852158
-2.84 25.112778 24.567650 24.797267 24.776117
-2.76 25.038099 24.489410 24.719593 24.698558
-2.68 24.961549 24.409545 24.640388 24.619885
-2.60 24.883486 24.329455 24.560891 24.538545
-2.52 24.803642 24.246340 24.478355 24.455290
-2.44 24.720431 24.161483 24.394397 24.369695
-2.36 24.635995 24.073736 24.307399 24.281129
-2.28 24.546382 23.981604 24.215806 24.190787
-2.20 24.455221 23.889072 24.124293 24.098751
-2.12 24.359801 23.792446 24.028048 24.001812
-2.04 24.260369 23.691059 23.927157 23.900415

1-59
TPF-C STDT REPORT

R (AU) face-on +60° incl +Hong +Pericenter

-1.96 24.157998 23.587604 23.824653 23.796181
-1.88 24.050586 23.478242 23.715818 23.687165
-1.80 23.940436 23.366755 23.605419 23.574654
-1.72 23.822328 23.247552 23.486634 23.456282
-1.64 23.703298 23.126753 23.366939 23.333074
-1.56 23.575666 22.999336 23.240145 23.202434
-1.48 23.440528 22.863152 23.104868 23.067044
-1.40 23.298883 22.720744 22.963639 22.925412
-1.32 23.147050 22.567989 22.812039 22.773425
-1.24 22.988493 22.409534 22.654866 22.614119
-1.16 22.815569 22.237193 22.483752 22.439423
-1.08 22.632758 22.054059 22.302032 22.255876
-1.00 22.435848 21.856647 22.105982 22.055910
-0.92 22.229401 21.648691 21.900427 21.838270
-0.84 22.000663 21.420758 21.674783 21.606300
-0.76 21.742494 21.163424 21.420713 21.344482
-0.68 21.468400 20.893439 21.149920 21.069577
-0.60 21.150440 20.578417 20.838874 20.748250
-0.52 20.786928 20.219298 20.484774 20.381071
-0.44 20.362577 19.801986 20.074374 19.953311
-0.36 19.853172 19.304806 19.586902 19.442006
-0.28 19.216163 18.690374 18.987069 18.807787
-0.20 18.365318 17.888244 18.208083 17.975083
-0.12 17.082689 16.729225 17.087139 16.845899
-0.040 15.085110 14.940984 15.419003 14.699244
0.040 15.085110 14.940984 15.419003 14.951688
0.12 17.082689 16.729225 17.087139 17.359124
0.20 18.365318 17.888244 18.208083 18.405519
0.28 19.216163 18.690374 18.987069 19.143326
0.36 19.853172 19.304806 19.586902 19.715984
0.44 20.362577 19.801986 20.074374 20.184044
0.52 20.786928 20.219298 20.484774 20.579870
0.60 21.150440 20.578417 20.838874 20.922849
0.68 21.468400 20.893439 21.149920 21.224955
0.76 21.742494 21.163424 21.420713 21.485849
0.84 22.000663 21.420758 21.674783 21.734253
0.92 22.229401 21.648691 21.900427 21.956679
1.00 22.435848 21.856647 22.105982 22.165089
1.08 22.632758 22.054059 22.302032 22.353614
1.16 22.815569 22.237193 22.483752 22.530423
1.24 22.988493 22.409534 22.654866 22.697727
1.32 23.147050 22.567989 22.812039 22.853983
1.40 23.298883 22.720744 22.963639 23.001252
1.48 23.440528 22.863152 23.104868 23.141010
1.56 23.575666 22.999336 23.240145 23.273948

1-60
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

R (AU) face-on +60° incl +Hong +Pericenter

1.64 23.703298 23.126753 23.366939 23.401024
1.72 23.822328 23.247552 23.486634 23.521887
1.80 23.940436 23.366755 23.605419 23.637824
1.88 24.050586 23.478242 23.715818 23.745848
1.96 24.157998 23.587604 23.824653 23.852786
2.04 24.260369 23.691059 23.927157 23.954339
2.12 24.359801 23.792446 24.028048 24.053744
2.20 24.455221 23.889072 24.124293 24.149469
2.28 24.546382 23.981604 24.215806 24.240649
2.36 24.635995 24.073736 24.307399 24.330569
2.44 24.720431 24.161483 24.394397 24.417428
2.52 24.803642 24.246340 24.478355 24.502366
2.60 24.883486 24.329455 24.560891 24.584357
2.68 24.961549 24.409545 24.640388 24.664195
2.76 25.038099 24.489410 24.719593 24.741210
2.84 25.112778 24.567650 24.797267 24.817875
2.92 25.184237 24.641834 24.870291 24.893027
3.00 25.255621 24.717020 24.944623 24.966797
3.08 25.324826 24.790786 25.017688 25.036928
3.16 25.393005 24.864034 25.089888 25.108536
3.24 25.458684 24.934562 25.159587 25.178684
3.32 25.522429 25.001545 25.226024 25.248295
3.40 25.585504 25.069974 25.292882 25.316249
3.48 25.648100 25.138799 25.360645 25.383709
3.56 25.709964 25.206930 25.427684 25.450328
3.64 25.770354 25.274703 25.494197 25.516568
3.72 25.831361 25.342177 25.560462 25.583184
3.80 25.893164 25.415693 25.631832 25.648914
3.88 25.952312 25.483624 25.698356 25.722476
3.96 26.010976 25.550756 25.764030 25.788713
4.04 26.068342 25.617798 25.828727 25.854252
4.12 26.131180 25.696107 25.904309 25.932500
4.20 26.189449 25.765095 25.971523 25.999977
4.28 26.254425 25.848631 26.052002 26.082460
4.36 26.322455 25.936437 26.136098 26.168732
4.44 26.382423 26.010033 26.207425 26.260934
4.52 26.467940 26.128134 26.319718 26.359742
4.60 26.548928 26.235510 26.422412 26.495057
4.68 26.634985 26.351643 26.533004 26.616612
4.76 26.756849 26.519609 26.692447 26.845079
4.84 26.946017 26.776519 26.936202 27.151113
4.92 27.224912 27.125381 27.268370 28.287927

1-61
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Appendix 1.C References

Anders, E. Pre-biotic organic matter from comets and asteroids. Nature 342, 255 (1989).
Backman, D. E. Caroff, L. J., Sandford, S. A. & Wooden, D. H. 1998, Exozodiacal Dust Workshop:
Conference Proceedings
Beaulieu, J.-P.et.al. Discovery of a cool planet of 5.5 Earth masses through gravitational microlens-
ing. Nature 439, 437-440 (2006).
Becker, R. H. et al., Evidence for Reionization at z~6: Detection of a Gunn-Peterson Trough in a
z=6.28 Quasar, Ap. J., 122, 2850-2857 (2001)
Berlind, A. A. and Weinberg, D. H., The Halo Occupation Distribution:Toward an Empirical De-
termination of the Relation between Galaxies and Mass, Ap. J., 575, 587 (2002).

Berndt, M.E., Allen, D.E., and Seyfried, W.E. Reduction of CO2 during serpentinization of olivine at
300oC and 500 bar. Geology 24, 351-354 (1996).
Blank, J. G., Miller, G. H., Ahrens, M.J., and Winans R. E. Experimental shock chemistry of aque-
ous amino acid solutions and the cometary delivery of prebiotic compounds. Origins Life Evol.
Biosph. 31, 15-51 (2001).
Brandeker, A. Liseau, R., Olofsson, G. & Fridlund, M. et al. 2004, Astron. Astrophys., 418, 681
Bryden G. et al. 2005, astro-ph/0509199
Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., and Hubbard, W.B., A theory for the radius of the transiting giant planet
HD 209458b, Ap. J. 594, 545-551 (2003).
Burrows, A., Sudarsky, D., and Hubeny, I., Spectra and diagnostics for the direct detection of wide-
separation extrasolar giant planets, Ap. J. 609, 407-416 (2004).
Butler P., Vogt S., Marcy G., Fischer D., Wright J., Henry G., Laughlin G. & Lissauer J. A Neptune-
Mass Planet Orbiting the Nearby M Dwarf GJ 436, Ap. J. Lett. 617, 580 (2004).
Carr, M.H. Recharge of the early atmosphere of Mars by impact-induced release of CO2. Icarus 79,
311-327 (1989).
Catling, D.C., Zahnle, K.J., and McKay, C.P. Biogenic methane, hydrogen escape, and the irreversi-
ble oxidation of early Earth. Science 293, 839-843 (2001).
Chambers, J. E., Wetherill, G. W., and Boss, A. P. The stability of multi-planet systems. Icarus 119,
261-268 (1996).
Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Dumas, C., Zuckerman, B., Mouillet, D., Song, I., Beuzit, J.-L., and
Lowrance, P., Astron. Astrophys. 425, L29 (2004).
Chiang E. I. & Goldreich, P. 1997, Ap. J., 490, 368
Clark, R. N. and McCord, T. B. Jupiter and Saturn - near-infrared spectral albedos. Icarus 40 180-188
(1979).
Dalal, N., Hennawi, J. F., and Bode, P. Noise in Strong Lensing Cosmography, Ap.J., 622, 99-105.
Dekany, R. et al. 2005, submitted to PASP.
Dermott, S.F., Jayaraman, S., Xu, Y. L., Gustafson, B.Å.S. and Liou, J.-C. 1994, Nature 369, 719

1-62
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Des Marais, D.J. et al. Remote sensing of planetary properties and biosignatures on extrasolar terres-
trial planets. Astrobiology 2, 153-181 (2002).
Dole, S.H. Habitable Planets for Man. Blaisdell Publishing, New York, 158 pp (1964).
Farley, K.A.,Extraterrestrial helium in seafloor sediments: identification, characteristics, and accre-
tion rate over geologic time, in Peucker-Ehrinbrink, B., and Schmitz, B., eds., Accretion of Extra-
terrestrial Matter Throughout Earth’s History, Kluwer, New York, p. 179-204 (2001).
Farquhar, J., Bao, H., and Thiemans, M. Atmospheric influence of Earth's earliest sulfur cycle. Science
289, 756-758 (2000).
Forget, F. and Pierrehumbert, R.T. Warming early Mars with carbon dioxide clouds that scatter in-
frared radiation. Science 278, 1273-1276 (1997).
Formisano, V., Atreya, S., Encrenaz, T., Ignatiev, N., and Giuranna, M. Detection of methane in the
atmosphere of Mars. Science 306, 1758-1761 (2004).
Freedman, W. L., et al., Final Results from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project to Measure the
Hubble Constant,Ap. J. 553, 47-72 (2001).

Gladman, B. Dynamics of systems of two close planets. Icarus 106, 247-263 (1993).
Goode, P.R. et al. Earthshine observations of the Earth's reflectance. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1671-
1674 (2001).
Goody, R.M. and Yung, Y.L. Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis. Oxford University Press, New
York (1989).
Gough, D.O. Solar interior structure and luminosity variations. Solar Phys. 74, 21-34 (1981).
Grun, E., Zook, H. A., Fechtig, H. & Giese, R. H., Icarus 62, 244 (1985).
Guyon, O. Phase-induced amplitude apodization of telescope pupils for extrasolar terrestrial planet
imaging. Astron. Astrophys. 404, 379-387 (2003).
Hart, M.H. Habitable zones around main sequence stars. Icarus 37, 351-357 (1979).
Hart, M.H. The evolution of the atmosphere of the Earth. Icarus 33, 23-39 (1978).
Holland, H. D. Early Proterozoic atmospheric change. In Early Life on Earth, S. Bengtsson, ed., p.
237-244, New York, Columbia Univ. Press (1994).
Hong, S. S., Astron. Astrophys. 146, 67 (1985).
Hu, W. Dark Energy Probes in the Light of the CMB. In Observing Dark Energy, S. Wolff and T.
Lauer, eds, ASP Conference Series 339, 215-234 (2005).
Ingersoll, A.P. The runaway greenhouse: A history of water on Venus. J. Atmos. Sci. 26, 1191-1198
(1969).
Jakosky, B.M. and Phillips, R.J. Mars' volatile and climate history. Nature 412, 237-244 (2001).
Joshi, M. Climate model studies of synchronously rotating planets. Astrobiology 3, 415-427 (2003).
Joshi, M.M., Haberle, R.M., and Reynolds, R.T. Simulations of the atmospheres of synchronously
rotating terrestrial planets orbiting M dwarfs: Conditions for atmospheric collapse and the im-
plications for habitability. Icarus 129, 450-465 (1997).

1-63
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Kalas, P., Graham, J.A., and Clampin, M. Nature 435, 1067 (2005).
Karkoschka, E. Spectrophotometry of the jovian planets and Titan at 300- to 1000-nm wavelength:
the methane spectrum. Icarus 111, 174-192 (1994).
Kass, D.M. and Yung, Y.L. Loss of atmosphere from Mars due to Solar Wind-Induced Sputtering.
Science 268, 697-699 (1995).
Kasting, J.F. and Catling, D. Evolution of a habitable planet. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 41, 429-463
(2003).
Kasting, J.F. CO2 condensation and the climate of early Mars. Icarus 94, 1-13 (1991).
Kasting, J.F. Earth's early atmosphere. Science 259, 920-926 (1993).
Kasting, J.F. Habitable zones around low mass stars and the search for extraterrestrial life. Origins of
Life 27, 291-307 (1997).
Kasting, J.F., Whitmire, D.P., and Reynolds, R.T. Habitable zones around main sequence stars. Icarus
101, 108-128 (1993).
Kelley, D. S.et. al. A serpentinite-hosted ecosystem: the Lost City hydrothermal vent field. Science
307, 1428-1434 (2005).
Kelley, D. S.et. al. An off-axis hydrothermal vent field near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at 30oN. Nature
412, 145-149 (2001).
Kelsall, T. et al., The COBE Diffuse Infrared Background Experiment Search for the Cosmic Infra-
red Background. II. Model of the Interplanetary Dust Cloud, Ap. J. 508, 44 (1998).

Kharecha, P. K., Kasting, J. F., and Siefert, J. L. A coupled atmosphere-ecosystem model of the early
Archean Earth, Geobiology 3, 53-76 (2005).
Krasnopolsky, V.A., Maillard, J.P., and Owen, T.C. Detection of methane in the martian atmos-
phere: evidence for life? Icarus 172, 537-547 (2004).
Kuchner, M. A minimum-mass extrasolar nebula, Ap. J., 612, 1147-1151 (2004).
Kuchner M. J. & Holman, M. J., Ap. J. 588, 1110 (2003)
Laskar, J. Large-scale chaos in the solar system. Astron. Astrophys. 287, L9-L12 (1994).
Lodders, K. Solar System Abundances and Condensation Temperatures of the Elements, Circum-
stellar Debris Disks and Planet Formation
Lovelock, J.E. A physical basis for life detection experiments. Nature 207, 568-570 (1965).
Lunine, J.I. Astrobiology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Pearson/Addison-Wesley, San Francisco (2005).
Malhotra, S., and Rhoads, J.E. Luminosity Functions of Ly Emitters at Redshitfs z=6.5 and z=5.7:
Evidence against Reionization at z<=6.5, Ap. J. 617, 5 (2004)

Marcy, G. W. and Butler, R. P. Detection of extrasolar giant planets, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 36,
57-97 (1998).
Marcy, G., Butler, R. P., Fischer, D., Vogt, S., Wright, J. T., Tinney, C. G., and Jones, H. R. A., Ob-
served properties of exoplanets: masses, orbits, and metallicities, Prog. Theoret. Phys. Supp. 158, 1-
19 (2005).

1-64
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Marley, M., Fortney, J., Seager, S., and Barman, T. (2006) Atmospheres of Extrasolar Giant Planets,
in Protostars and Planets V, in press.
Marley, M. S., Gelino, C., Stephens, D., Lunine, J.I., & Freedman, R. (1999) Reflected Spectra and
Albedos of Extrasolar Giant Planets. I. Clear and Cloudy Atmospheres., The Astrophysical Journal,
Volume 513, Issue 2, pp. 879-893.
Masset, F. S., and Papaloizou, J. C. B., Runaway migration and the formation of hot Jupiters, Ap J
.588, 494 (2003).
Mayor, M. and Queloz, D. A Jupiter-mass companion to a solar-type star. Nature 378, 355 (1995).
Meadows, V.S., "Modeling the Diversity of Extrasolar Terrestrial Planets", in Direct Imaging of
Exoplanets: Science and Techniques, Proceedings of IAU Coll. 200, C. Aime and F. Vakili, eds.
Cambridge University Press, 2006, 10pp, submitted.
Mischna, M.M., Kasting, J.F., Pavlov, A.A., and Freedman, R. Influence of carbon dioxide clouds on
early martian climate. Icarus 145, 546-554 (2000).
Mojzsis, S.J. et al. Evidence for life on Earth before 3,800 million years ago. Nature 384, 55-59
(1996).
Mumma, M. J., Novak, R. E., DiSanti, M. A., and and Bonev, B. P. A sensitive search for methane
on Mars (abstract). 35th Annual DPS Meeting, Monterey, CA (2003).
Olofsson, G., Liseau, R., and Brandeker, A., Ap. J. 563 L770 (2001).
Owen, T. Papagiannis, M. D. In Strategies for Search for Life in the Universe. Dordrecht, Reidel (1980).
Page, L., et al, Three Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Po-
larization Analysis, Astro-Ph, 0603450 (2006).

Pavlov, A. A., Kasting, J. F., and Brown, L. L. UV-shielding of NH3 and O2 by organic hazes in the
Archean atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 23,267-23,287 (2001).
Pavlov, A. A., Kasting, J. F., Brown, L. L., Rages, K. A., and Freedman, R. Greenhouse warming by
CH4 in the atmosphere of early Earth. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 11,981-11,990 (2000).
Peale, S.J. Rotational histories of the natural satellites. In Burns, J.A. (ed.) Planetary Satellites. Univer-
sity of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ (1977).
Peterson, E., Horz, F., and Chang, S. Modification of amino acids at shock pressures of 3.5 to 32
Gpa. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 61, 3937-3950 (1997).
Pierazzo, E. and Chyba, C. F. Amino acid survival in large cometary impacts. Meteoritics & Planetary
Science 34, 909-918 (1999).
Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., Lissauer, J. J., and Greenzweig, Y., Icarus 124, 62-85
(1996).
Pollack, J. B., Kasting, J. F., Richardson, S. M., and Poliakoff, K. The case for a wet, warm climate
on early Mars. Icarus 71, 203-224 (1987).
Pollack, J.B. Climatic change on the terrestrial planets. Icarus 37, 479-553 (1979).
Rafikov, R. R., Fast accretion of small planetesimals by protoplanetary cores, Astron. J. 128, 1348-
1363, (2004).

1-65
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Rasool, S.I. and DeBergh, C. The runaway greenhouse and the accumulation of CO2 in the Venus
atmosphere. Nature 226, 1037-1039 (1970).
Rivera, E. J., Lissauer, J. J., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., Vogt, S. S., Fischer, D. A., Brown, T. M., and
Laughlin, G., A ~7.5 Earth-mass planet orbiting the nearby star, GJ 876, Ap. J. 634, 625-640
(2005).
Rosing, M.T. 13C-depleted carbon microparticles in >3700-Ma sea-floor sedimentary rocks from
West Greenland. Science 283, 674-676 (1999).
Sagan, C., Thompson, W.R., Carlson, R., Gurnett, D., and Hord, C. A search for life on Earth from
the Galileo spacecraft. Nature 365, 715-721 (1993).
Segura, A. et al. Ozone concentrations and ultraviolet fluxes on Earth-like planets around other stars.
Astrobiol. 3, 689-708 (2003).
Segura, A., J. F. Kasting, V. Meadows, M. Cohen, J. Scalo, D. Crisp, R. A. H. Butler, and G. Tinetti,
Biosignatures from Earth-like planets around M stars. Astrobiol. 5, 706-725 (2005).
Sigurdsson S., Richer H., Hansen B., Stairs I & Thorsett S. A young white dwarf companion to pul-
sar B1620-26: evidence for early planet formation, Science 301, 193 (2003).
Sobolev, V.V. Light Scattering in Planetary Atmospheres. Pergamon, Oxford (1975).
Solomon, S.C. and Head, J.W. Fundamental issues in the geology and geophysics of Venus. Science
252, 252-260 (1991).
Sudarsky, D., Burrows, A. and Hubeny, I., Theoretical spectra and atmospheres of extrasolar giant
planets, Ap. J. 588, 1121-1148 (2003).
Tinetti, G., V. Meadows, D. Crisp, W. Fong, H. Snively, Disk-averaged synthetic spectra of Mars,
Astrobiology 5(4), 461-482, (2005)
Tinetti, G., V. Meadows, D. Crisp, W. Fong, E. Fishbein, T. Velusamy, M. Turnbull Detectability of
planetary characteristics in disk-averaged spectra I: the Earth model”, Astrobiology 6, 34-47
(2006).
Walker, J.C.G., Hays, P.B., and Kasting, J.F. A negative feedback mechanism for the long-term sta-
bilization of Earth's surface temperature. J. Geophys. Res. 86, 9776-9782 (1981).
Wolszczan A. and Frail D. A Planetary System around the millisecond pulsar PSR1257+12, Nature
255, 145 (1992).
Wyatt, M. C., Dermott, S. F., Telesco, C. M., Fisher, R. S., Grogan, K., Holmes, E. K., & Piña, R. K.
1999, Ap. J. 527, 918
Wyatt, M. C., Dermott, S. F., Telesco, C. M., Fisher, R. S., Grogan, K., Holmes, E. K., & Piña, R. K.
1999, Ap. J. 527, 918
Wyatt, S. P., & Whipple, F. L., Ap .J 111, 134 (1950).
Zakamska, N. L. and Tremaine, S., Excitation and propagation of eccentricity disturbances in plane-
tary systems, Astron. J. 128, 869 (2004).
Zapolsky, H.S. & Salpeter, E. E. The mass-radius relation for cold spheres of low mass. Ap. J. 158,
809-813 (1969).

1-66
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Appendix 1.D Alternative Form of Mission Requirements

In working through the Design Reference Mission for TPF-C, R. Brown proposed an alternative
formulation for requirements 1-4 (Section 1.4.4). These requirements have not been discussed in
detail by the STDT, but they may go at least part way towards removing the ambiguities noted in
Section 1.4.4.

I. TPF-C must have an excellent chance (>95%) of detecting 30 planets in three years of continu-
ous searching operations, under the following assumptions:

A1. The area of the planetary disk is pi times the square of the Earth radius.

A2. The geometric albedo is 0.2.

A3. The phase function is Lambertian

A4. The semimajor axis is a random variable drawn from a probability distribution that is uniform
over the range 0.75 to 1.8 AU and zero otherwise.

A5. The orbital eccentricity is a random variable drawn from a probability distribution that is uni-
form over the range 0 to 0.1 and zero otherwise.

A6. The pole of the orbit is a random variable uniformly distributed on the celestial sphere.

A7. Every star has one such planet initially located in its orbit at a random mean anomaly.

A8. The total background surface brightness due to zodiacal lights is four times 23rd magnitude per
sq. arcsec.

II. TPF-C must have an excellent chance (>U%) of differentiating between background confusion
sources and a random detected planet (satisfying assumptions A1-6), before the chance of the
planet becoming unobservable (undetectable or unviewable according to solar avoidance) is
greater than V%.

III. TPF-C must have an excellent chance (>W%) of determining the orbit of a detected planet (sat-
isfying assumptions A1-6) to an accuracy sufficient to determine whether or not the orbit is or
is consistent with A4-5 at a confidence level of X%.

IV. TPF-C must have an excellent chance (>Y%) of predicting the observability of a detected
planet (satisfying assumptions A1-6) at a time more than 6 months in advance with a success
probability greater than Z%.

Percentages U, V, W, X, Y, and Z remain to be specified.

1-67
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Appendix 1.E. The Previous Science Requirements for TPF

(2004)

1.E.1 Historical Context

The second Science Working Group (SWG) for Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) was com-
petitively selected and chartered by NASA Headquarters in fall 2002. The TPF-SWG met
approximately quarterly for two years until it was dissolved in fall 2004. The TPF-SWG
studied the scientific foundations of both the interferometer and coronagraph versions of
TPF. Based on the 2002 industry studies of multiple options for TPF, the 2002 DesMarais
report on TPF science in the visible and infrared, the January 2004 Presidental Vision state-
ment, and the SWG’s informal findings, in spring 2004 NASA decided to pursue the two
leading types of TPF, the coronagraph and interferometer.

The final study product of the TPF-SWG was a single Science Requirements Document
(SRD) for the combined TPF-C and TPF-I missions. This document, the first SRD for
TPF, is published here for the first time. This SRD was the basis on which subsequent
committees were formed in late 2004 to study the dual missions. The coronagraph commit-
tee, the present STDT, used the first SRD as the starting point for its own second SRD, this
one specifically focusing on the coronagraph, as presented in the initial sections of the pre-
sent Report. The first SRD was also the basis on which the TPF Project engineers and sci-
entists designed the first version of a coronagraphic telescope system, the design known as
Flight Baseline 1 (FB-1), which is presented in detail in other sections of the present volume.

In this Appendix we present the first SRD. Its content was developed during extensive dis-
cussions among the full SWG. A subcommittee of the SWG (members Jonathan Lunine,
Sara Seager and Wesley Traub) tracked these discussions and iteratively produced a distilled
executive summary published herein, all of which was approved in detail by the full SWG.

The reader will notice that there is much in common between the first and second SRDs.
The main exception is that the first SRD focused on maximizing the expected completeness in a
search for Earth-like planets, whereas the second SRD focuses on maximizing the expected
number of detections of Earth-like planets.

The members of the second TPF-SWG (2002-2004) are listed below.

Dana Backman, Franklin and Marshall College

Charles Beichman, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Robert Brown, Space Telescope Science Institute
Chris Burrows, Metajiva Corp.
William Danchi, Goddard Space Flight Center
Malcolm Fridlund, European Space Agency
Eric Gaidos, University of Hawaii
Phillip Hinz, University of Arizona
Kenneth Johnston, United States Naval Observatory
Marc Kuchner, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Douglas Lin, University of California, Santa Cruz
Jonathan Lunine, University of Arizona

1-68
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Victoria Meadows, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Gary Melnick, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Bertrand Mennesson, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
David Miller, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Martin (Charley) Noecker, Ball Aerospace Corp
Sara Seager, Carnegie Institution of Washington
Eugene Serabyn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
William Sparks, Space Telescope Science Institute
David Spergel, Princeton University
Wesley Traub, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
John Trauger, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Ted von Hippel, University of Texas
Neville Woolf, University of Arizona

1.E.2 TPF 2004 Science Requirements

Goals of TPF. The goals of the Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) mission are to detect di-
rectly and characterize Earth-like planets around nearby stars. The direct detection goal im-
plies that TPF must separate planet light from starlight. The characterization goal implies
that TPF must determine the type of planet, its gross physical properties and its main atmos-
pheric constituents, allowing an assessment of the likelihood that life or habitable conditions
exist there.

We estimate the number of planets TPF should find using simple and reasonable assump-
tions. These goals and assumptions lead to the following requirements.

Minimum and Full Missions. To allow a range of technical solutions and fiscal con-
straints, the initial planning must include a scientifically minimum mission, and the scientifi-
cally preferred, full mission.

Terrestrial Planet Definition. Considering the radii and albedos or effective temperatures
of solar system planets, TPF must be able to detect terrestrial planets different from our
own, down to a minimum terrestrial planet defined as having 1/2 Earth surface area, Earth
albedo or the equivalent equilibrium effective temperature, and at visible wavelengths the
phase function of a Lambertian sphere.

Orbit Phase Space. The distribution of orbital elements of terrestrial type planets is pres-
ently unknown, but observations suggest that giant planet orbits are distributed roughly
equally in semi-major axis, and in eccentricity up to those of the solar system planets and
larger. Therefore TPF must be designed to search for planets drawn from uniform probabil-
ity distributions in semi-major axis over the range 0.7 to 1.5 AU and in eccentricity over the
range 0 to 0.35, with the orbit pole uniformly distributed over the celestial sphere with ran-
dom orbit phase.

1-69
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Types of Stars. On astrophysical grounds, Earth-like planets should be found around stars
that are roughly similar to the sun. Therefore TPF target stars should include main sequence
F, G, and K stars that are at least 1 Gyr old.

Number of Stars to Search. We require the minimum mission to search at least 35 core stars,
and the full mission to search at least 165 stars (35 core stars plus 130 additional stars).

Extended Number of Stars. We desire to search as many stars as possible, beyond the re-
quired core and additional star groups. We anticipate that any mission capable of satisfying
the requirements will also be capable of searching many more stars if the requirements are
relaxed. Therefore we desire that the mission search an extended group of stars defined as those
systems of any type in which all or part of the continuously habitable zone (see below) can be
searched.

Search Completeness. Search completeness is defined as that fraction of planets in the or-
bital phase space that could be found within instrumental and mission constraints. We re-
quire each core stars to be searched at the 90% completeness level for both the minimum
and full TPF missions. For the additional stars in the full mission, the required 90% com-
pleteness is integrated over the additional stars.

Expected Number of “Earths”. To obtain a statistically significant number of planets

over as wide a range of assumptions as possible, within limits of time and instrumentation,
TPF must search both deep and wide. Since TPF will be the first mission designed to directly
detect terrestrial planets, the frequency of terrestrial planets will probably not be known until
TPF measures it. For the Sun, this number is 3. For a typical nearby star, based on current
knowledge of giant planets as well as theory, the best current estimate of this number is of
order 0.1. For the minimum TPF and full TPF missions the number of stars and complete-
ness requirements lead to an expectation value for the number of detections of, respectively,
3 and 15 terrestrial planets.

Habitable Zone. TPF should search the most likely range as well as the complete range of
temperatures within which life may be possible on a terrestrial type planet. In the Solar Sys-
tem, the most likely zone is near the present Earth, and the full zone is the range between
Venus and Mars. The habitable zone (HZ) is defined as the range of semi-major axes from
0.7 to 1.5 AU scaled by the square root of stellar luminosity. The minimum terrestrial planet
must be detectable at the outer edge of the HZ. The continuously habitable zone (CHZ) is
defined similarly, from 0.9 to 1.1 AU.

Spectral Range. The required spectral range of TPF is 0.5 to 0.8 micron in the visible and
6.5 to 13 microns in the infrared. The desired ranges are 0.5 to 1.05 micron and 6.5 to 17
microns.

Color. Colors distinguish planets from other objects. TPF must use color to characterize the
type of planet and to measure its gross properties, including effective temperature at mid-IR
wavelengths. Reference colors and relative magnitudes are those of Venus, Earth, Mars, and
Jupiter. TPF must measure planet color in 3 or more bands (wavelengths and bandwidth

1-70
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

TBD), to an accuracy of 10%, for any detected planet. We require that the ratio of color-
characterized planets to all detected planets have an expectation value of at least 50%.

Spectrum. TPF must use the spectrum of a planet to characterize its surface and atmos-
phere. The spectrum of the present Earth, scaled for semi-major axis and star luminosity,
must be used as a reference. The required spectral resolution is 70 in the visible and 20 in
the infrared. TPF must measure O2, H2O, and O3 in the visible and H2O and O3 in the in-
frared. In this context, a measurement of a species is defined as the determination of the
equivalent width of a spectral feature of that species to 20% accuracy. We desire to TPF
measure Rayleigh scattering, photosynthetic pigments, CO2, and CH4 in the visible and CO2
as well as CH4 in the infrared. The desired spectral resolutions are 2 times the required val-
ues.

Characterization Completeness. It will be difficult to obtain spectra of the fainter or less

well positioned planets. We require that the ratio of spectrally-characterized planets to all
detected planets have an expectation value of at least 50%.

Giant Planets. The occurrence and properties of giant planets may determine the environ-
ments of terrestrial planets. We require the TPF field of view and sensitivity must be suffi-
cient to detect a giant planet with the radius and geometric albedo or effective temperature
of Jupiter at 5 AU (scaled by the square root of stellar luminosity) around at least 50% of its
target stars. A signal-to-noise ratio of at least 5 is required.

Exozodiacal Dust. Determining and understanding the properties of the zodiacal cloud is
essential to understanding the formation, evolution, and habitability of planetary systems.
TPF must be able to detect planets in the presence of zodiacal clouds at levels up to 10 times
the brightness of the zodiacal cloud in the solar system. As a goal, TPF should be able to
determine the spatial and spectral distribution of zodiacal clouds with at least 0.1 times the
brightness of the solar system zodiacal cloud.

Visitations. Multiple visits per star may be required to achieve completeness or to study a
planet along its orbit, to determine its orbit, distinguish it from background objects, and
validate a measurement. Therefore TPF must make enough visits to meet the completeness
and other requirements.

Minimum Mission Scope Summary. The minimum TPF must be able to detect planets
with half the area of the Earth, and the Earth’s geometric albedo, searching the entire HZ of
the core-group stars with 90% completeness per star. Flux ratios must be measured in 3
broad wavelength bands, to 10% accuracy, for at least 50% of the detected terrestrial planets.
The spectrum must be measured—for at least 50% of the detected terrestrial planets—to
give the equivalent widths of O2, H2O, and O3 in the visible or H2O, and O3 in the infrared
to an accuracy of 20%.

Full Mission Scope Summary. The full TPF must be able to detect planets with half the
area of the Earth, with Earth’s geometric albedo, searching the entire HZ of the 35 core-
group stars plus the aggregated HZs of at least 130 additional stars with 90% completeness
for both groups. Flux ratio must be measured in 3 broad wavelength bands to 10% accuracy
for at least 50% of the detected terrestrial planets. The spectrum must be measured—for at

1-71
TPF-C STDT REPORT

least 50% of the detected terrestrial planets—to give the equivalent widths of O2, H2O, and
O3 in the visible or H2O, and O3 in the infrared to an accuracy of 20%. Further, we desire
that the mission search an extended group of stars defined as those systems of any type in which
all or part of the CHZ can be searched.

Other constraints: Other than those specified above or in the table which follows, no other
properties (e.g. metallicity or variability) of stars should be used to impose requirements on
the TPF mission. “True wisdom is to know what is best worth doing and to do what is best
worth doing” (Edward Porter Humphrey).

Table 1.E-0-1 Summary of Previous TPF Science Requirements (2004)

Key Parameter Minimum TPF Full TPF

Star types F through K F through K
Habitable Zone 0.7 to 1.5 AU scaled L0.5 0.7 to 1.5 AU scaled L0.5

Orbit Phase space semi-major axis: uniform semi-major axis: uniform

inclination: uniform inclination: uniform
eccentricity: 0-0.35 eccentricity: 0-0.35
Number of stars to be searched 35 core stars 165 additional stars
Completeness per core star 90% 90%
Completeness per set of addi- N/A 90% integrated over the
tional stars ensemble
Minimum planet area 1/2 Earth area 1/2 Earth area
Geometric albedo Earth Earth
Flux ratio at least 3 broad wavelength at least 3 broad wave-
bands; length bands
Spectral range 0.5-0.8 [0.5-1.05]μm; 6.5-13 [6.5- 0.5-0.8 [0.5-1.05]μm
17] μm 6.5-13 [6.5-17] μm
Characterization completeness 50% 50%
η⊕ 0.1 0.1
Expected number of planets 3 15
given above requirements
Giant planets Jupiter brightness at Jupiter brightness at
5 AU, 50% of stars 5 AU, 50% of stars
Maximum tolerable mean exo- 10 zodi 10 zodi
zodi

1-72
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

2.0 Design Reference Mission

2.1 Introduction
The STDT has conducted a variety of theoretical studies of the TPF-C mission, which have
been reported in publications or distributed as technical reports. These documents include
two “design reference missions” (DRMs). Table 2.1-1 provides a bibliography. The unpub-
lished documents form a volume of the STDT report.

To date, the four purposes of TPF-C mission studies have been:

(1) To explore the range of parameters for which the current design concept can robus-
tly perform its intended research. We want to understand the correct scale of the
mission.
(2) To identify systematic effects that may shape or constrain the science of TPF-C. We
want to know what selection effects need to be compensated, calibrated, or further
investigated to reduce risk or alleviate concern.
(3) To reveal the essential character of science operations for TPF-C. We want to de-
velop the mission taking ground operations and the scientific process fully into ac-
count.
(4) To develop the relationships between the science programs of TPF-C and other mis-
sions, particularly the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM). We want to fully exploit the
synergism inherent in complementary data sets.

This overview of mission studies for TPF-C includes key concepts, major findings, and is-
sues left unresolved in spring 2006, at the time of the final report of the STDT.

Table 2.1-1 Bibliography of mission studies for TPF-C

Short Reference Long Reference Appendix

1 Brown 2004a Brown, R. A. 2004, “Obscurational completeness,”
ApJ 607:1003–1013.
2 Brown 2004b Brown, R. A. 2004, “New information from radial ve-
locity data sets,” ApJ 610: 1079–1092.
3 Brown 2005 Brown, R. A. 2005, “Single-visit photometric and ob-
scurational completeness,” ApJ 624, 1010–1024.
4 Kasdin 2006 N. J. Kasdin & I. Braems, “Linear and Bayesian Planet
Detection Algorithms for the Terrestrial Planet
Finder,” ApJ 646 (Aug 2006)
5 Brown 2006a Brown, R. A. 2006, “Expectations for the early TPF-C MS-1
mission,” in IAUC 200, Direct Imaging of Exoplanets:
Science and Techniques, eds. C. Aime & F. Vakili,
(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), in press.
6 Hunyadi et al. 2006a Hunyadi, S. L., Shaklan, S. B. & Brown, R. A. 2006, MS-2
“Single-visit completeness optimization,” ApJ submit-
ted.
7 Hunyadi et al. 2006b Hunyadi, S. L., Shaklan, S. B. & Brown, R. A. 2006, MS-3
“Program completeness,” ApJ in preparation.
8 Brown 2006b Brown, R. A. 2006, “Differentiating extrasolar planets MS-4

2-1
TPF-C STDT REPORT

from background confusion by apparent motion,”

technical report.
9 Brown 2006c Brown, R. A. 2006, “Chasing Earth-like planets,” in the MS-5
STScI 2005 Annual Report, pp. 24-26.
10 Brown 2006d Brown, R. A., 2006, “On orbit determination with MS-6
TPF-C,” technical report.
11 Brown 2006e Brown, R. A. 2006, “Design reference mission for MS-7
TPF-C,” briefing to STDT, March 14, 2006.
12 Heap 2006 Heap, S. 2006, “SIM–TPF-C synergy,” technical report MS-8
13 DRM2 Heap, S., and Lindler, D. 2006, “A Design Reference MS-9
Mission for TPF-C,” technical report.
14 DRM1 Brown, R. A., Hunyadi, S. L., & Shaklan, S. B. 2006, “A MS-10
DRM for TPF-C,” technical report.

2.2 Key concepts

The scientific requirements of TPF-C are sharply focused, well defined, and governed by the
simple geometry and physics of planetary motion and photometry. They are therefore sub-
ject to quantitative assessment. Searching for planets is remarkably predictable: from a lim-
ited set parameters and assumptions, we can estimate the outcome of a searching observa-
tion, a series of observations, or even the results of the entire mission. Concepts at the heart
of these abilities include search completeness, signal-to-noise ratio, observational simulations, models, and
algorithms.

Search completeness (C) is the primary metric for evaluating planet searches. It is defined as
the fraction of possible planets that are discoverable by a given instrument and observing
protocol. Completenesses add. For example, the total completeness of two searches is equal
to the completeness of the first search plus the completeness of the second search as com-
puted for the planets that were obscured or too faint to be detectable by the first search. The
actual number planets detected by a searching observation—zero or one, assuming the star
has either zero or one planet—is a Bernoulli random variable with probability—and expecta-
tion value—equal to C times η, where η is the occurrence probability of planets. For any
star, C can be estimated by Monte Carlo techniques, using models of the instrument, the
planets of interest, and the observing protocols (Brown 2005).

In the mission studies to date, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is built on five concepts.

• The detection threshold (SNR0) is the value of the photon-statistical SNR that defines
“detection.” Typically, it is SNR0 = 5 or 10, computed for a point source. Kasdin &
Braems (2006) also includes in his SNR formulation a parameter for the probability
of missed detection; this serves an equivalent purpose.
• The limiting delta magnitude (Δmag0), which is 2.5 times the log10 of the maximum prac-
tical star-planet brightness ratio for detection. Larger Δmag0 means a fainter planet
can be detected.
• The systematic or maximum limiting delta magnitude (Δmag0,max), which is set by the optical
stability of the instrument (Brown 2005). The limiting delta magnitude Δmag0 cannot

2-2
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

be more favorable than Δmag0,max. For terrestrial planet studies, typically we must
choose Δmag0,max = 25 or 26 magnitudes, (i.e. a planet sensitivity of 0.4-1.0×10-10 of
stellar brightness).
• The unit time for searching (T) is the time required to achieve SNR0 for a source with a
specified Δmag0.
• The time calculator comprises the algorithms for computing SNR as a function of T
(or vice versa), given the V-magnitude of the star, Δmag0, the level of zodiacal light,
instrumental parameters, and the observational protocol (e.g., the number of roll an-
gles sampled)..

Two types of observational simulation have been performed to evaluate the scientific gain
achievable with TPF-C. These simulations are built around the Flight Baseline 1 (FB-1) de-
sign documented in Chapters 3-5 of this report. The first type comprises simulations to es-
timate the number of planets detected, verified, and/or characterized—during a set time pe-
riod, typically one or more years. Such simulations have used productivity or discovery rate (C/T)
to rank-order the target list, then have estimated the yield of planets by totaling the search
completeness for the top-ranked stars that are observable in the time period. Unoptimized
simulations set Δmag0 = Δmag0,max for all stars, whereas optimized simulations remove less
productive exposure time from some stars and give it to stars below the unoptimized cutoff
rank. This optimization procedure increases total completeness (Hunyadi et al. 2006).

The ability to perform spectroscopy and photometry on the found planet set is a function
Δmag0,max and the wavelength-dependent inner working angle, IWA. Spectroscopy and pho-
tometry require more sensitivity and access to longer wavelengths than detection. Thus plan-
ets that can be detected above the noise floor are not necessarily characterizable to the re-
quired levels, and over the required bandpass. How the limiting delta magnitude is han-
dled—in particular the tradeoff between control and knowledge of the scattered light near a
planet—is of critical importance in determining the mission scale.

The second type of observational simulation comprises studies of selection biases and opera-
tional issues using the detected or found subset of planets. The ability to perform such simulations
is a byproduct of studies that estimate completeness. For each star, the Monte Carlo simula-
tions for completeness create random samples of possible detected planets, including knowl-
edge of their orbits and physical characteristics. The properties of the ensemble of possibly
detected planets can be studied in detail by computing the future position and brightness of
each planet in the sample, as needed.

Observational simulations require models to represent the stars, planets, instrument, and as-
pects of the observing program—in short, all the assumptions that logically intersect and
engage in the TPF-C mission. The plasticity of this modeling framework means that the
simulations can be readily updated with new information, to incorporate changes to the TPF-
C design or revisions to the science requirements. In this light, a suite of mission studies or a
DRM can be understood as a model in itself—a model of models. DRM1 and DRM2—and
indeed, Table 1 as a whole—are examples.

2-3
TPF-C STDT REPORT

In addition to parametric models, observational simulations require algorithms to compute

needed data items, including C, T for both searching and spectroscopy, availability due to the
solar-avoidance restriction, ability to disambiguate candidate planets (test for common
proper motion), and orbit determination.

Table 2.2-1 lists the parametric models and algorithms related to the bibliography in Table
2.1-1. Future studies will expand and enrich the collection of models and algorithms.

Table 2.2-1. Models and algorithms defined or referenced by DRM1 and/or DRM2

Model References
1 Stellar qualification DRM1, DRM2
2 Planets of interest DRM1, DRM2
3 Instrumental performance DRM1, DRM2
4 Strategic unknowns DRM1, DRM2
5 Observational protocols DRM1, DRM2
6 Rules and restrictions DRM1
Algorithm References
1 Completeness DRM1, DRM2
2 Searching exposure time MS-3, DRM2, Kasdin 2006
3 Searching exposure time optimization DRM1, MS-2
4 Spectroscopic exposure time DRM2
5 Availability DRM1, MS-4, DRM2
6 Recoverability DRM1, MS-7(29), Brown 2004b
7 Ability to disambiguate DRM1, MS-4
8 Orbit determination MS-6, Brown 2004b

2.3 Studies to date

Three groups—at STScI, JPL, and GSFC—have assembled tool sets for investigating and
evaluating the TPF-C science mission based on the foregoing concepts. In terms of code,
these tool sets are largely independent, and they have been cross-validated to a significant
degree. However, the variation of parameters used has been considerable, and the quantities
computed have often been different and difficult to compare. Indeed, the science require-
ments and FB1 had not been finalized during the mission studies. Despite a patchwork of
results, we nevertheless have general agreement on the basic logic, concepts, and framework
for TPF-C mission studies. This is a durable advantage for the future, out of the STDT era.

We now summarize results pertaining to the first purpose of mission studies, to determine
the true scale of the TPF-C mission. In this context, “scale” combines aperture size (inner
working distance, astrometric accuracy), effective area (light gathering power), Δmag0,max (lim-
iting sensitivity), and mission duration. There is considerable interdependence among these
factors.

2-4
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

All studies conclude that the scale of the FB1 design is right for detecting about three
Earth-like planets in the habitable zones of nearby stars in a three year observing
program, assuming a 10% occurrence rate of such planets. This result is compatible
with the planet finding science requirement. However, the result is borderline, not ro-
bust. For that reason, this conclusion— and the assumptions on which it is based—should
be closely reviewed, both scientifically and technically. Furthermore, because of the follow-
ing issues, additional mission studies are needed to find a scale of TPF-C that is robustly
adequate. The studies also show that the assumed limiting delta magnitude,
Δmag0,max=26.75, has a serious impact on the ability to meet multi-band photometry and
spectroscopy requirements.

A. The target list of qualified, productive stars for FB1 is thin. For example, on the most inclusive
ranked list, comprising 136 stars (http://sco.stsci.edu/starvault/index.php), the values of
C/T for low-ranking stars are typically 50 times lower than those of high-ranking stars, and
the values of T are typically 10 times longer. If a good star is removed for any scientific or
technical reason, then a bad star must replace it. The impact goes straight to the bottom line,
reducing the estimated number of planets found during the mission.

B. FB1 may not be robust against the strategic unknowns—exozodiacal light, background confusion, and
η. If real exozodi brightness levels are consistent with current upper limits, the values of T
will be larger, reducing the yield of planets from the mission. It may be possible to safely ig-
nore background or manage the problem spectroscopically, but we are not yet confident this
can be done. The alternative is using the test of common proper motion, which doesn’t
work for a considerable fraction of stars (Brown 2006b). Upcoming missions e.g. Kepler and
COROT may resolve the issue of η.

C. A realistic decision-making process for science operations has not yet been developed and tested by simula-
tions. A tenth of typical planets discovered with FB1 become undetectable in a couple of
weeks, either fading with orbital phase or moving inside the IWA. Also, because typical val-
ues of T are denominated in days, scheduling decisions must be made quickly and accurately,
based on relatively little—and likely ambiguous—information. Inefficiencies will waste time
and lose planets.

D. It difficult to determine orbits or recover planets after the discovery epoch. After the initial detection,
the best time to see the planet again (“recover” it) is immediately. Once it has disappeared,
due to brightness or angle, the time to its next appearance is long and very uncertain; and its
next appearance may be brief. This problem is worst for higher luminosity stars, where the
detectable fraction of the photometric orbit is small and the orbital periods are long (Brown
2006d). If time is wasted on failed recovery attempts, or if high-yield, high-luminosity stars
are replaced with low-yield, low luminosity stars to improve orbit determination, the number
of planets found during the mission will be reduced.

Increasing the scale of TPF-C would ameliorate each of the issues. The true scale of TPF-C
will be known when these concerns have been retired. Currently available mission modeling
tools are adequate to address these questions.

2-5
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Regarding systematic effects, the problems with planetary recovery, orbit determination, and
disambiguation of background confusion by common proper motion have been mentioned.
In addition, some selection biases have been identified, but their scientific impacts are not
yet known (Brown 2006e p. 35). For example, the completeness for smaller (normalized)
semimajor axis is poor for low luminosity stars, and poor for larger semimajor axis for high
luminosity stars. We are also concerned about how best to combine technical performance
(C/T) with scientific priorities (e.g., metallicity) in the prioritization target stars, to minimize
undesirable selection effects.

We are certain that the science operations of TPF-C will be radically different from those of
a general purpose observatory, like Hubble. For exoplanetary research, time—and timing—
are of the essence. The observing schedule will be a just-on-time delivery, to take into ac-
count the most recent results. Adroitly managing the resource of time through hardware,
software, and procedures will be the margin of success for this mission.

A great lesson of TPF-C mission studies to date is the power and versatility of observational
simulations. Today, they are the accepted basis for evaluating the ability of a mission design
to meet the science requirements, and for understanding its scientific strengths and weak-
nesses.

With respect to SIM-TPF synergy, SIM will detect planets of interest and measure their or-
bits well before the TPF-C mission. Almost all the planets discovered will be more massive
than Earth and many will have contrast and separation amenable to characterization. Thus
TPF-C will, in the early days of the mission, benefit from SIM measurements and character-
ize planets in known orbits with known masses. SIM will also discover more massive planets
close to their stars, perhaps indicating low-priority targets not likely to harbor terrestrial
planets in the habitable zone.

2-6
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.0 TPF-C Design Performance Assessment

3.1 Introduction
This section presents the performance assessment of a conceptual TPF Coronagraph design
that meets the contrast requirements as of January 2005. This is a remarkable conclusion:
realistic models predict that the largest telescope ever sent to space, with a monolithic glass
mirror, will be able to prepare a starlight wavefront of such exquisite perfection and stability
that it can be suppressed by a factor 1010, allowing earth-sized planets to be detected and
characterized around more than 30 nearby stars. Our models are still of intermediate fidelity:
they embody a very detailed thermal-optical-mechanical design, with realistic material prop-
erties and disturbance couplings, but they are still not as accurate as we can expect to achieve
in a few years. Even so, they persuasively support a conclusion that was viewed as ridicu-
lously beyond reason less than 10 years ago.

In the last six months, science/mission modeling has significantly advanced, and now clearly
outlines a rigorous path from our new formulation of the science requirements (Section 1) to
the engineering requirements that support them (Section 3.2). As one might expect, with this
new understanding, the FB1 requirements no longer seem quite adequate for the science we
are aiming to achieve. However, the gaps are small, and probably require only a modest
change in the engineering requirements and design. This reassessment has not been done
yet, and should be among the first tasks when TPF-C is reinvigorated in coming years.

We had planned to conduct 3 to 4 design cycles in pre-Phase A, each of which would in-
clude a greater level of design detail and fidelity. Flight Baseline 1 (FB1) described herein is
the second of these design iterations. The first cycle, named the Minimum Mission De-
sign concept, was completed in 2004 and addressed the minimum science requirements es-
tablished in 2004 (Appendix 1.E). It attempted to develop, model and analyze a system that
could produce contrast adequate to find and characterize planets around 35 nearby stars,
with an inner working angle of 3λ/D. The telescope was designed with a 6 m × 3.5 m pri-
mary mirror, and the spacecraft included a full conic sun-shade. The Minimum Mission De-
sign cycle established the integrated modeling approach that enabled the team to study ob-
servatory environmental perturbations and their effect on the wave front and contrast. The
modeling process successfully tied structural, jitter and thermal models to optical perform-
ance models. The study calculated contrast performance, related the performance to an op-
erational scenario that predicted the ability to find planets and to explore star habitable zones
completely. The Minimum Mission Design, modeling and analysis is fully documented in a
report that was completed 22 April 2004 (Levine and White, 2004). Several papers were also
published describing the results: Ford et al. (2004), White et al. (2004), Kissil et al. (2004),
and Shaklan et al. (2004). The cycle used simple beam models in non-critical areas, and sim-
plified optical analyses, but was successful in demonstrating that a feasible observatory de-
sign incorporating a coronagraph system similar to the one represented in the High Contrast
Imaging Testbed (HCIT) was thermally and dynamically stable enough to allow detection of
earth-sized planets.

In the FB1 cycle, the system tolerances are relaxed by adopting a 4λ/D inner working angle,
an 8 m × 3.5 m primary mirror, and an 8th order occulting mask, while maintaining the 2003
Science Requirements. Several observatory weaknesses discovered during the Minimum Mis-

3-1
TPF-C STDT REPORT

sion Design analysis cycle were corrected. These included smoothing the sunshade vanes
from a set of flat panels into continuous conic shapes, and stiffening the base of the secon-
dary tower. Also, fidelity and detail were improved for thermal and structural models of the
secondary mirror assembly, the secondary tower the multi-layer sun shade and its mounting
to the spacecraft, and the primary mirror in its thermal enclosure. The model now incorpo-
rates radiatively-coupled thermal control of the primary mirror with an “oven” enclosure
behind the mirror. Also included are heat loads from electronics, transferred by heat pipes to
a passive radiator; and placeholder instruments, with the detectors co-located in a cold zone
and cooled using heat pipes and another cold radiator. For the FB1 analysis, key analyses
were the system thermal sensitivities, to understand the requirements for an active thermal
control system. This work was completed in September 2005, and is described in an interim
report (Ford ed. 2005) and several published papers (Blaurock et al, (2005), Kissil et al.
(2005), Mouroulis and Shaklan (2005), Shaklan et al. (2005), Smith et al. (2005)).

The goal for the next design cycle, Flight Baseline 2 (FB2), is to increase the fidelity of the
flight system still further and to update the science requirements as specified in Section 1 of
this document. Significant expected improvements are:

ƒ Incorporating the instruments defined in the Instrument Concept Studies (ICS) as

described in Section 4.1.3,
ƒ Defining and analyzing the active thermal control system required to maintain ther-
mal stability of the observatory and
ƒ Providing improvements to the starlight suppression systems to produce a deeper
contrast.

Furthermore, several open design trades and alternate concepts identified in FB1 will be
evaluated, and the results possibly incorporated into the FB2 design. These alternate con-
cepts are described in Section 4. We envision a fourth and final design iteration to optimize
the performance of the integrated end-to-end flight system. FB2 will also be responsive to
the new science requirements presented here in Section 1, whereas FB1 was designed to re-
spond to the previous Science Requirement Document (SRD) developed by the TPF Sci-
ence Working Group (2001-03) (see Appendix 1.E). The first SRD focused on completeness
requirements as a way of expressing the thoroughness and breadth of the planet search. The
current SRD focuses instead on the expected number of planets found. The latter philoso-
phy is more optimistic, maximizing the total number of discoveries rather than “draining the
lake” around each star, to find planets or prove they are absent. The current SRD also calls
for an expanded bandwidth of 0.5-1.1 µm. Furthermore, recent modeling of the mission
planning process and scientific harvest has shown some new areas to emphasize in the engi-
neering requirements (see bibliographic records in Table 2.2-1). While this change in empha-
sis and understanding impacts the mission design (Section 2), it is expected to have only a
modest effect on the observatory system design. The engineering features highlighted and
validated for FB1 should still be largely applicable for FB2.

The two main objectives of the FB1 design and analysis presented herein are to verify that
the system meets the contrast requirements, thus demonstrating the existence proof of the
mission, and to investigate the sensitivity of the performance to various design options such
as vibration isolation and active thermal control. We will first present the derived top-level

3-2
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

engineering performance and design requirements needed to achieve a contrast of 7.5×10-11

at 4λ/D. We will describe the overall mission concept and operational scenarios, followed
by the optical layout for the telescope and coronagraph instrument, and then the mechanical
and thermal design for the overall observatory and spacecraft systems. The baseline design is
sufficiently detailed to capture the principal performance drivers, such as the conical “V-
groove” sunshade architecture that provides adequate thermal stability, and the stowed con-
figuration for shroud clearance Minute details of various sub-assemblies such as the deploy-
ment hinge/latch components are not yet included.

For FB1, it is not intended that the instruments or the starlight suppression system be opti-
mized yet. At this stage of mission maturity, it is more important to provide an inclusive sys-
tem model that captures many components and explores their interrelated effects, to im-
prove our understanding about how to improve the starlight suppression system in the fu-
ture.

The detailed FB1 starlight suppression system is modeled with many possibly desirable fea-
tures, such as two complete separate polarization paths, locations for image-plane and pupil-
plane masks, filter wheels, and multiple deformable mirrors, and includes Michelson inter-
ferometers to adjust both phase and amplitude profiles for each wavefront.

In parallel, the technology development teams have fabricated, measured, and characterized
properties of masks that have been included in the optical performance model. Wavelength-
dependent effects have been tested in the HCIT. A polarization-splitting Calcite crystal has
been added to the HCIT to enable the study of polarization effects. Reflective and transmis-
sive coatings have been modeled and measured. This knowledge has been incorporated in
the models that represent the FB1 telescope and starlight suppression system performance,
resulting in a much better representation of how the system will actually perform.

We present analyses of the impact of various noise sources and disturbances in the static er-
ror budgets. Furthermore, an integrated modeling approach has been implemented to ana-
lyze the end-to-end performance of the coronagraph contrast and wavefront errors (WFE)
with thermal and jitter disturbances; those results are shown herein. We plan to extend this
analysis to actual science simulations of planet signal extraction, but this is not included in
this report. Finally, we propose a verification approach that outlines a method by which the
system will be integrated and tested prior to launch.

REFERENCES

C. Blaurock, K. Liu, L. Dewell, and J. Alexander, Passive isolator design for jitter reduction
in the Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph, Proc. SPIE 5867, 58670Y (2005)

V. Ford, D. Lisman, S. Shaklan, J. Trauger, T. Ho, D. Hoppe, and A. Lowman, The Terres-
trial Planet Finder coronagraph: technology and mission design studies, Proc. SPIE 5487,
1274 (2004)

V. Ford, ed., TPF Coronagrpah Flight Baseline 1 Design Interim Status Report, August 18,
2005, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena California.
http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/documents/TPFC-FB1_Report.pdf

3-3
TPF-C STDT REPORT

A. Kissil, E. Kwack, T. Ho, A. Liu and C. Blaurock, Structural modeling for the Terrestrial
Planet Finder mission, Proc. SPIE 5528, 10 (2004)

A. Kissil, E. Kwack, T. Ho, P. Dumont, S. Irish, and T Weng, Integrated modeling applied
to the Terrestrial Planet Finder mission, Proc. SPIE 5867, 586710 (2005)

M. Levine, and M. White, Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph Minimum Mission Baseline
Design and Analysis report, JPL D-28535, April 22, 2004. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cali-
fornia Institute of Technology, Pasadena CA

P. Mouroulis and S. Shaklan, Optical design of the Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph
starlight suppression system, Proc. SPIE 5874, 58740J (2005)

S. Shaklan, L. Marchen, F. Shao, R. Peters, T. Ho and B. Holmes, Metrology system for the
Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph, Proc. SPIE 5528, 22 (2004)

S. Shaklan, L. Marchen, J. Green, and O. Lay, The Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph
dynamics error budget, Proc. SPIE 5905, 59050D (2005)

A.. Smith, C. Blaurock, M. Krim, M. Levine, A. Liu, A. Martino, R. Ohl, and J. Pitman, Inte-
gration and verification of the Terrestrial Planet Finder coronagraphic observatory , Proc.
SPIE 5905, 59051C (2005)

M. White, S. Shaklan, P. Lisman, T. Ho, et al., Design and performance of the Terrestrial
Planet Finder coronagraph, Proc. SPIE 5487, 1234 (2004)

3.2 Science Derived Requirements

Flow Down
The science requirements are flowed down to observatory and instrument requirements us-
ing both analysis and the DRM Monte-Carlo models described in Section 2. Table 3.2-2
highlights the high-level instrument performance requirements, where known. To date, the
focus of the DRM studies has been on planet detection. We are still in the process of study-
ing the requirements for orbital parameter determination and spectral characterization.

The planet-to-star brightness ratio is described using stellar-magnitude differences. Contrast

and Δmag are related by
Δmag = -2.5 log10(contrast) (1)

For example, if contrast = 10-10 then Δmag=25; and every factor 2.51 decrease in contrast
will increase Δmag by 1.

Table 3.2-1 defines some specific brightness ratios used in the requirements of Table 3.2-2.

3-4
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.2-1 Definition of Δmag used in Requirements

Symbol Meaning
Δmagp Planet-star contrast
Δmagi Instrument contrasta
Δmags Instrument contrast stabilityb
a per-pixel ratio of scattered starlight at planet

position vs. star central brightness

b time variations during one observation

Also in Section 2 we introduced “completeness”, the degree to which the observations have
examined all possible orbits in the habitable zone for planets of a given size. Each observa-
tion achieves some single-visit completeness by itself, and the combination of several obser-
vations of that star, perhaps separated by several months, can achieve a “program complete-
ness” which is higher. For example, if no such planets have been found with observations
giving “program completeness” of 95%, then only 5% of all possible orbits meeting the
definition of the habitable zone could hold a planet that has evaded detection. This is a false
negative result, because the mission has falsely determined that there is no planet present.
Thus the completeness and the false negative probability sum to 1.

Table 3.2-2. Mission Science and Instrument Requirements

Baseline Mission Requirements Instrument Requirements
(1) TPF-C shall be able to detect an Earth twin in a Such a planet will appear as far as 100
Solar System twin at a distance of 10 pc. mas from the star at quadrature. Thus we
require the inner working angle IWA <
100 mas. The planet-star contrast is
Δmagp = 24.84 at quadrature assuming a
geometric albedos of 0.2. We require the
scattered light in the science focal plane
to be calibrated to Δmagi > 26.6; this
provides SNR =5 for detection.
(2) TPF-C shall also detect a Jupiter twin at quadra- In a face-on orbit, a Jupiter twin in this
ture in this same system. system will appear ~0.5 arcsec from the
star. This sets the minimum acceptable
outer working angle OWA > 500 mas.
The planet/star contrast ratio is relaxed
to that of req. (1).
(3) TPF-C shall have an excellent chance (95%) of Mission modeling (see Section 2) of a
detecting at least one planet that is potentially habit- telescope with an effective IWA = 65.5
able, assuming that ten percent or more of all target mas, with an instrument contrast of 10-10
stars have such a planet (η⊕ = 0.10). Equivalently, (Δmagi > 25) and instrument contrast
TPF-C shall find ~30 potentially habitable planets if stability of 1.3×10-11 (Δmags = 27.24), is
all target stars have one such planet. capable of meeting this requirement. This
Δmags stability is a factor of 5 below the
minimum planet flux ratio 6.3×10-11
(Δmagp = 25.5). In addition, the instru-
ment throughput, bandpass, collecting

3-5
TPF-C STDT REPORT

area, and observational overhead should

be consistent with the parameters in
Table 3.2-3. Note: this is one point design
that meets these few requirements. It is
possible to trade IWA and sensitivity to
meet the science requirements. For ex-
ample, if the stability is improved to
Δmags =28.24, the IWA can be relaxed to
74 mas.
(4) (a) If a planet resembling the Earth twin in re- We have not yet modeled this require-
quirement 1 is found, TPF-C shall measure its or- ment and do not know if the IWA and
bital period to within 10 percent. When combined limiting Δmag, and other requirements are
with an estimate of the star’s mass, this will provide sufficient to meet this science require-
an estimate of the semi-major axis of the planet’s or- ment.
bit, through Kepler’s 3rd law. (b) TPF-C shall meas-
ure the eccentricity of the Earth twin planet’s orbit to
an absolute accuracy of ± 0.3.
(5) The telescope on TPF-C shall be able to detect The baseline starlight suppression system
photons within the spectral range from 0.5 μm to 1.1 is expected to meet this requirement,
μm. though it will only meet the first three
requirements in a single 110 nm bandpass
at a time. Some alternate concepts may
allow simultaneous observations over the
full spectral range.
(6) TPF-C shall measure the absolute, wide-band This requirement calls for SNR = 10 vs.
brightness of a detected planet across the spectral range SNR=5 for requirement (3). This re-
defined in requirement (5) to within 10%. Where this quirement pushes the stability another
is not possible due to wavelength-dependent working 0.75 mag deeper, to Δmags = 28..
angle constraints, the brightness must be measured over
the entire wavelength range in which the planet is de-
tectable.
(7) For the Earth twin in Requirement 1 and for a This requirement is satisfied automatically
Jupiter twin in this same system, TPF-C shall meas- if requirements (3) and (6) are satisfied.
ure the apparent brightness in at least three broad The Earth twin and Jupiter twin are
spectral bands to a relative accuracy of 10% or better. brighter than the faintest planet observed
Measurements in additional bandpasses are highly to meet requirement (3), and the instru-
desirable for bright or well placed planets. ment is designed to detect in 110 nm-
wide bands to a sensitivity of 10%.
(8) TPF-C shall detect O2 at 0.76 mm and H2O at The instrument will be designed to ac-
0.82 mm for the Earth twin planet specified in re- commodate the required spectral resolu-
quirement (1). Required resolutions are listed in Ap- tion. We have not yet studied the flow-
pendix 1.B. TPF-C shall also be able to detect CH4 down of this requirement to instrument
at 0.73, 0.79, 0.89, and 1.00 mm for a Jupiter twin contrast stability.
in this same system. Detection is defined as the ability
to measure the equivalent width of a spectral band to
within 20 % accuracy.

3-6
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

(9) TPF-C shall have a minimum spectral resolution The instrument will be designed to ac-
of 70 over the entire bandpass specified in requirement commodate the required spectral resolu-
(5) to allow the mission to search for absorption bands tion at each wavelength in the range
of unspecified gases or surface minerals. 0.5μm to 1.0 μm.
(10) TPF-C shall have a camera with a field of view The telescope should be diffraction-
of at least 10 square arcminutes, capable of operating limited on axis and over some field of
in parallel to the planet search, and capable of zodia- regard assuming the General Astrophysics
cal-light-limited broad-band imaging over the TPF-C Instrument does not have a deformable
spectral range. mirror and has limited field-correction
capability.
Minimum Mission Requirements
(1) TPF-C shall detect an Earth twin in a Solar This increases the IWA to 125 mas.
System twin at a distance of 8 pc if such a planet ex-
ists.
(2) TPF-C shall also be able to detect a Jupiter twin This increases the OWA to 625 mas.
in this same system if it exists.
(3) TPF-C shall have an excellent chance (95%) of Our DRM studies showed that this re-
detecting at least one planet that is potentially habit- quirement was met with IWA = 110 mas
able, assuming that twenty percent or more of all target and Δmags = 25.5, and telescope long di-
stars have such a planet (η⊕ = 0.2). Equivalently, mension = 4.75 m (still assuming the
TPF-C shall find ~14 potentially habitable planets if same throughput as in Table 3.2-3). It is
all target stars have one such planet. The assumptions possible to trade IWA and instrument
to be made in estimating this number are the same as sensitivity to arrive at another point de-
in the baseline mission. sign that also meets the requirements.
(4) Same as for the baseline mission, but for a system Unknown impact.
at 8 pc.
(5) The spectral range for the minimum mission is Simplifies coating design.
0.5–0.85 μm.
(6) For the minimum mission the brightness may be Same instrument contrast stability as in
measured only in the detection bandpass. (6) above.
(7) Same as for the baseline mission, but for a system Not a driving requirement.
at 8 pc.
(8) Same as for the baseline mission. No change from (8) above.
(9) Spectral resolution is only as required for spectral No additional drivers for spectrometer;
line detection as specified in requirement (8). may simplify the design.
(10) TPF-C shall have a camera with a field of view The telescope should be diffraction-
of at least 10 square arcminutes, capable of operating limited on axis and over some FOR as-
in parallel to the planet search, and capable of zodia- suming the GAI does not have a DM and
cal-light-limited broad-band imaging over the TPF-C has limited field-correction capability.
spectral range.
Desired Mission Requirements
(1, 3, 4a, 6, 7, 9) Same as for the baseline mission
No additional drivers

3-7
TPF-C STDT REPORT

(2) TPF-C shall also be able to detect a Saturn twin Pushes outer working angle to 1 arcsec.
at quadrature in a Solar System twin at a distance of
10 pc.
(4b) TPF-C shall measure the eccentricity of the Unknown impact.
Earth twin planet’s orbit to an absolute accuracy of
± 0.1.
(5) The desired spectral range is 0.4 μm to 1.7 μm. Beam splitters for polarization or for
Michelson devices would be impractical,
due to difficulty in meeting coating re-
quirements over this range.
(8) TPF-C shall be able to detect O3 at 0.6 μm for Unknown impact.
the Earth twin in Requirement 1. It shall also be able
to detect CO2 at 1.05, 1.21, and 1.59 μm for a Ve-
nus twin orbiting in a Solar System twin at a distance
of 5 pc.

In summary, we find sufficient performance for meeting all the baseline requirements except
(4) with a TPF-C point design that achieves: IWA = 65.5 mas, OWA = 500 mas, instru-
ment contrast Δmagi = 25, and instrument contrast stability of knowledge to Δmags = 28.
This level of instrument stability enables SNR = 10 detection of planets as faint as Δmagp =
25.5. We have not yet evaluated performance against the astrometry requirement (4), so we
cannot say whether the engineering requirements will be significantly changed. The DRM
model that led us to these requirements assumed the aperture dimensions, throughput, ob-
servational overhead, and noise sources given in Table 3.2-3.

Table 3.2-3. Instrument Parameters

Symbol Value Quantity
D 8m long axis of the telescope mirror
d 3.5 m short axis of the telescope mirror
N 96 DM elements per axis
λ 550 nm central wavelength
Δλ 110 nm bandpass
to 0.4734 optical throughput
tm 0.675 mask throughput
tLy 0.34 Lyot throughput
th 7200 sec overhead for telescope slew maneuvers
nx 28.6 noise pixels
1.18×10-15
Ωx steradian
solid angle of pixel critically sampling at central wavelength
μ 0.001/sec/pixel dark count rate
ζ 5.00×10-11 uniform contrast level in detection zone
R 2 e-/pixel read noise

The FB1 design and error budget were set up before the program completeness could be
fully evaluated by the DRM models. At the time, we estimated that the speckle stability re-

3-8
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

quirement would be Δmags = 26.75. This is sufficient for SNR = 3 detection of planets to
Δmagp = 25.5 but is not sufficient for the 10% photometry requirement (7) on the faintest
planets in the sample. In future work we will revisit the tighter stability requirements and
reevaluate performance margin.

The telescope is designed for an inner working angle of 4 * λ/D, which is an Inner Working
Angle (IWA) = 57 mas at the center of the shortest operating band λ=550 nm. This is cur-
rently implemented with a linear field occulter, as shown in Figure 1.2-1. Considering this
together with the roll rotations needed for each observation (see Sect 3.3.2.3), The effective
IWA, however, is somewhat larger (65.5 mas) due to the elliptical shape of the aperture and
the need to difference images at 30 deg. rotations (see Sect 3.3.3.1.6). We chose IWA
=4λ/D rather than a more aggressive angle because, as will be described in Sect 3.2.2, the
instrument stability requirements tighten very quickly for designs with smaller IWA.

Table 3.2-4 Top-level Engineering Requirements

Baseline Minimum Desired
Quantity mission mission mission Drivers
Inner working angle (IWA) 65.5 mas 110 mas 65.5 mas (3) planet counts
Outer working angle (OWA) 500 mas 625 mas 1 arcsec (2) Jupiters
Instrument contrast Δmagi 25 25 25 Stability
Instr. contrast stability Δmags 28 25.5 28 (6) 10% photometry
Wavelength range 0.5-1.1μm 0.5-0.85μm 0.4-1.7μm (5)
Spectral resolution (min/max) 70/70 3/70 70/140? (8) spectral lines

The TPF-C pointing control system is designed to operate on stars as faint as V=20. The
spectrometer design (see e.g. Section 4.1.3.1.) has sufficient bandwidth and resolution to
measure the Sodium, H-alpha, Sulfer, and Potassium features. While the baseline corona-
graph 8th order mask does not work at 2 λ /D, a 4th or second order mask, or possibly an
alternative coronagraph system (e.g. pupil remapping) could be selected using a filter-wheel
approach or flip-in mirror. These would enable reduced contrast imaging at 2λ /D to meet
the final disk imaging requirement. Models show that the system will meet 1e-6 contrast at
2λ/D using the same thermal and dynamic control systems designed for 1e-10 contrast at
4λ/D.

Let us assume that somehow we arrange for the N×N-actuator DM to span exactly the ma-
jor and minor diameters of the pupil; that is, there are N actuators across D=8m in x, and
also across d=3.5m in y. For this purpose we have chosen anamorphic optics — cylindrical
mirrors — to give different magnifications in x and y, and thus circularize the pupil (see Sect.
3.3.3.2). Then the outer working angle is Nλ /2d = 1.55 arcsec, which meets the desired
mission requirement (2) to detect a Jupiter at 10 AU in a planetary system at 10 pc.

The instrument outlined in Table 3.2-3 is capable of observing 30 habitable zones in 3 years
of elapsed time using only 1 year of integration and overhead time. The remaining two years
may be used for 1) spectroscopy and other photometric measurements; 2) orbital determina-
tion; 3) disambiguation observations if the current program is not sufficient; 4) non-
coronagraph science.

3-9
TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.3 Flight Baseline 1

Flight Baseline 1 is the name for a particular observatory design which was adopted for the
first round of detailed analysis. It represented the best design choices and knowledge at that
time, for the science requirements that were current at that time. Nominally the design
choices were “frozen” in January 2005, similar to a configuration freeze for flight hardware;
but this “freeze” was only to maintain a well-defined and consistent concept for the brief
FB1 modeling effort, and avoid the frustration of building analytical models of a rapidly
evolving design. And in fact, some features were refined or changed after this time, by a de-
liberate process involving all participants. As a separate activity, the team persisted with con-
cept development and design changes, often substantial ones, and incorporated them as fea-
tures of the emergent FB2 design.

This section presents the FB1 design concept and the results of analysis of FB1 are given in
Section 3.4. Changes suggested or recommended for FB2 are described in Section 4.

3.3.1 System Architecture

TPF-C combines an advanced coronagraph optical system with thermal, structural, and con-
trol systems that provide the benign disturbance environment needed for such precise coro-
nagraphy. These systems are highly interdependent, as is typical of modern missions such as
SIM and JWST. This is reflected in the complexity of system models that are under devel-
opment to answer high-level questions about system performance. It will also seriously chal-
lenge the development of plans for integration and test of the observatory, and testbeds to
support it. The system architecture should be developed with all of these concerns in mind.

This section gives an overview of the fundamental architecture of the observatory; later sec-
tions give more details of the FB1 design as an implementation of this architecture.

3.3.1.1 Optical Configuration

The Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph (TPF-C) is a high-precision optical system de-
signed to directly detect the starlight reflected from planets orbiting nearby stars. To achieve
this challenging goal, the optical system provides a stable, high-quality wave front to the co-
ronagraph. The starlight suppression system (SSS) is a stellar coronagraph designed to
eliminate diffracted light and control scattered light, resulting in an instrument background
level that is < 10-10 of the incident starlight. In this section, we describe the design and func-
tionality of the optical systems.

There are several ways to remove diffracted light from the region in the image plane where
planets might be found. For TPF-C, we provide accommodations for band-limited Lyot co-
ronagraphs (Kuchner & Traub, 2002) and shaped-pupil masks (Kasdin et al, 2002). Band-
limited Lyot coronagraphs use a band-limited mask (e.g., 0.5*(1-cos)) and a hard-edged Lyot
stop to block all diffraction. Shaped pupil coronagraphs are binary masks placed in a pupil
plane that shape the diffracted light into a finite-size core surrounded by a low (10-10), broad
halo. Both are under study; the TPF-C High Contrast Testbed has achieved scattered light
levels of 10-9 using a band-limited Lyot mask (Trauger et al., 2004).

3-10
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Scattered light is controlled using a coarse deformable mirror (DM) and a pair of fine DMs.
The coarse DM compensates for large wave front deviations in the telescope caused e.g. by
gravity release and launch stress. The fine DMs have ~ 1 micron stroke and high actuator
density (Trauger et al, 2004). With one fine DM, the wave front phase can be controlled
across the image plane, or alternatively the wave front phase and amplitude can be controlled
for half of the image plane. With a pair of DMs both amplitude and phase are controlled up
to the spatial frequency response limits of the mirrors.

The SSS includes polarizing beam splitters (PBS) and separate polarization channels to ac-
commodate polarization aberrations and coronagraph mask polarization-dependent phase
and amplitude effects. Without the PBSs, the two polarizations of starlight behave as sepa-
rate scalar fields in the system, but with some significant discrepancies in their wavefronts
and in their amplitude and phase response to polarization-dependent optics. If they were not
separated, the the scattered light control system would be forced to find a compromise set-
ting that does not meet the instrument contrast requirements (Balasubramanian et al, 2005).
A separate coronagraph and DM pair is provided for each polarization channel.

The present design of the SSS represents a compromise between functionality and perform-
ance. In the future, as technology improves, we will be able to simplify the SSS by choosing
between the Lyot and pupil plane coronagraphs, potentially accommodating coarse and fine
control in one DM, or use actuators on the primary mirror to eliminate the need for a coarse
DM. Larger DMs may obviate the anamorphic reducer, and sequential DMs can eliminate
the Michelson beamsplitters while improving broad band performance (Shaklan & Green,
2005). Ultimately, new mask and coating technology may eliminate the PBSs. For now all
these functions are present to ensure a coronagraph capable of delivering high contrast over
the required field, albeit at the expense of throughput.

3.3.1.1.1 Telescope
The telescope is described in more detail in the paper by Howard et al (2005) and in Section
3.3.3.1. It is a 140 m focal length system with a 8 x 3.5 m elliptical aperture primary. The
field of regard is only 5 arcsec, but the field over which aberrations must be corrected is fur-
ther reduced through the use of fine steering and deformable mirrors inside the corona-
graph. The distance between primary and secondary is 12 m at the vertex, as shown in Figure
3.3-1. Light from the secondary is folded to run parallel to the rear of the primary mirror.
The focus is close to the middle of the primary aperture. A second fold mirror sends the
light in the direction of the long axis of the elliptical primary. These two small folds are ro-
tated about orthogonal axes to minimize polarization variation.

3-11
TPF-C STDT REPORT

coronagraph assembly

fold 2
3.5 m
focus

fold 1
12 m

Figure 3.3-1. Telescope and Coronagraph Assembly

3.3.1.1.2 Starlight Suppression System

The starlight suppression system is essentially an expanded Lyot coronagraph, with four dis-
tinct and accessible pupil locations. One of these is occupied by the Lyot mask, one more
occupied by a pair of fine DMs, another one is made available for implementing shaped pu-
pil masks, and the last one is reserved for a second, “coarse” DM, compensating for gross
errors induced by gravitational sag and release or launch stress.

In order to reduce polarization-dependent wave front and amplitude errors (Balasubrama-

nian et al, 2005) the beam is split into two orthogonal polarization paths using a polarizing
beamsplitter. This split is early in the path so that the system comprises two independent
coronagraphs, one for each polarization. Anamorphic optics provide circular beam cross
section onto the coarse DM and beyond. Two fine DMs per polarization path are used in a
Michelson arrangement for amplitude and phase correction. All these subsystems are de-
scribed in greater detail in Section3.3.3.2. A functional block diagram is shown in
Figure 3.3-2.

Figure 3.3-2. Functional Block Diagram of the Starlight Suppression System

3-12
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

A second schematic (Figure 3.3-3) shows in some more detail the most critical optical ele-
ments, various pupil relays, and pupil and intermediate image positions. It is to be noted that
all powered elements are used only in a collimating or focusing mode, with aberrations cor-
rected everywhere along the optical train at the level of ~0.0001λ along the axis. Actually,
this error arises from the telescope and simply carries through the final image since all pow-
ered mirrors within the SSS are off-axis parabolas, which have no nominal wave front error
at the correct focus. The minimum field of view of the system makes it unnecessary to use
more complicated optics. The fine steering mirrors will nominally center the image of the
star, while the DMs will correct the residual small aberration at that point.

Primary telescope

Anamorphic reducer

Coarse DM

Polarizing beamsplitter

Michelson Michelson
(2 fine DMs) (2 fine DMs)

Pupil mask Pupil mask

(optional) (optional)

Field occulter Field occulter

Lyot mask Lyot mask

Final image Final image

Figure 3.3-3. Schematic of the Starlight Suppression System

showing the pupil locations, intermediate foci, and collimated spaces as well as the most
critical optical elements.

Figure 3.3-4 shows typical masks for a Lyot coronagraph implementation. The entrance pu-
pil is an 8×3.5m ellipse defined by the primary mirror. (Other mirror shapes have been con-
sidered and are among the trades discussed in Section 4.) After many stages of conditioning
the starlight beam, it arrives at the occulting mask, which blocks the central peak and some
of the side lobes of the star image. The beam emerging from this mask is recollimated and
brought to another pupil image, called the “Lyot plane”; most of the starlight side lobes
which have evaded the occulting mask form bright regions in the Lyot plane. The Lyot mask
blocks these regions, admitting only the planet light. The Lyot planet is then brought to an
image plane which shows a point-like planet image and some residual starlight.

3-13
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Pupil y (m)
0

-1

-2
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Pupil x (m)

500

400

300

200
Sky angle (mas)

100

-100

-200

-300

-400

-500
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500
Sky angle (mas)

Figure 3.3-4. Lyot coronagraph masks. Top: Original 8×3.5m elliptical pupil mask (gray)
and typical Lyot pupil mask (white). Bottom: Linear 8th-order occulting mask, which blocks
most of the starlight

REFERENCES

K. Balasubramanian, D. Hoppe, P. Z. Mouroulis, L. Marchen, and S. Shaklan: “Polarization

compensating protective coatings for TPF-Coronagraph optics to control contrast degrading
cross polarization leakage”, to appear in Proc. SPIE 5905 (2005).

J. M. Howard, P. Z. Mouroulis, A. K. Thompson, A. M. Smith, D. A. Content, T. Y. Ho, C.

E. Jackson, R. G. Ohl, and S. B. Shaklan: “Optical design considerations for the Terrestrial
Planet Finder-Coronagraph mission: optical telescope assembly”, SPIE Proc. 5874.

3-14
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

N. J. Kasdin, R. Vanderbei, D. Spergle, and M. Glittman, “Optimal shaped pupil corona-

graphs for extrasolar planet finding,” Proc. SPIE 4860, 240-250 (2002)

M. J. Kuchner and W. A. Traub: “A coronagraph with a band-limited mask for finding ter-
restrial planets,” ApJ 570, 2002

S. B. Shaklan and J. J. Green, “Reflectivity and Optical Surface Height Requirements in a

Broad Band Coronagraph I: Contrast Floor Due to Controllable Spatial Frequencies,” sub-
mitted to Appl. Opt. (2006).

J. T. Trauger, C. Burrows, B. Gordon, J. J. Green, A. E. Lowman, D. Moody, A. F. Niessner,

F. Shi, D. Wilson, “Coronagraph contrast demonstrations with the High Contrast Imaging
Testbed,” Proc. SPIE 5487, 1330 (2004)

3.3.1.2 Mechanical Configuration

The TPF Coronagraph mechanical configuration is designed around a given optical prescrip-
tion, a thermal design, the required components and structural considerations. The TPF-C
FB1 baseline design is composed by 2 main elements: the Spacecraft and the Science Pay-
load. The element features are described below and and shown schematically in Figure 3.3-5
to illustrate the relationship between the components:
ƒ Spacecraft:
– Sunshade:
• Large deployable conic shaped v-groove layers which insulate the
payload from the changing sun angles during the observational sce-
narios
• Maximizes the opportunity to view target stars multiple times during
one year so that planets will have time to orbit into a favorable posi-
tion out from behind the star.
• Structurally attached to the spacecraft through deployable arms and
booms
• Any dynamic snaps or warping of the sunshade structures will be fil-
tered through the spacecraft before reaching the sensitive payload.
– Other spacecraft components:
• Dynamic isolation – either passively or active isolation. Both options
were analyzed.
• Also: thruster clusters, orbit maintenance fuel tanks, communica-
tions antennas, and reaction wheels, solar panels and solar sail
ƒ Science Payload:
– Telescope:
• Primary, Secondary, Tertiary mirror assemblies and supporting struc-
tures
• Laser metrology monitoring relative position of primary mirror to
secondary mirror
• Thermal control heaters, and related electronics

3-15
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Deployed
V-groove
Sun Secondary
Shade Mirror

Secondary
Aft Metering Tower KEY
Structure
Spacecraft
Science
Instruments
Primary Telescope
Mirror
Payload
Other Payload
Payload Support
Structure Electronics
Payload
Radiator Tertiary
Mirror
Dynamic Isolation
Payload Thermal
Enclosure

Spacecraft Bus:
-thruster clusters (2) Deployed
-fuel tanks (2) Solar
-high gain antenna (2) Array
-electronics
-sun shade Deployed Solar
-sun shade deployment Sail Secondary
Tower
Aft Metering
Structure Primary
Science Mirror
Instruments

Tertiary
Payload Mirror
Radiators
Payload
Payload Support Thermal &
Payload Thermal Electronics
Structure Dynamic Isolation
Enclosure
Figure 3.3-5. Schematic of the TPF-C Elements

– Other Payload:
• Structure mounting payload to spacecraft
• Starlight Suppression System
• Science Instruments
• Thermal control hardware: isothermal enclosure, heat pipes, radia-
tors, and associated electronics
• Electronics

The current telescope configuration consists of an off axis elliptical primary mirror measur-
ing 8m x 3.5m and a secondary mirror 12 m from the primary mirror. The primary mirror is
kinematically mounted on 3 flexured bipods on the backside of the mirror attached to a

3-16
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

strong-back structure, the Aft Metering Structure (AMS). The secondary mirror assembly is
attached atop a folding tower on thermal isolators. The tower folds along 3 hinge lines to
stow for launch. Each hinge will be locked out after the tower deploys as the locking mecha-
nisms will then join the main structure together. Behind the secondary mirror is a fine posi-
tioning actuated hexapod. The tower assembly attaches to a bracket that kinematically inter-
faces to the AMS through 3 thermal isolating bipods. Both the primary and secondary mir-
rors are enclosed in separate thermal enclosures. The AMS is kinematically attached to the
telescope support structure (TSS). The TSS supports the coronagraph instrument and pri-
mary mirror thermal enclosure. It is also acts as the telescope interface to the spacecraft and
supports the telescope assembly during launch. See Figure 3.3-6 for details of the telescope
assembly configuration and Figure 3.3-7 for the secondary tower stowing sequence.

Coronagraph
Secondary sensor system
mirror thermal
enclosure

Actuated
hexapod

Secondary
mirror Secondary mirror Primary mirror
assembly and (shown transparent
tower orange)

Primary mirror
12m Secondary
Deployed support bipod (3 pl)
tower bracket
secondary tower Telescope
Support
Structure (TSS)
Primary Mirror
(8m x 3.5m)
Launch
support
interface Primary
(4 pl) Mirror
thermal
enclosure

Coronagraph
Primary Mirror sensor system
Aft Metering envelope
Structure (AMS)
Note: Primary mirror not shown

Figure 3.3-6. Deployed telescope assembly

3-17
TPF-C STDT REPORT

1 4
3

Figure 3.3-7. Secondary tower stowing sequence

The spacecraft configuration consists of the spacecraft/launch support structure, solar ar-
rays, solar sail, propulsion system, v-groove thermal shade system and reaction wheel assem-
bly. A unique feature of the spacecraft configuration is that there is no conventional space-
craft bus. Instead, part of the launch support structure is carried during flight operations that
also support typical spacecraft equipment (i.e., electronic boxes, solar arrays, etc). The launch
support structure that flies with the telescope during operation has a stowed and deployed
configuration. During flight, the sides of the launch support structure folds open to allow
the v-groove thermal shade to deploy. Other deployable spacecraft structures include the
solar arrays and solar sail. See Figure 3.3-8and Figure 3.3-9 for details of the stowed and de-
ployed spacecraft assembly configuration.

Thermal
isolator
(3 pl)

Active/passive
isolation
V-groove Reaction
thermal wheel
shade Interface to assembly
Spacecraft
Metering
Spacecraft Structure (3 pl)
assembly

Deployed
panel (4 pl)

Solar array Launch support

frame structure

Thruster
cluster (2 pl)

Solar sail
Propellant tank
(2 pl)

Note: Solar sail, solar arrays and v-groove system not shown

Figure 3.3-8. Deployed spacecraft assembly

3-18
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Thruster
cluster (2 pl) Propulsion
tank (2 pl)

Interface
to SMS
(3 pl)

V-groove boom
Reaction deployment
wheel canisters (4 pl)
assembly

Stowed
launch panel
(4 sides)

Stowed
v-groove Stowed Stowed
support v-groove solar array
structure layer Stowed (2 pl)
volume solar sail

Figure 3.3-9. Stowed spacecraft assembly

The spacecraft and telescope assemblies are connected together at a single interface that will
provide vibration isolation between the two assemblies either actively or passively. The inter-
face will be locked for launch and separated for flight.

The flight system must be stowed for launch. Figure 3.3-10 shows the stowed flight system.
A separable launch support truss is attached to the spacecraft to provide additional stiffness,
stability and support due to the vertical orientation of the system during launch. Additional
separable support struts are attached from the TSS and secondary tower to the spacecraft
and launch support truss to support the telescope assembly.
Delta IV-H shroud
(19.8m gov’t standard)
Launch support struts
(shown in red)
separate after launch

Launch support
truss separates
after launch

Spacecraft acts as
Delta IV-H launch support for
4394-5 PAF telescope during
launch

Figure 3.3-10. Stowed flight system

3-19
TPF-C STDT REPORT

The stowed to deployed launch sequence is shown in Figure 3.3-11, and Figure 3.3-12 shows
the flight system layout and overall dimensions.

Launch Fairing Separation PAF Separation Launch Support Solar Array Deploy
separation

Solar Sail Deploy Secondary Tower Tower Launch Spacecraft Panel V-groove Deploy
Deploy Support Separation Deploy

Figure 3.3-11. Deployment sequence

14.2m 7.7m 14m

16.1m

Figure 3.3-12. Deployed flight system cross section

3-20
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Astro Aerospace of NGST has been studying the deployment and feasibility of the sunshade
that is the primary passive method of thermal control for the system. The design they have
developed consists of a 250-inch diameter, 505-inch long tube of plastic film surrounded by
5 concentric cones also fabricated from plastic film (Mylar or VDA Kapton). Each cone
from inner to outer has an increasing cone angle. The largest cone flares out to 518 inches
diameter, all the cones are the same length as the center cylinder. The proposed deployment
and support structure consists of four 12-inch O.D. telescopic tube assemblies that act as the
legs connected to a hoop truss of 600-inches deployed diameter at the tip of the shield. The
hoop structure is maintained in its circular shape by a radial net of light Kevlar or Graphite
strings that attach to a reinforced rim on the center cylinder. This radial net also supports
and tensions the concentric cones. The hoop structure and radial net is in many ways very
similar to the Astromesh structure used in large unfurlable MESH reflectors.
In its stowed condition the tubes are retracted back, the hoop truss is stowed in an elliptical
annular space below the main mirror and the fabric is rolled or folded into the same annular
space below the mirror. Figure 3.3-13 and Figure 3.3-14.depict the sunshade structure.

The deployment sequence would be to release the hoop truss from its stowage hard points
and extend the telescopic legs to their full length. The opening of the hoop truss to tension
the nets and cones would follow this. We need to do the following things next

ƒ Establish a credible stowed configuration consistent with the available or a negoti-

ated volume to establish hard points or tie down locations.
ƒ Conceptually address the problems of fabricating, assembling, and handling these
large areas of film material.
ƒ Perform some conceptual finite element modeling trades to establish modes and fre-
quencies in order to identify structure design parameters and strategies
ƒ Generate a conceptual layout for the inner cylinder baffles to see how they interact
with spacecraft structure and how they might be folded up for stowage.

Figure 3.3-13. Deployed sunshade and deployment structure

3-21
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.3-14. Sunshade Architecture Top View

3.3.1.3 Launch Vehicle

The baseline launch vehicle is Boeing’s Delta-IVH, which provides the largest launch mass
capability available within current NASA contracts (EELV). The large mass associate with
the primary mirror and supporting the mirror in a vertical position during launch dictates the
need for this maximum launch capacity

3.3.1.4 Mass
The mass estimates for the various FB-1 elements are shown schematically below in Figure
3.3-15 and summarized in Table 3.3-1.

3-22
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

SMA = 155.14kg

SM + Laser
Hexapod = Strongback
7.46 kg = 4.75 kg Cubes = V-Groove
OTA = 17.88kg Assembly =
3440.1 kg 648.28 kg
SM Support
Tower =
406.04 kg

PM = 1066.83kg S/C Bus =

1927.3 kg

Science
Payload = Solar Array
2108.3 kg Planet Assembly
Characterization = 69.20 kg Reaction Wheel
SSS=463.88kg and Detection Assembly = 69.20 kg
Instruments = Solar Sail
30.00 kg Assembly =
147.59 kg
Cold Radiator
Science
Electronics = = 32.16kg
231.90 kg
Warm Radiator Propellant
& Star Trackers + Tanks =
Engineering = 50.07kg 282.9kg
Electronics =
245.60kg
GAI = 150.00 kg
Bottom View

Figure 3.3-15. Schematic of the TPF-C Elements Mass Estimates

The mass estimates were determined both from analysis and from analogy to previous mis-
sions. The optical telescope assembly mass estimates were obtained from in-depth structural
modeling. The listed mass of the science payload is based on the data available during the
FB-1 analysis cycle, which was prior to the Instrument Concept Studies (ICS) studies. The
Precision Sub-Structure (PSS) mass and Starlight Suppression (SSS) mass were also obtained
from structural models. DC mass was based on a simple camera system estimate. The mass
of the Planet Characterization Instrument was based on analysis performed at GSFC by R.
Brown [ref]. The General Astrophysics Instrument (GAI) mass was modeled after the Hub-
ble wide-field camera WIFPIC. Spacecraft masses were based on current best estimates for
similar flight hardware components.

3-23
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.3-1. Nominal Mass Estimates for FB-1 Design

Component Mass (kg) Mass Percentage

Optical Telescope Assembly 3440 43%

SMA 155 2%
SM Support Tower 406 5%
PM 1067 13%
AMS 1114 14%
Misc 698 9%
Science Payload 2108 26%
Starlight Suppression System 464 6%
Planet Detection Camera 10 0%
Planet Characterization Spec- 20 0%
trometer
General Astrophysics Instrument 150 2%
Radiators 82 1%
Structure 396 5%
Electronics 415 5%
Misc 571 7%
Spacecraft 1993 25%
V-Groove Sunshield 648 8%
Propellant 308 4%
Solar Sail 56 1%
Solar Arrays 69 1%
Structure 544 7%
Misc 367 5%
Total Observatory Wet Mass 7541
Launch Support Structure 549
Total Launch Mass 8090
Launch Vehicle Capability 9250
Launch Margin 13%
*Defined as (LV Capability – Total Nominal Mass Estimate)/LV Capability.

The estimates for the FB-1 mass margin exceed the recommended limit of 30%. Therefore,
several mass reduction options were explored including:
ƒ Optimizing the AMS structure
ƒ More efficient integration between the AMS and PSS
ƒ Optimizing thermal enclosure structure
ƒ Removing unnecessary primary mirror heaters
ƒ Optimizing the SMA structure
ƒ Optimizing the SM Support Tower structure
ƒ Optimizing the weight of the optical bench
ƒ Utilizing a lattice structure for the thermal cavity housing

3-24
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

ƒ Changing to the Sugar-scoop Sunshield

ƒ Changing to an actuated solar sail design to reduce ballast
ƒ Changing to Ultra-Flex Solar Arrays
ƒ Utilizing smaller reaction wheels
ƒ Optimizing the launch support structure

After applying these options, we may obtain a new estimate of the observatory mass which
meet the mass margin of 30% required for this phase of the program. This design is sum-
marized in Table 3.3-2. The options proposed above will be implemented in next design cy-
cle.

Table 3.3-2. Optimized Mass Estimate for TPF-C

Mass Per-
Component Mass (kg)
centage
Optical Telescope Assembly 2442 38%
SMA 99 2%
SM Support Tower 266 4%
PM 1067 17%
AMS 696 11%
Misc 315 5%
Science Payload 1691 26%
SSS 269 4%
PDC 10 0%
PCS 20 0%
GAI 150 2%
Radiators 82 1%
Structure 317 5%
Electronics 415 6%
Misc 427 7%
Spacecraft 1689 26%
V-Groove Sunshield 522 8%
Propellant 249 4%
Solar Sail 56 1%
Solar Arrays 50 1%
Structure 509 8%
Misc 304 5%
Total Observatory Wet Mass 5822
Launch Support Structure 602
Total Launch Mass 6424
Launch Vehicle Capability 9250
Launch Margin 30.55%
*Defined as (LV Capability – Total Nominal Mass Estimate)/LV Capability.

3-25
TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.3.1.5 Power
TPF-C is powered by solar arrays, which for the FB-1 are sized to provide 3000 W of end of
life power. This power capability was selected early in the design by analogy to similar space
telescopes. Table 3.3-3 shows the power estimates with a 32% margin, which is consistent
with the recommended margin of 30% prior to Phase B. Volume is available to increase the
solar array size, if necessary, as discussed further in Section 3.3.4.5. All estimates are based
on the FB-1 design, which does not reflect the Instrument Concept Study results.

Table 3.3-3. Nominal Power Estimated for FB-1 TPF-C Configuration

Power
Component Power (W)
Percentage
Telescope Electronics 78 4%
OTA Electronics 48 2.3%
Laser LD5 Electronics 30 1.5%
Science Payload 385 19%
Starlight Suppression System 87 4.3%
Planet Detection Camera 2 0.1%
Planet Characterization Spectrometer 40 1.9%
Payload Star Acquisition Camera 4 0.2%
General Astrophysics Instrument 100 4.9%
Electronics 152 7.4%
Thermal Control 581 28%
Telescope Assembly Heaters 274 13.4%
Payload Support Heaters 307 15.0%
Spacecraft 1000 49%
Total Observatory Power 2044
Available EOL Power 3000
Power Margin* 32%
*Defined as (Available Power – Total Nominal Power Estimate)/Available Power.

The bases of estimates are summarized as follows: The telescope and science payload elec-
tronics power is estimated per a functional allocation of electronics boards and an estimate
for each board. Thermal control heater power is estimated from the FB-1 analyses.

3-26
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.3.1.6 Trades
Identified trades leading to the adopted baseline design are summarized in the Table 3.3-4
below. Section 4 will define in more detail the status and disposition of these trades.

Table 3.3-4. List of Open Trades and Status

(Orange – done; Green – in progress; Blue – Deferred)
1.0 Mission - orbit detail, ΔV, Launch Vehicles, mission duration (may pad ΔV to be conservative)
2.0 Starlight Suppression System alternatives
2.1 Consider alternates to dither maneuver for speckle removal (per NRA concepts)
2.2 Consider series DMs, remove beam-splitters, redundancy
2.3 Consider increasing OWA for giant planets with larger DM, FOV for dust disk observations
2.4 Consider longer wavelength observations (per NRA concepts) up to about 0.9µm
2.5 Evaluate anamorphic optics compared to larger DM
3 Instruments accommodations
4 Pointing and Control - active vs passive dynamic isolation

4.1 Define frequency range and control loop bandwidths, assess compatibility with actuator capabilities

4.2 Evaluate necessity of secondary mirror steering, pending capability of payload vibration isolator

4.3 Evaluate mounting of payload Payload Acquisition Camera, evaluate changes to reaction wheels

5 Primary Mirror
5.1 Consider shape changes - increased depth and 8x3m race-track vs elliptical PM shape
5.2 Open vs. Closed back PM structure evaluation
5.3 Evaluate PM actuators vs. Coarse DM

5.4 Resolve PM launch load issues - configuration change to reduce loads or add dampers/absorbers

6 Mass Management

6.1 Redesign thermal enclosure/Secondary Tower/AMS/LD5 boxes - mass efficient stiffness, add 4 arcmin FOV

6.2 Add mass estimates for: launch constraints, dust covers, ballast, identify load bearing mass

6.3 Evaluate mass sensitivity to: PM frequency, vibration control, SM actuation, metrology, solar sail

7 Solar Array - Consider alternatives

8 Solar Sail - improve design for better torque balance
Sunshade - consider alternatives, add degradation features, trade performance against stowing/deploying
9
issues
10 Stray Light - develop concept for telescope baffles, add vanes, deployment issues

11 Define viewing constraints from earth, moon, Jupiter, etc.- characterize vs. orbit size/position

11.1 Contamination: understand requirements, add covers on exposed optics as required

12 Thermal Control - incorporate active thermal control

12.1 Consider thermal configuration changes - electronics mounting, heat pipe dynamics, alternate approaches

13 I&T design issues

13.1 Select OTA test configuration, incorporate features in flight design

13.2 Understand required flight jitter requirement - use to evaluate chamber availability and testing capability

Understand required flight thermal gradient requirements - use to evaluate chamber availability and testing
13.3
capability

13.4 Trade optical concepts for OTA tests - sub-aperture test requirements, model system, define requirements

14 Software Definition
15 Ground Segment Definition

3-27
TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.3.2 Mission Operations

3.3.2.1 Mission Description
Table 3.3-5 below presents the choices for mission and spacecraft that create the framework
of the Flight Baseline 1 (FB1) design configuration.

Table 3.3-5. TPF-C mission description summary

Parameter Value Comments

Duration required/goal 5/10 years Resources for 10 years
Orbit L2 Direct trajectory
Field of Regard Sun angles > 95° Potential earth/moon/planet constraints
Required ∆V 60 m/s
M is s io n

Launch Energy (C3) -0.69 km2/s2

Launch Vehicle EELV
Launch Fairing 5 m diameter limits primary mirror short axis to ~3.5 m
Launch Mass 9200 kg
Time to reach operating orbit 109 days
Ground Station 34m DSN Ka-Band
Downlink Data Rate 64Mbps
EOL Power 3kW provided by solar arrays
Reaction Wheels 6 Ithaco- E
Propellant 350 kg Hydrazine
S p a c e c ra ft

Thrusters 12 20N
Hi Rate Downlink Frequency Ka-Band avg duration 2.5 hours per day
Engineering Downlink Frequency X-Band
Uplink Frequency X-Band
Transmitter Power 50W
Hi Gain Antenna 43dB 0.5m patch array

The primary mission duration is 5 years with consumables provided for a 5 year extended
mission. A 6 month checkout phase is planned, followed by a 3 year search phase, nomi-
nally leaving 1.5 years for planet characterization. However, flexibility exists to conduct
planet characterization during the search phase as well. Efforts to date have focused on de-
fining the search phase for a set of 30 core stars. The operational concept is illustrated in
section 3.3.2.3.

3.3.2.2 Observatory Field of Regard

The observatory is designed to examine stars in nearly the entire anti-sun semi hemisphere in
order to keep sun light from entering the telescope sun-shade a 5º margin is included as
shown schematically in Figure 3.3-15. The field of regard includes all stars located in the
cone defined as greater than or equal to 95º away from the sun. As the observatory travels
around the sun, this field-of-regard will sweep nearly the entire sphere of the universe, ex-
cluding the poles, allowing observation of all star targets of interest during nearly 5 months
of the year.

3-28
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.3.2.3 Observational Scenario of Each Target Star

Achieving the desired level of planet search completeness requires about 4 repeat visits
spread over 3 years (e.g., 1 visit in year 1, 2 in year 2 and 1 in year 3). Each visit requires tak-
ing multiple exposures of a star, for 2 different reasons. First, the elliptically shaped aperture
requires taking exposures at 2 or 3 different roll positions to examine each star’s habitable
zone using the axis of smallest inner working angle (IWA). Second, at each roll position, 2
exposures are required with about 30° separation in roll angle; this difference of 2 images is
called a “dither” and is described below. Very long exposures, beyond the time scales for
system thermal stability, may need to be subdivided into multiple dithers.

75°
Science observation
60°
Slew
Settle
45° (retarget)

30°
Roll angle

15° Slew (roll)

0°

-15°
-30°
Slew
-45° (retarget)
-60° Recalibrate
wavefront
-75°

Dither Dither Dither

Time
Figure 3.3-16 Timeline for a planet observation around one star. The observation includes
6 science integration periods separated by 5 roll slews. Each slew is followed by settling
time. Each pair of science integrations constitutes a dither, and each dither is preceded by
recalibration of the wavefront.

Figure 3.3-16 illustrates the timeline. During each star observation, the observatory will
point at a star target. Once the dynamics are stabilized, the wavefront calibration begins.
Using adaptive optics, the wavefront errors will be reduced until the starlight is suppressed
adequately and a science image will be taken. Next the observatory will do a “dither” roll
about its optical axis by 30 degrees. Once the dynamics are stabilized, but without recalibrat-
ing the wavefront control, the observatory will take a second science image in this new posi-
tion. This image will be subtracted from the previous image to eliminate residual starlight
scattered from the observatory optics. (The scattered starlight remains fixed on the detector
while the planetary system rotates with the dither roll. Any planets present would then be
detectable in this difference image.

The primary mirror is oblong, and its best IWA is aligned with its long axis. To study the
habitable zone at all orientations around a star, the long axis has to be aligned at positions
that are ±60º away from the starting point. This is accomplished by another “roll” around

3-29
TPF-C STDT REPORT

the optical axis. At each new roll position, the adaptive optics are reset and then the two-
image dither observation is repeated. With a ±15° dither around 60º roll positions, the total
angular rotation around the target direction axis is ±75º.

The field of regard and target star observation scenario create the thermal environment con-
straints of FB1.

Observation of each target star Observatory Field of Regard –

Nearly full anti-sun semi-hemisphere
Shaded
cold X
side
Target Star 5º
Direction (and Y
TPF-C
roll/dither axis) TPF-C

Z Z
TPF-C +Y SUN
±60º SUN
+Z roll/dither
angular range Discovery Scenario:
-X
1. Acquire target star
2. Stabilize dynamics and collect light
3. Using Adaptive Optics, suppress star light
4. Dither 30 degrees
5. Stabilize dynamics and collect light
SUN
6. Subtract images
7. Roll to next 60 degree orientation
8. Repeat 2 through 6 two times

Figure 3.3-17. Schematic of the Observatory Field of Regard

3.3.2.4 Orbit Environmental Issues

The orbit environment is consistent with other missions flown in 1 AU heliocentric orbits
that are not close to earth, such as Switzer and JWST. The space environments documents
from these programs are available to us. To date the primary orbital environments issue has
been the galactic cosmic ray environment, which drives strategy for reading out detectors.
We have used an early JWST study to establish a 1,000s period between readouts as our
baseline and are currently pursuing an update to this analysis.

3-30
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.3.3 Science Payload

3.3.3.1 Optical Telescope Assembly

3.3.3.1.1 Optical Telescope Assembly Requirements

We present the requirements on the Optical Telescope Assembly (OTA) as they are cur-
rently understood. Optical, mechanical, and thermal requirements are presented in turn.

3.3.3.1.1.1 Optical requirements

The need to avoid and/or control diffraction wherever possible in order to achieve the ex-
treme contrast goals of TPF-C dictates that the PM have a monolithic surface. This is a de-
parture from many recent ground and space-based systems including the James Webb Space
Telescope. Studies indicate that a segmented design would need very small gaps (<100 μm)
and extremely tight control of segment to segment piston, tilt, and curvature errors. Thus we
view a monolithic facesheet as a key derived requirement. The secondary mirror (SM) and
fold mirror (M3) are smaller and can readily be made as moderately lightweight monoliths
from either Zerodur or ULE material

The optical design for the TPF-C OTA has been the subject of trade studies. In order to ac-
commodate both excellent on-axis imaging plus good quality imaging over the wider General
Astrophysics Instrument (GAI) field of view, as well as meet packaging requirements, a
Ritchey-Chretien design was selected. The telescope is off-axis so as to not have any obscu-
rations for secondary mirror supports, as required for the level of starlight suppression nec-
essary. Table 3.3-6 presents the prescription for the TPF-C OTA.

Table 3.3-6 OTA Mirror Prescriptions

Physical size Off-axis

Name (x by y), m distance R, m f# k
PM 8.0 x 3.5 2.3 26.75 3.82 -1.00189
SM 0.89 x 0.425 0.237 3.041 4.13 -149
M3 0.29 x 0.31 - -

Requirements for the primary mirror can be separated into static and dynamic terms. This is
the basis of the organization of the error budget (Shaklan et al. (2005)). The static require-
ments have implications for fabrication, alignment, and ground testing. The dynamic terms
enter not only into the primary mirror but also enter into observatory level analysis and de-
sign. As they enter into all of the requirements across the design, the emphasis has been on
the dynamic requirements and they are perhaps the best understood.
The primary mirror static error can be corrected, in our baseline design, by a downstream
coarse deformable mirror (DM) which has 10 μm total stroke. This has the ability to correct
for some fabrication and launch induced errors as well as any aberrations from static thermal
gradients on the primary mirror.

The static surface error allocation is based on the midfrequency requirement on the Tech-
nology Demonstration mirror. This midfrequency band, in the TPF-C context, refers to the
band up to the limit of correctability by a high density deformable mirror placed downstream

3-31
TPF-C STDT REPORT

at a pupil image of the primary mirror (for current work on demonstrations of Lyot corona-
graphic contrast see, e.g. Trauger et al. (2005)). The specification is performed using a power
spectral density specification on each optic, as they are used in the TPF-C error budget.
Both the PM and SM have a total surface error allocation of 5.4nm over all spatial frequen-
cies. M3 has an integrated rms over all bands which is tighter at approximately 1 nm total
surface error allocation. We expect further analysis to show some relaxation within the low-
est frequencies of the controllable bandwidth for the PM and SM.

The dynamic allocations come from studying the interaction of aberrations and jitter be-
tween the primary mirror, subsequent mirrors, and the coronagraphic mask. As the mask is a
linear mask, contrast is highly sensitive to the directionality and spatial frequency content of
the errors. Work to date has indicated that the lowest ~12 Zernike terms (Noll-order ellipti-
cal Zernikes) only are significant in the dynamic error budget and they are allocated individu-
ally as can be seen in Table 3.3-7. The secondary mirror stability allocations are double those
for the PM; those for M3 are 4 times those on the PM.

Table 3.3-7 Dynamic Wavefront Error Allocations for Primary Mirror Shape Change from
TPF-C Error Budget.
allocation
Zernike terms Zernike type (nm)
z4-z6, z8-z10 power, astigmatism, coma, trefoil 0.4
z7 coma 0.2
z11, z12 spherical, coma 0.005

Bulk motions within the OTA are referenced to the PM. Table 3.3-8 presents the long term
and jitter (short term) allocations for bulk motions and tilts on the SM and M3.

Table 3.3-8 Dynamic Allocations for OTA Rigid Body Motions.

motion lateral, nm axial, nm tilt, nrad

SM, thermal rigid body 65 26 30
SM jitter ~3 ~1 ~1.5
M3 thermal 100 100 10
M3 jitter 10 10 10

The primary mirror must not only have a highly reflective coating (protected silver), but the
amplitude variations enter into the error budget just as much as phase (figure) errors do.
Coating uniformity must be specified using a similar power spectral density form for ampli-
tude errors; reflectance uniformity at the ~0.5% or better within the correctable band. Re-
cent coating studies are discussed elsewhere (Balasubramanian et al. (2005)).

3.3.3.1.1.2 Mechanical requirements

Mechanical requirements are not yet well defined. The primary mirror must of course sur-
vive launch, not deform under either mounting after polishing or under launch stresses.
However, the vibration and jitter control architecture is still open (Blaurock et al. (2005), Liu
et al. (2005)) and both active and passive reaction wheel disturbance mitigation schemes re-

3-32
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

main under consideration. Therefore it is difficult to assign a minimum first resonant fre-
quency requirement; to date we have kept this value above ~10 Hz. Similarly, packaging is a
strong constraint; the remainder of the observatory (secondary mirror and its support tower,
instruments, thermal shroud, and spacecraft) all deploy outward after launch from the pri-
mary mirror assembly (PMA).

A three point bipod flexure mount was chosen (on each mirror in the OTA) to maximize on
orbit stability by minimizing overconstraint on the mirror. A trade study considering the use
of actuators on the primary for ground and/or flight to offload gravity and compensate for,
e.g. gravity offload errors, launch effects, etc. was tabled when the optical stability require-
ments were much tighter than now, i.e. before the selection of the “8th order” coronagraph
mask (Kuchner et al. (2005)). We plan to reassess this possibility and other possibilities to
simplify ground testing and in flight correction in future configuration studies.

3.3.3.1.1.3 Thermal requirements

The thermal stability requirements are formidable if the optical stability requirements in
Table 3.3-7 are to be met. The static gradient can (and will be) be fairly large (~4°C) but the
dynamic gradients, during an observation and after a dither maneuver, must be held very
low. Assuming a linear relationship, the FB1 integrated modeling showed a thermal stability
of 0.08 mK worst case during the least stable dither maneuver solar orientation. This case
still had substantial margin (40x) against the worst aberration. This suggests a thermal stabil-
ity requirement of 3mK for the PM during an observation. Thermal gradients across and
through the SM and M3 will be less as they only view room temperature surface

Such a lightweight structure does not conduct heat well, and trade studies have established
that the usual (“textbook”) thermal stability parameter, the ratio of thermal conductivity k to
thermal expansion coefficient α, is not a good guide to thermal stability here. Rather, the
thermal conductance overall is dominated by radiative, not by conductive coupling. This
emphasizes the need for the lowest available thermal expansion and limits the materials
choice to those specifically engineered for low expansion but available in large size, i.e. ULE
fused silica and Zerodur.

3.3.3.1.1.4 Pointing Requirements

In the baseline design the secondary mirror is used as a component in the overall attitude
control architecture, specifically as a fast steering mirror. We have recently reexamined the
flowdown of requirements to this portion of the system, including the need for (slow) coarse
alignment, large range of motion for SM-PM alignment as well as the pointing requirements;
these are summarized in Table 3.3-9. Overall this two-stage mechanism is used in three con-
trol loops. The coarse stage is used whenever coarse telescope alignment (to 0.1 um toler-
ances) is required, such as on initial secondary mirror tower deployment. The fine stage is
used to compensate very slow thermal drifts, with feedback from the laser truss. It is also
used at a higher bandwidth for tip/tilt pointing control only, with feedback from the attitude
control system.

3-33
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.3-9. Secondary Mirror Actuator Requirements for Linear and Angular Resolution,
Stroke, and Bandwidth.

linear linear angular

stroke resolution angular resolution highest response speed
(um) (nm) stroke (nrad) frequency (Hz) (nm/sec)
coarse/slow stage ±25000 100 0.4 mrad 400 DC, infrequent 8000
laser truss control loop 0.2 10 0.4 urad 10 0.01
300
pointing control loop 0.2 10 20 nrad 0.1 1
high frequency stability 1 1 nrad >1

REFERENCES

S. B. Shaklan, L. F. Marchen, J. J. Green. “The Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph Error

Budget.” Proc. SPIE 5905, 2005.

J. T. Trauger, B. Gordon, J. J. Green, A. E. Lowman, D. Moody, A. F. Niessner, F. Shi, D.

W. Wilson, C. J. Burrows, M. A. Ealey, and T. R. Price. “Laboratory demonstration of high-
contrast imaging technologies and algorithms for space coronagraphy.” Proc. SPIE 5905,
2005.

K. Balasubramanian, P. Z. Mouroulis, L. F. Marchen and S. B. Shaklan. “Polarization-

compensating protective coatings for TPF-Coronagraph optics to control contrast degrading
cross-polarization leakage.” Proc. SPIE 5905, 2005.

M. D. Kuchner, J. Grepp, J. Ge. “Finding terrestrial planets using 8th order masks.” Astro-
phy. J. (in press) 2005.

A. Kissil, G. J. Moore, J. E. Schiermeier, M. Chainyk. “Integrated modeling applied to the

terrestrial planet finder mission.” Proc. SPIE 5867 2005.
C. A. Blaurock, K. Liu, L. D. Dewell, J. W. Alexander, “Passive isolator design for jitter re-
duction in the Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph Proc. SPIE 5867 2005.

K. Liu, C. A. Blaurock, L. D. Dewell, J. W. Alexander, “TPF Coronagraph pointing control

system design and evaluation.” Proc. SPIE 5867, 2005

3.3.3.1.2 OTA Design Description

The full system description has been given above. Here we describe the telescope, i.e. the
system including the primary mirror assembly, secondary mirror tower and secondary mirror
assembly, and the M3 fold mirror. These are all of the optics before the first image plane in
the optical train.

The optical path enters the telescope baffle and reflects off an 8m x 3.5m elliptical-aperture,
off-axis parabolic primary mirror. The light next reflects off the convex secondary mirror,
towards a tertiary fold mirror that directs the beam into the coronagraph starlight suppres-

3-34
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

sion assembly. A pick-off mirror sends the outer portion of the beam to a general astro-
physics instrument.

The mechanical interface between the OTA and the instruments and spacecraft interface is
the payload support structure which is described elsewhere. Both the secondary mirror tower
and the primary are mounted on the after metering structure (AMS), shown inFigure 3.3-18.
The fold mirror also mounts directly to the AMS. We describe each of these assemblies in
turn.

Secondary Mirror
Assembly
• .9m x .4m Secon-
dary Mirror
Deployable • Pointing and con-
Tower trol system
• 4 segment • Thermal control
system

Primary Mirror As-

Tertiary Mirror sembly
Assembly • 8mx3.5m Mirror
• Thermal control
system
• Cover deployment
system
Thermal con-
trol system

Aft Metering Struc-

ture

Figure 3.3-18. Optical Telescope Assembly Schematic

3.3.3.1.2.1 Telescope Design choices

Trade studies were performed among several telescope optical designs meeting requirements
as well as packaging allocations. These include three-mirror anastigmats, Gregorian, Cas-
segrain, and the baseline Ritchey-Chretien design [Howard et al]. Considerations of aberra-
tion control and packaging led the final choice of the off-axis telescope whose optical pre-
scription is given below (Table 3.3-10). The separation from PM to the secondary mirror
(SM) is 12 meters.

Mechanical design was driven by packaging and stability as the foremost considerations.

Thermal design is driven by available power at L2 and the need for exceptional stability.
Only the optical components are tightly controlled to room temperature; the secondary mir-
ror tower, for example, is not tightly controlled nor heated to room temperature. It will have
a substantial yet very stable axial gradient.

3-35
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.3-10. OTA Prescription (mm units); the Separation from

PM to SM is 12 Meters.

The mirrors are lightweighted commensurate with their size to balance the need for observa-
tory-level mass margin with exceptional stability. ULE fused silica or Zerodur would be used
for the SM and fold; the primary would be ULE fused silica.

Primary to secondary mirror alignment is maintained during an observation by a laser truss

[Shaklan, 2004]. Four corner cubes each on the edge of the primary and secondary are used;
those on the primary have a partial hole to allow the beam to be reflected to the laser sensor
from both mirrors. Eight beams overall are used which allows full six degree of freedom
control as required for the off axis telescope.

3.3.3.1.2.2 Primary Mirror Assembly

The primary mirror is mounted semi-kinematically with 3 bipods to an aft metering structure
(AMS). Behind the primary mirror, the AMS supports a set of heaters for maintaining the
primary mirror at room temperature. Figure 3.3-19 shows an exploded view of the primary
mirror assembly (PMA). From the front back, components are the stray light baffle, the pri-
mary mirror on a 3-point bipod mount (green), the thermal control system (red), the struc-
ture for the thermal system, MLI blanketing, and the AMS.

The 8 x 3.5m elliptical aperture primary mirror itself is made up of 20 individual segments of
ULE fused silica joined into a monolithic mirror. Trade studies for the primary mirror that
resulted in this design are described elsewhere [Content, et al.]. The segments are each a
sandwich consisting of thin front and back plates with a lightweight core. The fabrication
path for this mirror traces to established processes for on-axis mirrors with the technology
extension to precision off-axis mirrors flowing through the Technology Demonstration Mir-
ror (TDM). The mirror is a meniscus; i.e. it has constant 25cm thickness and a paraboloidal
rear faceplate. This provides good stiffness at relatively low weight as well as uniform ther-
mal conductivity across the mirror aperture. Table 3.3-11 lists the mass properties of the
each of the telescope optics, and Figure 3.3-19 shows the exploded view of the primary mir-
ror assembly (PMA).

3-36
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.3-11. Areal Density, Light-Weighting Fraction, and Mass of each Telescope Optic.
Light-Weighting Levels are a Compromise between Launch Weight Limits and Stability
Requirements.

Figure 3.3-19. Exploded View of the Primary Mirror Assembly (PMA)

The primary mirror mounts are extensions of bipods previously used on other flight pro-
grams. They consist of a thin RTV compliant layer and an Invar mount pad held by Ti bi-
pod flexures. These attach to strong points on the AMS which in turn are held in a semi-
kinematic mount to the payload support structure (PSS) for a straight load path. The ther-
mal structure has heater zones which can be separately controlled behind each segment that
makes up the monolithic PM; this allows for compensation if there are slight CTE disconti-
nuities from segment to segment. This structure (as do most of the thermal control compo-
nents) is made from high thermal conductivity K1100 composite panels. The mechanical
structures, including the structure supporting the PM thermal control assembly and the AMS
are made from low thermal conductivity, high modulus M55J composite.

3-37
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Modeling of the thermal performance of the PM shows high stability but significant front to
back and edge to center gradients, as expected for a room temperature optic with a clear
view of deep space. The slight static wavefront changes from these gradients are easily ac-
commodated by the system design and the modeled thermal dynamic stability performance
(§3.4.2.1) is excellent.

3.3.3.1.2.3 Secondary Mirror Tower

The tower provides deployable metering of the secondary mirror 12m in front and 2.3m lat-
erally offset from the PM. The tower is hollow at the base with an opening through which
the focusing beam from the SM is admitted to reach the fold mirror. The tower will also ac-
commodate internal stray light baffles. It has hinges to allow unfolding from the launch con-
figuration as shown below.

3.3.3.1.2.4 Secondary Mirror Assembly

The secondary mirror assembly is also designed for maximum stability; however it much also
allow for both slow coarse and fast fine rigid body motions of the SM to account for de-
ployment errors and pointing errors respectively. The mirror also does not have a view of
space and so is held stable with minimal heater power. However it is still engineered with a
complete thermal surround and a radiator to allow positive heater control to room tempera-
ture at all times. CAD views of the assembly are shown in Figure 3.3-21.

The mirror baseline design itself is a flat-back, 60% lightweighted mirror, of the same sand-
wich design as the PM but rather conservatively lightweighted to allow high stability (Figure
3.3-19). Weight details are shown above in Table 3.3-11.

The secondary mirror actuator is a hexapod so as to allow full six degree of freedom motion.
The mirror must move to achieve good alignment against the primary; therefore it has (slow)
coarse range of motion. In addition, it is part of both the laser truss control loop (keeping it
aligned to the PM) and the pointing control loop (acting as a fast steering mirror). Therefore,
at the ~10 nm motion level it must respond to at least a 1 Hz bandpass.

3-38
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.3-20. (1) Secondary mirror tower deployment sequence. (2) From the launch con-
figuration, the top portion latches up to mate with the lower section (3) then the upper two
sections rotate to mate with the base. 4) Finally the full tower is extended to its deployed
position.

Figure 3.3-21. CAD Views of Secondary Mirror Assembly.

Left: cutaway through thermal shroud showing assembly mounting to the
secondary mirror tower, with a hexapod actuator holding the secondary mirror mount,
the mirror, its thermal control hardware, and its stray light baffle.
Right: cutaway through the assembly showing the reentrant interface from the hexapod to
the mirror assembly, preserving stroke at minimum overall packaging volume.

3-39
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Recent work on DM configuration [Shaklan & Green, 2005b] has shown that a serial DM
layout significantly relaxes the static wavefront requirements on the SM and M3 optics (cf
§4.1.2.1) such that their polishing and metrology requirements are not likely to be beyond
the current state of the art.

3.3.3.1.2.5 Tertiary Fold Mirror (M3) Assembly

M3 is a moderately lightweighted ULE or Zerodur flat. It has a nearly square aperture, with
rounded edges. It is tucked into the AMS behind the secondary mirror tower and folds the
converging telescope beam under the primary mirror assembly towards the science instru-
ment package. It has alignment actuation to position and steer the chief ray to align to the
starlight suppression system (SSS). This system is used only on deployment and infrequently
if the telescope alignment needs to be checked and is not used during observation.

The M3 is mounted using bipods similar in design to those used on the PM and SM to avoid
mounting stress. Thermal control to room temperature is provided via small heaters and
thermocouples with a MLI shroud on the sides and back of the assembly. The M# design

concept is illustrated in Figure 3.3-22.

Figure 3.3-22 M3 Assembly. Left: The M3 assembly (red circle) is in the AMS at the base of
the secondary tower. Right: M3 view showing the components in the assembly including
mirror, actuators, thermal control, and stray light mask.

3-40
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

REFERENCES

D. Content, R. Ohl, T. Cafferty, E. Cohen, R. Egerman, et al. “Engineering Trade Studies for
the TFPc 8x3.5m primary mirror.” Proc. SPIE 5867-33 (2005).

Stuart B. Shaklan, Luis F. Marchen, Feng Zhao, Robert D. Peters, Timothy Ho, and Buck
Holmes. “Metrology system for the Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph.” Proc. SPIE 5528,
22 (2004)

Shaklan & Green 2005b. “Reflectivity and Optical Surface Height Requirements in a Broad-
band Coronagraph I: Contrast Floor Due to Controllable Spatial Frequencies.” submitted to
Applied Optics

3.3.3.1.3 TPF-C Mirror Coatings

3.3.3.1.3.1 Introduction
The mirror coatings for TPF-C share some requirements with other, space borne observato-
ries but also include some novel, high precision requirements. High reflectivity throughout
the nominal bandpass (500–800 nm) and over the possible extended bandpass (– 1000 nm)
is necessary considering the intrinsically faint targets and the potentially high number of re-
flective surfaces in the telescope and wavefront correction system. In addition, the effects of
polarization can become significant, leading to the necessity to add multiple, polarized chan-
nels with the consequent increase in instrument complexity and mass. The magnitude of
these polarization effects are closely related to the specific coronagraph design so that coat-
ing decisions have to be part of a much more integrated design than is usual. Finally, the
ability to maintain and verify coating performance during the instrument integration and test
period, likely to be several years, must be developed to assure the required in-flight perform-
ance.

We have considered a number of potential coatings for the nominal TPF-C optical design
(23 reflecting surfaces in a single channel) which appeared as promising candidates. These
include protected Ag, with a minimum polarization overcoat, protected Al, and bare Au. Ini-
tial coating samples have been obtained of the protected Ag coating to confirm the expected
polarization behavior and some testing of these and other samples were performed. Analysis
of the expected instrument performance with these coatings was also begun and illustrates
the close coupling between coating performance and coronagraph design.

We will discuss each of these points and summarize the current status, conclusions and out-
standing work regarding TPF-C coatings.

3.3.3.1.3.2 Requirements
The major TPF-C requirements are outlined in Table 3.3-12 where we have tried to indicate
those requirements generally common with other space borne observatories and some re-
quirements unique to TPF-C.

3-41
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.3-12. TPF-C mirror coating requirements

Requirements generally common to
Notes
spaceborne observatories
High transmission over nominal Individual mirror R should be very high to keep R23
bandpass (500-800nm) reasonable
Lifetime of 5yrs (flight) + several Lifetime requirement is to keep overall throughput
years between original coating, high and maintain required uniformity properties
through integration and launch
Practical, simple, coating technology
Requirements unique to TPF-C
Uniformity of phase & amplitude ƒ Must be within range necessary for wavefront
correction
ƒ Specify both phase & amplitude PSD on coated
optics
ƒ Phase non-uniformities due to non-uniform coat-
ing thickness (process control) and to intrinsic
coating phase variation with angle of incidence for
non-flat optics
ƒ Amplitude non-uniformities due to intrinsic varia-
tion with angle of incidence for non-flat optics &
process control
ƒ Note that size of optics varies greatly between
~0.1 M to 8 M; high uniformity requirements are
most difficult to achieve for large components
Minimum polarization over band- Polarization causes variable wavefront (phase and
pass amplitude) to propagate through system while wave-
front correction using deformable mirrors is a single,
compromise setting. If instrument polarization can
be kept small enough, and using aberration insensi-
tive coronagraphic masks (eighth order mask for ex-
ample) separate polarization channels may not be re-
quired. Eighth order mask throughput is lower than
that with 4th order mask; therefore mirror coatings
have to be less lossy.
Verification of high performance Will need a means of verifying polarization properties
properties throughout lifetime by measurements, for example, on large, 8 M scale
optics throughout the several years between coating
and launch.

3.3.3.1.3.3 Reflectance and Bandpass

To meet the high, visible reflectance requirements we considered three designs: overcoated
Ag, bare Au, and overcoated Al. Ag and Al require overcoats to protect from tarnish and
oxidation respectively.

The expected single surface reflectance of these three coatings is illustrated in Figure 3.3-23
at the end of this section. It is seen that protected Ag has the highest reflectance throughout

3-42
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

the nominal (500–800 nm) TPF-C bandpass. Two different curves for protected Ag are
shown in Figure 3.3-23 they both have minimum, polarization overcoats, but differ in the
assumed optical constants of Ag. Of the other two coatings illustrated in Figure 3.3-23, bare
Au has rapidly diminishing reflectance shortward of 600 nm, which will be greatly accentu-
ated with multiple coated mirrors, while overcoated Al has a lower reflectance than either Ag
or Au but does extend to much shorter wavelengths than either. This relatively low Al reflec-
tance removes it from consideration for coating of as many as the 23 surfaces in the nominal
TPF-C optical design, though configurations in which Al is used on only a few, key mirrors
were further considered.

Figure 3.3-24 illustrates the effect of using either protected Ag or bare Au on the entire
string of 23 mirrors. Illustrated in blue are models of the minimum polarization coating for
Ag with SiO2 overcoat thickness varying by 25 nm. The small differences in single mirror
reflectance are magnified when applied to 23 mirrors as shown; illustrating that good process
control over all coatings will be required to produce the optimum system throughput. Also
shown is the near-normal incidence measured reflectivity of sample protected Ag coatings
from two vendors, raised as R23 to simulate full observatory throughput. There are obvious
differences throughout the TPF-C bandpass with neither having the optimum reflectance
performance we would like. (These samples were only rough, initial attempts to produce the
minimum polarization coatings for TPF-C and should not be taken as final products.) The
model of bare Au shows that it would be expected to produce significantly lower total
throughput shortward of 700 nm, and thus through most of the prime TPF-C bandpass,
compared to any of the Ag models.

As previously noted, protected Al would produce prohibitively low observatory throughput

if it were applied to a series of 23 mirrors. However, if only the first three, large mirrors were
coated with protected Al (the TPF-C primary, secondary, and tertiary mirrors) there would
be the possibility to pick off the field surrounding the TPF-C field after the tertiary and di-
rect this outer field to a general astronomical instrument. Because protected Al can have
high reflectivity into the ultraviolet (UV-Al), such a general instrument could potentially have
high sensitivity down to about 120nm in the UV. We considered two configurations of over-
coated Al mirrors: first a minimum polarization coating (using the same principle as the Ag
design) to minimize visible polarization in the TPF-C bandpass, and secondly, a nominal,
high efficiency, ultraviolet coating, such as those applied to the HST mirrors. Both coatings
used MgF2 as the protective overcoat in order to provide high UV reflectance. They differ in
the overcoat thickness: 141 nm for the minimum polarization coating, and 25nm for the
high reflectance UV coating. Figure 3.3-25 shows the expected single surface reflectance of
the minimum polarization of both coatings. Models with various levels of the absorption
parameter, k, of MgF2 are illustrated (k reduced by ½ from the tabulated values provided a
good fit to measured UV-Al coating reflectance, so is preferred). The different k values
change the reflectivity below 300 nm only. The minimum polarization case has such a thick
MgF2 overcoat that the overall throughput, even if this coating were applied to only three
mirrors, would be very non-uniform below 300 nm. In addition, the minimum polarization
coating has the unfortunate coincidence of producing an interference minimum near 850
nm, enhancing the well known “Al dip” and would cause substantial throughput loss for the
TPF-C observatory in the visible. Alternatively, we considered the application of a high UV
reflectance coating (UV-Al), which would have less desirable polarization properties than the
minimum polarization coating, but does have higher and more uniform reflectivity as shown

3-43
TPF-C STDT REPORT

in Figure 3.3-25. The total throughput reduction of such a coating, assuming it was applied
to only three of the TPF-C mirrors and that all other mirrors had protected Ag coatings, is
illustrated in Figure 3.3-26. The throughput penalty would be about 25% over the TPF-C
bandpass compared to a system with all protected Ag coatings. In spite of this penalty, such
a system might be desirable either to increase the capability of TPF-C by enabling an ultra-
violet capability for an auxiliary instrument, or to provide an alternative coating if technical
difficulties were encountered in either the application or long term stability of the protected
Ag coating.

3.3.3.1.3.4 Uniformity & Polarization

Both phase and amplitude variations and polarization will be present across the non-flat op-
tics of TPF-C as rays strike these surfaces at non-normal incidence. Over the TPF-C range of
incident angles (~ 1°– 11°) the amount of non-uniformity for each mirror is small with ei-
ther Au or protected Ag: < 0.01 wave (phase) and < 5x10-4 (relative amplitude). These levels
are within the wavefront correction range and their expected power is dominantly in low or-
der Zernike terms which have low sensitivity when using coronagraphic masks like the
eighth order design (Shaklan and Green, 2005). More importantly, is the effect of coating
polarization that could necessitate multiple optical paths and significant observatory compli-
cations for acceptable correction.

Figure 3.3-27 and Figure 3.3-28 show the single surface phase difference and amplitude ratio
of the s and p polarizations for protected Ag with a minimum polarization coating of SiO2.
Each curve shows the results at a particular angle of incidence covering the range on the
primary or secondary mirrors as functions of wavelength. Over the TPF-C range of 500–800
nn, Figure 3.3-27 shows the phase difference has been minimized with two wavelengths hav-
ing 0 phase difference. The plot also shows the results outside the nominal bandpass where
the phase difference is substantially greater. While minimization of phase difference was
accomplished, the resulting amplitude ratio is also seen to be very small (Figure 3.3-28), in-
cluding for wavelengths longward of the nominal bandpass.

Balasubrimanian et al. (2005) have also proposed a possible alternative design to produce
polarization compensation by coating the TPF-C primary and secondary mirrors with protec-
tive Ag where the thickness of the protective layer is different on each substrate, causing a
relative shift of the wavelength dependent polarization, and possible cancellation over a lar-
ger bandpass.

The polarization properties of bare Au are shown in Figure 3.3-29 and Figure 3.3-30 and the
UV-Al coating in Figure 3.3-31 and Figure 3.3-32 . Through the 500-800 nm bandpass, the
protected Ag coating polarization properties (Figure 3.3-27 and Figure 3.3-28 ) are clearly
better than either Au or UV-Al. However, longward of 800 nm the minimum polarization
Ag coating also has rapidly increasing polarization. The implications of these polarization
properties for TPF-C must be assessed by determining the resulting contrast for a model ob-
servatory.

3.3.3.1.3.5 Initial Sample Performance

While these results demonstrate that protected Ag with a minimum polarization overcoat
should be the most suitable coating for the defined TPF-C observatory we began to obtain

3-44
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

samples from two separate vendors to investigate the properties of real coated samples.
Figure 3.3-33 compares some reflectance measurements of samples from two vendors with
expectations based on available optical constant data.

Two different models of protected Ag are illustrated using Ag optical constants from a pro-
prietary source and from Palik. For both models the same optical constants for SiO2 were
used. While both models produce high reflectivity, the Palik model is lower by about 2%; for
single surface reflectance; this difference, while relatively small, would result in a significant
difference if applied to all 23 surfaces. Also shown for comparison are the results from two
initial coatings produced by different coating vendors for our testing. The reflectivity for a
single surface is again high in both cases but the few percent differences in detail would lead
to significant overall throughput differences if applied to all TPF-C mirrors (illustrated in
Figure 3.3-25). We see as well that the differences between both samples and the models are
also at the few percent level so that again, predictions for overall throughput based on such
models are not highly reliable. The basic problem is that the optical constants of both Ag
(subject to tarnishing) and the various materials used in the overcoats (more complicated
than the simplest SiO2 layer modeled but these should not lead to significant differences) are
not as well determined as we would like and are almost surely process dependent. Ellip-
sometric analysis of these coatings can better determine these optical constants and should
be performed during the process of coating qualification in order to have highly reliable per-
formance estimates. For comparison, we also show the modeled bare Au reflectance, using
optical constants from Palik, and measurements of a sample in hand at Goddard. For this
simple inert coating, the optical constants appear to produce good agreement with the meas-
urements and predictions for bare Au using these optical constants should be more reliable
than the protected Ag results.

Figure 3.3-34 shows some measurements of phase difference obtained by ellipsometry of the
protected Ag sample provided by vendor #2 (see Figure 3.3-29 for reflectance measure-
ments of this same piece). Instrumental restrictions allowed for measurements only as low as
16°, still larger than the ~11° largest angle of incidence for the nominal TPF-C. Neverthe-
less, the general minimum polarization behavior expected is verified: at two wavelengths in
the bandpass, there is no phase difference between the s and p polarizations forcing the
magnitude of polarization to be small throughout the visible. Also shown, in red, are models
of the measured three angles of incidence where the nominal overcoat index of refraction
was increased by 1.25 and the thickness set at 115 nm instead of the nominal 125 nm. These
changes provide better agreement with this first attempt for a minimum polarization Ag
coating.

3.3.3.1.3.6 Contrast Comparison of Various Coatings

In order to determine the effect of coating polarization on the overall constrast perform-
ance, several models to numerically simulate these effects have been constructed.
Balasubramanian et al. analyzed the contrast from a model coronagraph employing both op-
timized protective Ag coatings as well as ½ wave coatings, an ideal, band limited sinc2 mask
and Lyot stop, and equipped with a Michelson wavefront corrector. All calculations were
done at 600nm (the worst polarization wavelength for the protected Ag coatings over the
500-800nm bandpass). The Michelson corrector was set for various polarized wavefronts
and the residual contrast computed from other selected wavefronts. In all cases of the pro-

3-45
TPF-C STDT REPORT

tected Ag coatings, contrast was typically in the 10-14 – 10-11 range with the worst points not
exceeding 1.2 x 10-10. These initial results indicate that using protected Ag coatings, can en-
able the elimination of multiple polarization channels in TPF-C; use of eighth order masks,
less sensitive to low order aberrations than the sinc2 mask used in this study, should provide
even better contrast results

Other contrast calculations have been recently performed. We used ZEMAX polarization
tracing through the TPF-C optical design up to the pupil, just prior to the coronagraph (13
mirrors). Beyond that, Fourier transform coronagraph models were made using two differ-
ent configurations: one using a sinc2 mask (similar to the simulations of Balasubramanian et
al.) and appropriate Lyot mask, and another using an eighth order coronagraphic mask and
matching Lyot mask. Four different coatings were simulated as well:

1. The three coatings discussed so far (protected Ag coating applied to all 13 mirrors
2. The Al-UV high reflectivity ultraviolet coating using Al+MgF2 applied to the pri-
mary through tertiary mirrors with protective Ag coatings on subsequent mirrors
3. A bare Au coating applied to all 13 mirrors)
4. An ideal coating (R=1, no polarization) applied to all mirrors.

Runs through the coronagraph model with a perfectly uniform input pupil were also made to
establish that the numerical limit of the model was significantly less than the coated model
results.

We assumed an unpolarized source and simulated the resulting ensemble of wavefronts in

two field directions at the exit pupil (Ex, Ey) which were propagated through the corona-
graph model and intensities added at the image plane. A Michelson, conjugate pupil, wave-
front correcting system was also simulated by determining an “average” wavefront to correct
and applying this correction to the ensemble of wavefronts. This “average” wavefront was
an intensity weighted mean of phase and relative amplitude variations; such a nominal cor-
rection may still not be optimal (no weighting for the coronagraph sensitivity to various spa-
tial frequencies was employed, for example) but does make a significant contrast improve-
ment as will be shown. Contrast at the image plane was calculated at the fiducial radius,
4λ/D8 (0.052 arcseconds at 500 nm, where D8=8 meters, the longest extent of the elliptical
primary mirror) and over the radial range 4-10λ/D8. A central band, where planetary inten-
sity is 30 % or less of its maximum throughout the field, due to the near-axis, coronagraphic
mask transmission function, was excluded from consideration. All calculations performed to
date were monochromatic; the coronagraph masks were sized for each particular wave-
length. Broad band simulations also need to be performed to verify that the coatings do not
produce any significant narrowing of the bandpass compared to that which is already present
in the Michelson corrector (Bowers et al., 2003). Results for the case of a single corrector
channel, as opposed to two separate polarization channels are shown here.

The main results from these simulations are illustrated in Figure 3.3-35 and Figure 3.3-36
showing the median contrast at 4λ/D8 for the sinc2 and eighth order coronagraphs respec-
tively and Figure 3.3-37 showing median contrast over the 4-10λ/D8 region. All results are
monochromatic – the coronagraph mask and Lyot stop were scaled appropriately for each
wavelength shown.

3-46
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

The 4λ/D8 results for the sinc2 mask show that all three coatings produce contrast greater
than 10-10 without wavefront correction at nearly all wavelengths in the 500–1000 nm region.
For comparison, the results substituting an ideal mirror show about an order of magnitude
improvement, demonstrating that the coating polarization dominates the achievable contrast
without wavefront correction. With wavefront correction applied, a clear distinction between
coatings emerges. A substantial improvement in contrast is achieved, over the wavelengths <
800 nm, for the minimal polarization, protected Ag coating (as previously reported at 600
nm by Balasubrimanian). At ≥ 800 nm however little improvement is achieved; the other
two coatings show much less improvement at all wavelengths. The low order aberrations
due to changes in phase and amplitude from the coatings over the range of incident angles
on the non-flat optics are too great for wavefront correction to improve greatly except for
the case of the minimal polarization, protected Ag coating design.

The results for the eighth order mask are fundamentally different as illustrated in Figure
3.3-36 . In this case, without wavefront correction, the contrast for all three coatings is
nearly identical to the ideal mirror case. This contrast level is set by the very small, residual
phase error in the basic TPF-C design with essentially no contribution from any of the real
coating models. When wavefront correction is applied, the contrast using any of the coat-
ings improves about an order of magnitude, with median values typically about 2–3 x 10-12,
very close to the perfect case, that of a pupil with totally uniform phase and amplitude. The
reason for this much improved coating contrast compared with the sinc2 coronagraphic
model is that the eighth order coronagraph is much less sensitive to the lower order pupil
aberrations which the coatings add to the TPF-C design residual (see Shaklan and Green,
2005).

3.3.3.1.3.7 Summary and Recommendations

For the assumed TPF-C configuration (500–800 nm bandpass, 23 mirror system) we have
concluded that protected Ag using a minimum polarization overcoat provides the best over-
all performance. The performance measurements we have made from our first two sample
mirrors look very promising and confirm the minimum polarization properties we expected.
This coating produces the highest overall system throughput and could be used with either a
coronagraph of the sinc2 or eighth order type below 800 nm, without having to add separate
polarization channels.

However if TPF-C is to operate with the same degree of contrast (< 10-10) at wavelengths
longward of 800 nm, and without separate polarization channels, none of the present coating
designs will work with a sinc2 coronagraph.

The eighth order coronagraph is greatly preferred from a coating and polarization perspec-
tive since it strongly suppresses the low order aberrations generated by the coatings studied.
Use of this coronagraph allows the extension of observable wavelengths > 800 nm with all
coatings studied. While protected Ag is still preferred for its higher total throughput, the
contrast analysis suggests that the ultraviolet Al coating may be a viable alternative candidate
coating (broad band calculations need to confirm this). This coating has been applied on
numerous space missions (including the Hubble Space Telescope). Use of this coating could
enable a general science instrument with ultraviolet capability or provide a possible alterna-

3-47
TPF-C STDT REPORT

tive coating should technical difficulties with production or stability of protected Ag coatings
on large optics appear. We note that even with the UV-Al option we assumed that all smaller
optics would have a protected Ag coating applied. The major penalty of using the UV-Al
option, would be an overall loss of throughput of about 25-30% compared to an all Ag con-
figuration.

Further system modeling to establish the broad bandpass contrast performance of these
coatings is required. Additional technological development of coatings, both Ag and possibly
ultraviolet Al should also be undertaken to establish the long term performance to the high
standards demanded by TPF-C. Protected Ag coatings originally suffered from inconsistent
lifetime performance but in recent years have become more accepted and are used on the
Gemini 8M telescope for example and are incorporated in the ACS instrument aboard HST.
Process development and control to achieve this performance on mirrors as large as 8M will
be challenging as well. If the science goals change so that the bandpass is shifted to longer
wavelengths, bare Au coatings, or perhaps a protected or hardened Au coating may be an-
other practical alternative. Finally, whichever coating is selected, a means of verifying per-
formance during the probable several years between component coating and launch must be
developed to assure flight qualification.

REFERENCES

Edward Palik. “Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids.” Academic Press, 1998.

Kunjithapatham Balasubramanian, Daniel J. Hoppe, Pantazis Z. Mouroulis, Luis F.

Marchen, and Stuart B. Shaklan. “Polarization compensating protective coatings for TPF-
Coronagraph optics to control contrast degrading cross polarization leakage.” Proc. SPIE
Vol. 5905, 2005.

Bowers, Charles W., Woodgate, Bruce E., Lyon, Richard G. “Novel method of high-
accuracy wavefront-phase and amplitude correction for coronagraphy.” Instrumentation for
Detection of Exoplanets. Edited by Coulter, Daniel R. Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 5170,
pp. 292-306 (2003).

Shaklan, Stuart B. and Green, Joseph J. “Low-Order Aberration Sensitivity of Eighth-Order

Coronagraph Masks.” ApJ, 628, 474.

3-48
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.3-23. Single surface model reflectance of some candidate mirror coatings includ-
ing Au (using indices from Palik), minimum polarization Ag (two models, one using pro-
prietary indices and the other using indices from Palik), and Al+MgF2. The protected Ag
coatings clearly have the highest reflectivity through the nominal TPF-C bandpass (500–
800 nm) though even the small differences in these two models will result in significantly
different predictions for the total system throughput (23 mirrors).

Figure 3.3-24. Predictions of the full TPF-C system throughput for the nominal, 23 mirror
design shown are the results for modeled Au, three models of protected Ag using the indi-
ces from a proprietary source but for three different overcoat thicknesses (the minimum
polarization is the solid blue curve with 125 nm thickness), and the extrapolated (R23) re-
sults from two preliminary test coatings from different vendors.

3-49
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.3-25. Predicted single surface reflectivity of Al+MgF2 coatings for a high reflec-
tance UV-Al coating (black curve with 25 nm MgF2 overcoat) and for a minimum polariza-
tion coating (visible) with 141 nm MgF2 overcoat. Several values of MgF2 absorption con-
stant k were used to allow for the uncertainty in this value. Reflectance of the minimum
polarization models is significantly reduced in the primary TPF-C bandpass and is very
non-uniform below 300 nm. Coating three mirrors with such a coating will increase these
deviations. The nominal UV-Al reflectance is much better, both in the visible and ultravio-

let.

Figure 3.3-26. The relative throughput of a TPF-C design with three mirrors coated with
UV-Al coatings and all others with protected Ag, compared to a design with all mirrors
having protected Ag coatings.

3-50
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.3-27. Models of the minimum polarization, protected Ag coatings (Balasubrama-

nian) showing phase difference between polarizations for a single surface. Each solid
curve represents a different angle of incidence from 0-12°, spanning the range (about 1-
11°) incident on the non-flat optics of the nominal TPF-C design. Two wavelengths within
the nominal bandpass (500–800 nm) have no phase difference and at other wavelengths
within the bandpass, the polarization is minimal. Outside the bandpass, the polarization
increases.

Figure 3.3-28. Models of the polarized amplitude ratio for a single surface using the mini-
mum polarization, protected Ag coating. Each curve represents a different angle of inci-
dence spanning the range encountered on the non-flat optics of the nominal TPF-C de-
sign. The minimal polarization coating, designed to minimize phase differences in the
bandpass, also results in very low amplitude difference between polarizations including
wavelengths longward of the nominal bandpass

3-51
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.3-29. Models of the phase difference for bare Au coating using the indices of
Palik. Each curve represents a different angle of incidence, spanning the range encoun-
tered on the non-flat optics in the nominal TPF-C design. The polarization is significantly
greater than the models for protected Ag throughout (see Figure 3.3-27) the primary TPF-C
bandpass (500–800 nm) but improving longward of this bandpass.

Figure 3.3-30 Models of the amplitude ratio for bare Au coating of a single surface using
the indices of Palik. Each curve represents a different angle of incidence, spanning the
range encountered on the non-flat optics in the nominal TPF-C design. The amplitude po-
larization is seen to be greater than the protected Ag results (see Figure 3.3-26) in the
nominal TPF-C bandpass (500–800 nm).

3-52
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

0° angle of incidence

12° angle of incidence

Figure 3.3-31. Models of the phase difference for UV-Al coating each curve represents a
different angle of incidence, spanning the range encountered on the non-flat optics in the
nominal TPF-C design. The polarization is significantly greater than the models for pro-
tected Ag throughout

12° angle of incidence

0° angle of incidence

Figure 3.3-32. Models of the amplitude ratio for the UV-Al coating of a single surface. Each
curve represents a different angle of incidence, spanning the range encountered on the
non-flat optics in the nominal TPF-C design. The amplitude polarization is seen to be
greater than the protected Ag results (see Figure 3.3-32) in the nominal TPF-C bandpass
(500–800nm).

3-53
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.3-33. A comparison of single surface reflectance of measured and modeled mirror
coatings shown are a model and measurements for a bare Au coating, two measurements
of initial test coatings of protected Ag from two vendors, and two models using different
Ag indices of refraction. Note that the small, jumps in measurements near 800 nm are due
to instrumental causes when the configuration must be changed to span this wavelength.
There is generally good agreement between the modeled and measured Au coating, but
small differences between both the models and measured results for protected Ag. These
small differences can cause significant differences when extrapolated to the total system
throughput for the TPF-C design.

Figure 3.3-34. Results of measurements of phase difference for one of the initial test coat-
ings of protected Ag compared with models of this coating. Shown are the phase differ-
ences between polarizations at three angles of incidence which could be determined using
ellipsometric measurements. The limit of the particular ellipsometer prohibited measure-

3-54
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

ments below 16°, a little above the largest angle of incidence (about 11°) in the nominal
TPF-C design. These measurements confirm the expected behavior of the minimum po-
larization design, namely, two wavelengths in the bandpass without polarization and
minimal polarization between these wavelengths (compare with Figure 3.3-25). While this
general behavior is confirmed, the polarization is greater than optimal; the red curves
show models of the polarization at these angles after increasing the index of refraction of
the SiO2 overcoat by 1.25 compared to the nominal values. Better determination of these
indices and better process control is needed to produce polarization values closer to the
models shown in Figure 3.3-27.

2
Median Contrast @ 4º D 8 : sinc mask
(single, unpolarized channel;long system)
Agprotect2
1.00E-08
Agprot2(wfc)

Aupalik
1.00E-09
Aupalik (wfc)

Al-UV3
Contras

1.00E-10 Al-UV3(wfc)

Ideal mirror

1.00E-11 Ideal mirror(wfc)

Uniform pupil

1.00E-12
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

Wavelength [nm]

Figure 3.3-35. Median Contrast at 4λ/D8 for protected Ag, Au, and protected Al coated TPF-
C models using a model sinc2 coronagraph, without and with wavefront correction applied.
Without wavefront correction, contrast is greater than the fiducial 10-10 at nearly all wave-
lengths. Application of wavefront correction produces much better contrast for the mini-
mum polarization Ag coating but much less improvement for the more highly polarizing
Au and Al coatings.

Median Contrast
Median @ 4-10¬/D8
Contrast @ 4º D8:: 8th
th order mask
8 order mask
(single, unpolarized
(single, channel,
unpolarized channel,long
longsystem)
system)
Agprotect2
Agprotect2
1.00E-091.00E-10 Agprot2(wfc)
Agprot2(wfc)
Aupalik
Aupalik (wfc)
Aupalik
1.00E-10 Al-UV3
Aupalik (wfc)
Al-UV3(wfc)
Contras
Contras

Ideal mirror
1.00E-11 Al-UV3
1.00E-11 Ideal mirror(wfc)
Al-UV3(wfc)
Uniform pupil
Ag mirror
Ideal max (wfc)
Au max (wfc)
1.00E-12 Ideal mirror(wfc)
Al-UV max (wfc)
Uniform pupil
1.00E-12
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
1.00E-13
400 500 600 Wavelength
700 800 [nm]
900 1000 1100

Wavelength [nm]

Figure 3.3-36. Median contrast at 4λ/D8 for protected Ag, Au, and protected Al coated TPF-
C models using a model eighth order coronagraph, without and with wavefront correction
applied. Without wavefront correction, the contrast is dominated by the intrinsic, very

3-55
TPF-C STDT REPORT

small residual phase error of the TPF-C optical design. With wavefront correction applied,
contrast improves for all coating models which are nearly identical with an ideal, uniform
pupil. Also shown are the maximum contrast values with wavefront correction applied.

Median Contrast @ 4-10¬/D8 : 8th order mask

(single, unpolarized channel, long system)

Agprotect2
1.00E-09
Agprot2(wfc)

Aupalik
1.00E-10
Aupalik (wfc)
Contras

Al-UV3
1.00E-11
Al-UV3(wfc)

Ideal mirror

1.00E-12 Ideal mirror(wfc)

Uniform pupil

1.00E-13
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

Wavelength [nm]

Figure 3.3-37. Median contrast at 4-10λ/D8 for protected Ag, Au, and protected Al coated
TPF-C models using a model eighth order coronagraph, without and with wavefront cor-
rection applied.

3.3.3.2 Starlight Suppression System

3.3.3.2.1 Architecture

Coronagraph
Several coronagraph forms have been considered, including band-limited Lyot coronagraphs
(Kuchner & Traub, 2002), shaped pupils (Kasdin et al., 2003), remapped pupils (Guyon,
2005), a visible nulling instrument (Mennesson, 2003), and a vortex-mask coronagraph
(Palacios, 2005). Four-quadrant phase masks are not considered because their 2nd-order de-
pendence on wave front tilt does not sufficiently suppress starlight. Vortex masks appear to
have good aberration rejection and high throughput but have not been modeled to the same
level of detail as band-limited masks. The baseline design includes accommodation for Lyot
coronagraphs and shaped-pupils. Both can be implemented using a filter wheel approach to
select different masks for different purposes (e.g. improved discovery space vs. deeper con-
trast over a restricted space).

Table 3.3-13 outlines the trade-offs between the various concepts. PIAA (pupil remapping)
is the most promising but least mature concept. PIAA offers a nearly 100% throughput
(function of the coronagraph spectral bandwidth – see Section 4.1.2.2) and an increased dis-
covery space for planets outside the 2nd Airy ring. However fabrication of components and
potential diffraction limitations (Vanderbei, 2005) must be solved before this approach is
deemed viable. Laboratory tests in a high-contrast range coronagraph are underway.

3-56
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.3-13. Coronagraph trades

Property Occulter / Lyot Shaped Pupil PIAA Visible Nuller
Practical IWA 3.0-3.5 λ/D 3.5-4.5 λ/D 2.0-3.0 λ/D ? 3.0-3.5 λ/D
Stop Efficiency 40-60% 25% ~100% 40-60%
<25% Constrained
>70% >70% Constrained > 90% Constrained
Immediate Discovery by fringe pattern
Constrained by by limited diffraction by field dependent
Space and fiber
occulter shaping aberrations
attenuation
Minimum Primary
8x3.5 m 8x3.5 m < 6x3.5 m 8x3.5 m
Mirror Dimensions
SM Despace Stability 20 nm 20 nm 1 nm ? 1 nm
Implementation
Low Low Moderate High
Complexity
Complex errors
Interaction between
induced at a Fabrication of
high-angle Implementation
Critical Issue focal plane may optical components.
diffraction and high- complexity
limit broadband Diffraction?
frequency speckles
utility

The baseline Lyot coronagraph uses a linear 8th-order field occulter mask (Kuchner, Crepp,
& Ge 2005, Shaklan & Green 2005). The 8th-order mask is effective at filtering low-order
aberrations that will result when the primary mirror sees thermal gradients and when the
secondary mirror moves relative to the primary. Compared to a 4th-order mask, the 8th-order
mask is 10-100 times less sensitive to changes in aberrations for observations at the IWA. It
also offers excellent discovery space – a planet can be detected with nearly equal efficiency
beyond the IWA except for a central strip. The mask will likely be fabricated in HEBS glass
(Trauger, 2005) as this continuous-tone approach is the least polarization sensitive. We are
currently addressing chromaticity of the mask optical density. Binary mask implementations
for the field mask, e.g. notch-filter masks (Kuchner & Spergel 2003), have severe polariza-
tion and chromaticity issues (Lay et al 2005).

The two-stage visible nuller is mathematically equivalent to a Lyot coronagraph with 4th-
order mask. The disadvantages of 4th-order masks in wavefront sensitivity (discussed below)
are to some degree overcome by an alternate method for measuring the wavefront errors;
this method promises rapid measurement and correction of errors, a few minutes vs. the
few-hours time scale assumed for the baseline concept. This means wavefront stability is
only important for a few minutes or less. Further analysis and modeling are needed to com-
pare the realistic performance of the visible nuller to the baseline concept. It may also be
possible to implement an equivalent wavefront sensing method on the baseline concept,
with similar benefits in shorter time scales for wavefront stability.

The bar-code variant of the shaped-pupil mask shares low aberration sensitivity and large
discovery space with the 8th-order mask. It has comparable throughput at the IWA but
lower throughput for planets beyond ~6λ/D. The polarization and chromaticity concerns of
binary field masks (above) are less severe for pupil masks, because the mask features are
much larger than the wavelength. It is the simplest form of coronagraph to implement.

3-57
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Wave Front Control System

Wavefront sensing relies on the speckle nulling algorithm of Trauger et. al. (2004). Loosely
analogous to Gerschberg-Saxton focus diversity methods, this algorithm uses images from
the coronagraph science focal plane during series of “experiments” with the deformable mir-
ror. A bright spot in the image is a direct measure of the magnitude of an error in the pupil
at a certain spatial frequency; only the spatial phase (lateral position) of that error is un-
known. By a series of trials, one can identify the best phase of a new sine-wave component
on the DM to cancel the original bright spot. At the end, the DM profile has been optimized
to produce a minimum intensity across the science focal plane.

Our WFC system employs two high-performance Xinetics DMs (Ealey & Trauger 2004) ar-
ranged in a Michelson interferometer configuration. This allows independent control of both
phase and amplitude over the dark hole, but the wave front correction has wavelength de-
pendence that does precludes full correction of reflectivity and phase-induced amplitude er-
rors over a broad spectral band. We are also considering ways to implement sequential DMs
to help conjugate far-from-pupil optics. This approach may also eliminate the need for the
Michelson beamsplitter and wedges which are likely to introduce additional chromatic and
polarization issues. The DM format is 96 x 96 actuators on a 1 mm pitch. Thermal stabiliza-
tion of the DMs is crucial. Sub-Angstrom wave front stability is required during the extent of
our ‘set-and-forget’ observing scenario (Shaklan et al., 2005)

Other Aspects
The optical design includes an afocal cylindrical telescope that reimages the short axis of the
telescope across the full width of the DM (thus forming a square image of the primary aper-
ture on the DM). This increase the outer working angle, significantly expanding the detec-
tion space of detection of Jovian planets.

The design also includes two orthogonal polarization channels. This was originally imple-
mented for three reasons. First, the slightly different aberration content of each polarization
leaked around the 4th order mask resulting in unacceptable static contrast. Second, binary
masks are not simultaneously effective in both polarizations. These issues are remedied
through the use of 8th order masks and by employing HEBS masks rather than binary ones.
Third, the secondary channel offers full redundancy in case of DM or detector failure. We
are currently considering eliminating the second channel and readdressing the redundancy
issues.

Both the afocal system and the polarizing channels are described in detail below.

The arrangement of the SSS is shown in Figure 3.3-38 with only one polarization path for
clarity, as well as a single path through the Michelson (one fine DM). The elements in Figure
3.3-38 are numbered in the order in which they are encountered by the light. See Mouroulis
& Shaklan (2005) for the listing.

A discussion of the more interesting subsystems follows.

3-58
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.3-38. Ray trace of the starlight suppression system, one polarization path. Ele-
ments not otherwise labeled are flat fold mirrors.

The Anamorphic Reducer

This is placed before the first pupil image and immediately after the first (collimating) parab-
ola. Its function is to produce a circular beam cross section by reducing the large axis of the
beam. The need for this function arises from technological limitations in the fabrication of
DMs. Specifically, the maximum DM size that can be envisioned at present is 10 cm square,
with an element pitch of approximately 1 mm. If the large axis of the ellipse covers 10 cm,
then the small axis is utilizing only a small fraction of the available elements. The result is a
reduction in the outer working angle of the coronagraph, which is the limit of the zone
within which a planet can be detected.

The anamorphic reducer comprises a cylindrical Keplerian telescope, used in reduction

mode. Anamorphic optical systems normally do not produce a two-dimensional image.
However, this can be achieved here by making use of the following property. In the direc-
tion of no power, insertion of the telescope in the path results in an image displacement
along the z-axis equal to twice the separation between the two mirrors. All one has to do
then is to arrange the conjugate positions and powers so that the powered direction also
forms an image at the same location. It is to be noted that this property cannot be satisfied
with an arbitrary anamorphic system and conjugate location, but it can be satisfied with a
Keplerian telescope operating in reduction mode with a virtual object. A diagram of the con-
figuration can be found in Mouroulis & Shaklan (2005).

The Polarizing Beamsplitter and Related Trades

The polarizing beamsplitter must operate over the minimum range of 500–800 nm, provide
extinction of better than 10-4 for the cross polarization, and have an aperture slightly larger
than the fine DMs (> 10 cm). Ghost reflections from the surfaces must also be suppressed.

3-59
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

This means that parallel surfaces must be avoided because they cannot be made parallel
enough, nor can an antireflection coating suppress the ghost reflection sufficiently. Even a
10-4 ghost (from two reflections on A/R coated surfaces) requires a parallelism tolerance of
better than 1 arcsec. The solution is to introduce an intentional wedge in the design so that
ghost reflections are directed outside the field of view, and then use additional compensating
wedge elements as necessary to reduce or eliminate the resulting chromatic error. This trade
is discussed in more detail in the next section.

Only two technologies have been identified that can support in principle the large aperture:
thin film coatings and wire grid polarizers. The first one has been accepted as the baseline
because it is the more mature of the two. This trade, however, is by no means closed; ad-
vances in wire grid fabrication technology may tip the balance in the future.

Although broadband thin-film polarizing beamsplitters are possible, they do not exhibit the
necessary polarization purity (or extinction). It is necessary therefore to combine two in se-
ries with their axes crossed. By doing so, the second beamsplitter wedge can also be used to
correct the chromatic error of the first one. This works sufficiently well with only two pieces
of glass because the angle of incidence is very near normal. The beamsplitter quasi-cube
sides are 11 cm. A preliminary, not fully optimized thin film design comprises ten alternating
quarter-wave layers of MgF2 and ZnS or TiO2, sandwiched in a glass of the LaK or SK
group. The performance estimate is given in
Figure 3.3-39.

1.0 1.E+00

0.9
1.E-01
0.8
1.E-02
total transmittance

0.7
Reflectance

0.6 1.E-03
Rs Rs*Tp
0.5
Rp Rp*Ts
1.E-04
0.4
0.3 1.E-05
0.2
1.E-06
0.1
0.0 1.E-07
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
wavelength (nm) wavelength (nm)

Figure 3.3-39 Left: p and s reflectance of beamsplitter design. Right: total transmittance of
two crossed beamsplitters. The lowest value for the top curve (Rs*Tp) is 98.3%.

It can be seen that this design is satisfactory at least at this stage of maturity of the overall
design. The extinction is below 10-4 and the transmittance is above 98%.

To avoid ghosts, the beamsplitters have a wedge angle of -0.2o and 0.4o respectively, while
the gap between them has a wedge of 0.6o. In fabrication, there is a loose tolerance to these
numbers since the air gap compensates for wedge errors. The red and blue rays exit this ar-
rangement with an angular error of much less than 1 nrad and a linear displacement of only
0.1 μm. The difficulties introduced by these beamsplitters are mainly in maintaining refrac-
tive index uniformity across such a wide aperture and long path, as well as reducing stress
birefringence to acceptable levels. There is evidence that stress birefringence can be reduced

3-60
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

with careful annealing (Ladison et al., 2001, Marker et al., 2000), but this will have to be con-
firmed for the specific glass type required by the beamsplitter design.

Optical Design Performance

A more complete analysis including additional descriptions of SSS components appears in
Mouroulis & Shaklan (2005). The design is under continuous evaluation and its performance
must ultimately be judged by its success in suppressing the starlight within the desired band.

This is a matter of detailed analysis that is outside the scope of this section and will be the
subject of forthcoming publications. Here we show only the necessary minimum to demon-
strate that the design itself has been put together properly.

Figure 3.3-40 shows spot diagrams at three positions: telescope focus, occulting mask, and
final focus. The spots are shown inside the corresponding Airy disk size, and for two fields:
center and 2 arcsec away (worst case among all orientations). At the telescope focus, the Airy
“disk” is of course an ellipse, since it is located before the anamorphics. The corresponding
Strehl ratio and RMS wave front aberration are shown in Table 3.3-13.

Figure 3.3-40. Spot diagrams at three positions inside the system. (a) telescope focus, (b)
occulting mask, (c) final focus. The ellipse/circle represents the Airy disk size at the corre-
sponding location. In each case, the middle of the field (left) and the worst-case 2 arcsec
field (right) are shown.

Actually, Table 3.3-14 simply demonstrates that the system has been set up correctly in the
software. The center of field error does not increase since neither the parabolic mirrors nor
the flat surfaces add any wave front error at that location. And the edge of the field error
increases gradually since no effort is made to correct it. In any case, the conclusion from
Table 3.3-14 is that manufacturing and misalignment aberrations will overwhelm the design
aberrations.

Table 3.3-14 Strehl Ratio and RMS Wave Front Error

Field RMS Aberration
Strehl Ratio
Position (waves @ 500 nm)
Telescope focus center 1.000 0.0001
2” 1.000 0.0004
Occulting mask center 1.000 0.0001
2” 0.986 0.0145
Final focus center 1.000 0.0001
2” 0.974 0.0295

3-61
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Of interest is also the polychromatic spot diagram, shown in Figure 3.3-41 for the final focus
location. This demonstrates that the angular chromatic error introduced by the wedged
transmissive elements is totally negligible at the design level.

0.2 μm

Figure 3.3-41. Polychromatic spot diagram at the center of the field and the final focus lo-
cation It may be visible, if only barely, that each spot shown in fact comprises three differ-
ent ones, corresponding to the different wavelengths, with a maximum separation of about
1.5 nm. Thus there is no residual chromatic aberration.

The system design has been guided by the principle of flexibility in providing for and facili-
tating alternative planet detection approaches as well as being consistent with the present
state of the technology. Thus the design reflects to a great extent uncertainties in the limits
of various key technologies. This ultimately makes it rather complicated in terms of the sheer
number of optical elements that must be accommodated, and reduces the overall system
throughput, though not to prohibitive levels. Future improvements in mask fabrication, DM
fabrication, as well as advancements in analysis and understanding of all the parameters af-
fecting the contrast, will hopefully permit the launching of a simplified and more efficient
system.

REFERENCES

K. Balasubramanian, D. Hoppe, P. Z. Mouroulis, L. Marchen, and S. Shaklan: “Polarization

compensating protective coatings for TPF-Coronagraph optics to control contrast degrading
cross polarization leakage”, to appear in Proc. SPIE 5905 (2005)
Ealey, M.A & Trauger, J.T. 2004 Proc. SPIE 5166, 172
Guyon, O. et al. 2005 ApJ 622, 744
Kuchner, M.J. & Traub, W.A. 2002 ApJ 570, 900
Kuchner, M.J., Crepp, J., & Ge, J. 2005 ApJ 628, 266
Kuchner, M.J. & Spergel, D.N. 2003 ApJ 594, 617
J. L. Ladison et al. “Achieving low wave front specifications for DUV lithography; impact of
residual stress in HPFS® fused silica.” Proc. SPIE 4346, 1416-1423 (2001)
Lay, O.P., et al. 2005 Proc. SPIE 5905 (in press)
A. J. Marker, III, B. Wang, and R. Klimek: “Effect of residual stress in optical glass on the
transmitted wave front.” Proc. SPIE 4102, 211-218 (2000)

3-62
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Mennesson, B. et al. 2003 Proc. SPIE 4860, 32

Mouroulis, P.Z. and Shaklan, S.B. SPIE 2005 (in press).
Palacios, D. 2005 SPIE 5905 (in press)
Shaklan, S.B. & Green, J.J. 2005 ApJ 628, 474
Shaklan, S.B. et al. 2005 Proc. SPIE 5905 (in press)
Trauger, J.T. 2005 Proc. SPIE 5905 (in press)
Vanderbei, R.J. 2005 ApJ (submitted)

3.3.3.2.2 Wavefront Sensing and Control

Wavefront sensing and control (WFSC) is the central enabling technology for a corona-
graphic telescope. First and foremost, WFSC corrects the unavoidable amplitude and phase
aberrations present in a telescope system. Second, WFSC has the potential to desensitize a
coronagraph design to errors in manufacturing, modeling, and implementation. In many
cases WFSC may relieve the requirements upon system modeling to demonstrate absolutely
accuracy in its predictions. WFSC technologies present the unique opportunity to co-
optimize a coronagraph, control system, and telescope design to best enable high contrast
imaging for planet finding.

Wavefront Sensing and Control Implementations

A variety of methods are in use or have been proposed for controlling the wavefront in a
coronagraphic telescope. By far the most experience with wavefront control has been for
adaptive optics on ground-based telescope. All (or almost all) of these systems utilize a pupil
plane sensor at the front end of the telescope (usually a Shack-Hartmann sensor) to recon-
struct an estimate of the wavefront phase. This information is then used to adjust a deform-
able mirror, also at the front end, to correct the wavefront. While we can certainly benefit
from the knowledge and experience of ground AO, it is generally agreed that such a front-
end sensing system is inadequate for planet finding. Foremost among the problems is the
existence of non-common path errors in the sensing leg of the instrument. These errors can
produce speckles far larger than the sought after contrast of 10-10.

All WFSC approaches for TPF-C must be common path; that is, sensing must occur in the
same optical path as the science information (at least up until a light removal system). Nev-
ertheless, there still remains quite a number of approaches to implementing wavefront sens-
ing and control. In this section, we present several such systems, describe their salient char-
acteristics, and highlight key limitations.

Direct Speckle Nulling at the Science Focal Plane

Speckle nulling refers to a closed loop system that removes speckle via a deformable mirror
based only on measurements of the speckle in the image plane. By using a finite number of
DM dithers, unambiguous information is acquired for speckle removal. No effort, however,
is made to estimate the wavefront itself. If speckle is entirely due to phase errors in the
wavefront, then a single DM can remove speckles in the focal plane to within the limitations

3-63
TPF-C STDT REPORT

of the DM. These limitations come from the actuator density (within the pupil), accuracy,
dynamic range and stability. For OPD errors that originate near pupil planes, the correction
made by a DM is effective at any wavelength. However, if any speckle is produced by ampli-
tude error or by any error near a focal plane, then there are optical bandwidth limitations
imposed by the correction. If there are amplitude errors in the system, a single DM can only
compensate by inducing a phase error that effectively cancels the amplitude speckle over half
the controllable focal plane. A two DM system may be able to remove amplitude as well as
phase everywhere in the search space, but will also impose an optical bandwidth limitation
that scales with the magnitude of the amplitude errors.

Wavefront Sensing and Control Using Science Camera Imagery

This category of WFSC involves apply corrections that are based on estimates of the wave-
front phase and amplitude. There are two approaches to wavefront correction marked by
where the sensing and estimation is accomplished. We note that in all of these approaches,
single measurements are inadequate for unambiguously determining phase and amplitude as
measurements are made of only intensity. Thus, multiple measurements with some form of
diversity are required.

In the first type of system, what we call Lyot Plane Nulling, the wavefront estimate is built up
from measurements in the Lyot plane of the coronagraph (typically implemented by insert-
ing a lens in front of the science camera while looking through the coronagraph). By dither-
ing the DM and taking multiple measurements, estimates can be made of the wavefront
phase and amplitude. In the second type, what we refer to as Image Plane Nulling, estimates
of the wavefront phase and amplitude are made using only measurements in the final image
plane. In this case, diversity is achieved through a variety of possible techniques, including
focus, multiple pupils, multiple wavelengths, and DM dither.

In both of these approaches, a deformable mirror is used to make the final correction to the
image plane. As before, a single DM can only correct phase achromatically in the entire
search space or both phase and amplitude in a smaller area of the search space (but not over
a infinite optical bandwidth). Two DMs can correct both phase and amplitude in the entire
search space, but current methods only allow for narrow bandwidths of amplitude control.

We also point out that this category of correction method is model dependent as it relies on
computational propagation of the wavefront to the image plane in order to compute the
proper DM setting to achieve a high contrast dark hole. They also require an adequate
model of the deformable mirror. This modeling requirement introduces a potential source
of error not present in Speckle Nulling. However, these methods also potentially require
less iteration than Speckle Nulling.

3-64
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Interferometric Wavefront Sensing and Control

The light distribution a pupil downstream of the coronagraph, presents an opportunity for
WFS. By splitting off some of this light and interfering it with a star-generated reference
beam, the complex wavefront may be estimated. The reference itself originates from the pre-
coronagraph light that has also been split from the optical train. This reference beam is spa-
tialy filtered and delayed such as to produce decodable interferograms when combined with
the post-coronagraph beam. This arrangement is referred to as a Mach-Zender interferome-
ter (MZI).

Because the diversity needed to sense the complex wavefront errors is in the reference chan-
nel, this form of WFS can be conducted while integrating. As such the MZI has the poten-
tial to greatly reduce telescope and instrument stability timescales. Additionally, the MZI
produces a sequence of complex pupil models, that represent not just the average WFE but
a time history of dynamic wavefront variations. For a long integration time in the presence
of thermal and mechanical disturbances, the MZI can produce a sequence of models that
can drive the DM.

In addition to wavefront control, these same models can predict the distribution of speckles
that should be seen in the science camera imagery. This speckle pattern prediction can serve
the same purpose as the telescope roll-dither maneuver currently baselined as the planet de-
tection strategy. Using a a MZI based estimate of the speckles, this speckle subtraction may
be accomplished without the need of the telescope dither.

Performance Limitations
Each of these control approaches has certain categories of limitations. Foremost among the
issues is chromaticity. Ideally, we like to see the WFSC system be able to correct both ampli-
tude and phase at all wavelengths in the desired science band and in the entire coronagraph
search space. Unfortunately, that has not yet been achieved. As currently conceived, the ul-
timate performance of many of the systems is determined by the capabilities of the deform-
able mirrors. These include dynamic range, accuracy, stability, and actuator density.

The temporal bandwidth of the systems also presents unique challenges. By temporal
bandwidth we mean both the rate of response of the closed loop system and whether the
controller can be used real time during an observation. All of the approaches above, save the
MZI, are quasi-static. Corrections are made at one epoch, and stability is relied upon during
an observation. The implicit requirement of the quasi-static assumptions is that need for a
very stable telescope. Mechanical vibrations and thermal variations must be control to very
strict tolerances. This is an area where accurate, predictive and validated models are being
developed.

As alluded to above, for systems that rely on modeling of the DM or propagation, certain
types of errors will be introduced. Only experiment will fully characterize the extent of these
errors as well as give validity to models employed.

Finally, only certain categories of the errors described above may be addressable by any
given wavefront control system. For instance, while sensitivity to finite stellar size is a critical
characteristic of a coronagraph, the resulting error is uncontrollable by any of the wavefront
control systems due to the incoherence of the arriving wavefronts.

3-65
TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.3.3.3 Baseline Science Instruments

3.3.3.3.1 Detectors

Introduction
The current baseline for the TPF-C will require multiple high performance detectors operat-
ing in the visible portion of the spectrum. The four primary tasks supported by these detec-
tors will include science, wavefront control, pointing control, and metrology. Table 3.3-15
Summary of Detector Applications on TPF-C identifies the tasks, functions, and current in-
strument/subsystems on TPF-C that require some form of detector.

Science
The key science task is the search for Earth-like planets around nearby stars, with the ability
to determine the composition of the atmosphere for any detected planets.
Table 3.3-15 Summary of Detector Applications on TPF-C
Task Function Instrument/Subsystem
Science
Detection (Dark Hole) Coronograph
Composition/Characterization Spectrograph, IFU/SS
Imaging Wide Field Imager
Wavefront Control
DM WFC DM Pupil Imager
DM WFC Back end (Speckle Reduction)
Pointing Control
Acquisition (7") Star Tracker
Acquisition tracker (<1") Acquisition Tracker
Fine Guidance (<0.1 mas) FGS
Metrology
Initial Alignment Metrology

The performance driver for the planet detection detector is its required read noise of 2-3
electrons [rms]. This level of read noise has been achieved in ground based systems, and
laboratories, but has not been demonstrated on flight instruments. The read noise perform-
ance for the characterization instrument, which will operate behind a spectrometer with
R~70, is even more severe. Unless further refinement in the understanding of the limiting
photometric backgrounds changes, the composition detector will require true sub-electron
performance (per CorSpec ICS report).

The planet finding detector will be AR coated to obtain the maximum QE in the 500 nm to
800 nm band pass. An array of 1024 x 1024 pixels is more than enough to Nyquist sample
the current science FOV. As with the composition detector, the planet detection detector
will operate at a temperature which makes its dark current contribution to the noise negligi-
ble. For the current assessment, we have assumed a maximum single integration time of
~1000 sec. This implies that the dark current requirements for the planet detection detector
can be met at or below ~ -105 C (perhaps as warm as – 95 C). Standard theoretical dark
current curves are provided for a range of CCD’s in Figure 3.3-42. As a goal the composi-
tion detector will operate out to 1050 nm. Operation in the 800– 1050 nm range is dis-
cussed below under “Further Study.”

3-66
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

MPP Device – 0.1 nA/cm2

Typical Science CCD – 1.0

nA/cm2

Radiation Damaged CCD – 10.0

nA/cm2

Figure 3.3-42. Standard Dark Current Curves for a 12 Micron Pixel CCED

The General Astrophysics (GA) task is not a primary mission requirement, and its guiding
science requirements have yet to be defined. One concept for the GAI is a wide field
imager. The most significant design aspect of the wide field imager for the TPF-C is the
large size of its focal plane. One concept provides for a 4 arc-minute FOV (square), and re-
quires a mosaic of 16 by 16, 2-mega-pixel detectors. Such a large focal plane would have
significant impact upon the TPF-C architecture. Once again various assumptions about the
size of the field and the spatial sampling strategy can be made to reduce the total number of
detectors and the size of the focal plane.

Wave Front Control

In order to search for planets, stringent wavefront control is required. A wavefront sensor
will provide the necessary measurements, either from a pupil image or through the direct
image of the science field. This sensor will slightly over sample the spatial control frequen-
cies of the DM. These detectors will be small, ~1024 square pixels, running at low
(0.001Hz) frame rates with low read noise. If higher frame rates are required for the WFC
detector, a sub-electron read noise detector might be required. Most of the requirements for
WFC detector are similar to those of the planet detection detector.

Pointing Control
A pointing control system concept has been developed (Bower) which requires three sepa-
rate camera systems, a commercial star tracker, an acquisition camera which feeds a moder-
ate size CCD, and a FGS which uses a small, fast 100 Hz detector. Since the pointing con-
cept relies on the signals from the target star, very low noise detector are not required, and
additional signal attenuation might be required so as not to saturate the detectors. Frame
rates of ~ 100 Hz would likely drive theses detectors to a frame transfer architecture, which
would place limits on the size of the final mosaic for the acquisition camera.

3-67
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Metrology
Finally, the metrology system will require detectors to sense the alignment lasers, which will
be used to control the placement of the mirrors to the nm scale, upon deployment of the
system. These detectors will likely be small area, single element or quad cell type detectors.
Room temperature Si detectors should be sufficient for the primary mission.

A summary of some of the performance parameters for the detectors based upon the sci-
ence requirement and the baseline mission are presented in the
Table 3.3-16.

Table 3.3-16. Detector Performance Parameter Summary

Read Noise Dark Current e- Spect. Range,
Number of pixels Pixel Size, m e-(rms) /sec QE µm
SCIENCE
<0.001 @
Coronograph >614 X 614 7.14E-06 <3 Tint=1000sec >85% .5-.8
<0.0003 @
Spectrograph, IFU/SS 100 x 100 TBD < 0.3 Tint=1000sec >85% .5-.8 (1.1 goal)
Wide Field Imager 75529 X 75529 7.14E-06 > 20 TBD >60% TBD
WAVE FRONT CONTROL
DM Pupil Imager 256x256 7.14E-06 > 20 TBD >60% .5-.8
<0.001 @
Back end (Speckel Reduction) 256x256 7.14E-06 <3 Tint=1000sec >85% .5-.8
POINTING CONTROL
8 degree field (480
Star Tracker arcmin) TBD TBD TBD > 50 % Vis.
Acquisition Tracker 1800 arcsec TBD TBD TBD > 50 % Vis.
FGS >614 X 614 7.14E-06 TBD TBD > 50 % Vis.
METROLOGY
Metrology TBD TBD TBD TBD > 50 % TBD

3.3.3.3.2 Spectrometer
The science requirements document calls for an instrument with spectral resolution >= 70
over the bandpass from 0.5–1.1 microns, capable of seeing light from anywhere in the ‘dark
hole’ region. The requirements do not state that the instrument must see the entire dark hole
at once – it is possible to meet the requirements with 1) an instrument that selects and dis-
perses the light from an observed planet; or 2) an instrument that selects and disperses the
light from several regions within the dark hole; or 3) an instrument that observes and dis-
perses into independent channels the full dark-hole region.

An instrument of the third type can serve as the primary planet detection instrument if it has
comparable throughput and comparable overall noise compared to the planet detection
camera (nominally a few arcsec square low-noise CCD or comparable detector in the coro-
nagraph back focal plane).

Such an instrument could in principle be used to determine the wavelength-dependence of

scattered light throughput the dark hole, and this information could be used to drive the
wave front control system. This may prove to be a critical function as many of the require-
ments in the optical system are driven by wavelength-dependent effects.

The spectrometer is used at room temperature and is housed in the isothermal cavity region
with the other science instruments. Some possible designs include: a fiber-fed spectrometer

3-68
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

with one or more fiber positioners spanning the dark hole region; an integral field unit; an
image slicer; multiple instruments (several IFUs for example) each of which samples a por-
tion of the full bandpass.

The FB1 design did not consider a specific spectrometer design. Signal-to-noise calculations
were performed for the planet detection camera, and a multiplicative factor related to the
spectral resolution (relative to the planet detection bandwidth) was assumed (see Section 2,
Design Reference Mission).

3.3.3.3.3 Wide Angle Camera

The wide angle camera is envisioned to work in two modes: in the parallel mode, the camera
observes a field surrounding a TPF-C program star. In the pointed mode, the telescope ob-
serves an astrophysical target.

Instrument line-of-sight (rigid body) control in the parallel mode may be derived from the
starlight suppression system, and is required to be ~ 5 mas (1 sigma). In this mode, the light
from a bright star is incident on pointing sensors tied to the coronagraph. The roll require-
ment is TBD arcseconds about the line-of-sight.

In pointed mode, when a bright point-source is not present, the Payload Acquisition Star
camera, a high precision star tracker with a roughly 1–5 degree FOC, will be used and will
deliver 100 mas 1-sigma jitter per axis This does not deliver diffraction-limited performance
for the full aperture. It is thus important that the wide-angle camera generates a pointing
signal adequate to meet its needs.

Like the other instruments, the camera is used at room temperature and resides in the iso-
thermal cavity behind the primary mirror.

The FB1 design allocated power, space, and mass to the wide angle camera (see next sec-
tion). The FB1 design does not make any allowance for field of regard or other considera-
tions (e.g., mirror coatings) that may be driven by the wide angle camera.

3.3.3.3.4 Instrument Accommodation

Figure 3.3-43 shows the nominal accommodations for the science instruments. From the
tertiary mirror of the telescope, a pickoff mirror sends the outer portion of the beam (red
arrow) to the General Astrophysics Instrument (GAI) with an assumed 10 arcsec– 4 arcmin
field of view. The inner portion of the beam goes to the Starlight Suppression System from
where light is delivered to the detection and characterization instruments. Preliminary vol-
ume, mass and power have been allocated, as listed in

Table 3.3-17, Table 3.3-18, and Table 3.3-19 respectively; however, the layout will be refined
in later design iterations once the instrument designs and requirements are better under-
stood. The bases for the current allocations are discussed in Sections 3.3.1.4 and 3.3.1.5.

3-69
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Secondary
Mirror
Assembly

Secondary
mirror support
tower
Planet
Starlight General Astrophysics Planet Characterization Detection
Primary mirror (8 Suppression Instrument Instrument Instrument
x 3.5 m) System

Cold Zone

Science
Instruments

External
radiators

Science
Electronic Box
Platform Engineering SSS
Electronic Box beam Science Detector
GAI
Payload Platform
beam Electronic Box Platform
Payload support
electronic structure
boxes Science Payload (hidden)
Assembly

Figure 3.3-43. Instrument Accommodation Concept

Table 3.3-17. Instrument Volumes Assumed for FB1

Instrument Placeholder Volume (millimeters)
General Astrophysics Instrument 2250 x 1400 x 400
Planet Detection Camera 325 x 400 x 300
Planet Characterization Instrument 750 x 400 x 300

Table 3.3-18. Instrument Mass Estimate Breakdown

% of Total
Component Mass Estimate (kg)
Launch Mass
Payload Support Subsystem 446 7.5
Starlight Suppression Subsystem 515 8.7
Planet Detection Camera 10 0.17
Planet Characterization Instrument 20 0.3
General Astrophysics Instrument 150 2.5

3-70
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.3-19. Instrument Power Estimate Breakdown

Power % of
Component
Estimate (W) Total Power
Payload System Electronics 152 7.4
Starlight Suppression Subsystem 87 4.3
Planet Detection Camera 2 0.1
Planet Characterization Spectrometer 40 1.9
PSAC 4 0.2
General Astrophysics Instrument 100 4.9

Based on initial estimates of the placeholder instrument designs and the system capability,
the observatory will have the capability to provide room temperature cooling that is tailored
to the telescope temperature requirements of 290K – 305K. Stability is critical and precision
thermal stability control will be developed for the telescope and the starlight suppression
system. Instrument interfaces can be controlled as well, but the instruments should maintain
a constant power profile during critical observations through the use of make-up heaters if
needed.

The detectors that were included in the placeholder design were maintained within the tem-
perature range -100C±5C and require 25 Watts of net cooling power (including detector
electrical power and parasitics). For the placeholder instrument thermal assessment, the re-
quired power cooling allocation between instruments was selected as shown in Table 3.3-20.

Table 3.3-20. Placeholder Values for Instrument Detector Power Cooling Analysis
12 Watts GAI detector
5 Watts Detection camera
8 Watts Characterization camera

The current thermal control design locates all the detectors within a cold zone shown in Fig-
ure 2 that has a dedicated cold radiator. The placeholder instrument detectors are structurally
attached to their instruments with thermally isolating structure and thermal blanketing. A
cold strap links each detector to a cold structure within the cold zone.

At the next design iteration the estimated instrument thermal requirements for cooling and
interface stability will be updated to the specifications developed under the Instrument Con-
cept Studies.

3.3.3.3.5 Instrument Concept Study Accommodations

The Instrument Concept Studies are now complete and their accommodations requests will
be taken into consideration during the next design cycle. The following is the descriptions of
the accommodations requested by the ICS.

3-71
TPF-C STDT REPORT

CorSPec

The CorSpec team used Goddard’s Instrument Synthesis and Analysis Lab (ISAL) to assess
that the instrument concept is consistent with the requirements and objectives of the TPF-C
project, and to identify needed technology development.

Estimates for resources (mass, power, and volume) were made and checked for consistency
with the assumptions of the subsystem designs and the derived requirements.

Volume. Each of the four identical spectrographs has dimensions, 550 x 1000 x 250 mm.
The four spectrographs are stacked in a 2 x 2 array with the instrument plate bisecting the
four spectrographs (Figure 3.3-44). This is the simplest layout that fits the existing TPF-C
structure, but may not be the lightest or smallest.

The instrument plate, designed as 3 inches thick, is the mechanical interface to the instru-
ment bay. The instrument plate also provides mechanical support for two pairs or redundant
electronics boxes as well as for heat pipes and thermal hardware. The “Stacked” configura-
tion has an overall volume of 1.42 m3.

Figure 3.3-44. The Stacked Configuration Location within TPF-C

The CorSpec mass and power estimates are summarized in Table 3.3-21 and Table 3.3-22,
respectively.

3-72
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.3-21 CorSpec Mass Estimates

Mass with
Mass Contingency
Mass Estimate Contingency
(kg) (%)
(kg)
Optics 13.4 15 15.4
Mechanisms 14.4 30 18.7
Structure 63.4 30 82.5
Thermal 39.7 30 51.7
Electronics 71.4 30 92.8
Total 202.3 261.0 kg

Table 3.3-22 CorSpec Power Estimates

Power Average
Power Estimate Qty (Each) Power
Watts (Watts)
Readout Electronics Boards 16.0
WFSB Master FPGA/DSP 1 30.0 30.0
WFSB FPGA/DSP 4 25.0 100.0
WFSB Processor (Rad750) 1 8.0 8.0
MEB Instrument Processor 1 8.0 8.0
MEB Thermal Control 8 4.5 36.0
MEB Housekeeping 2 3.0 6.0
MEB Mechanism Control 2 2.0 4.0
MEB Power Converter at 75% efficiency * 3 16.2 48.6
MEB Power Converter for WFSB at 75%
2 23.0 46.0
efficiency
Heaters (62 prime precision controlled
75.7
circuits)
Solid State Recorder (0.5 Terabit) 100
Total 24 478 Watts
DSP = Digital Signal Processor * includes readout electronics boards, MEB boards, heaters
FPGA Field Programmable Gate Array Qty = number of electronics boards
MEB = Main Electronics Box
WFSB = Wavefront Sensing Box

The mass and power estimates include elements of the starlight suppression system (compo-
nents in the wavefront sensing box) and the solid state recorder, which are both observatory
resources. When these elements are subtracted out, the CorSpec power estimate is 240 W.

3.3.3.4 Payload Support Structure (PSS)

As depicted in Figure 3.3-45, the Science Payload Assembly (orange box) is composed of
two sub-assemblies – the Optical Telescope Assembly (OTA) (red box) and the Payload
Support Assembly (blue box). The OTA consists of the primary, secondary, and tertiary
mirrors, the structural and thermal support for those mirrors, and the laser metrology sys-
tem. Details of the OTA design are presented in section 3.3.3.1.2. The Payload Support
Assembly consists of the instruments and electronic boxes, the associated thermal control
radiators/heat pipes and the thermal enclosure which are all attached to a main supporting
structure called the Payload Support Structure (PSS). The details of the PSS sub-
components are shown graphically in Figure 3.3-46.

3-73
TPF-C STDT REPORT

OTA
(Optical Tele-
scope Assembly)
-Primary
-Secondary
-Tertiary
-Structural and
thermal control
support structure
for mirrors
-Laser metrology

Payload
Support Assm
-Instruments
-Electronic boxes
-Thermal control for
detectors & e-boxes
-OTA Support
-Spacecraft I/F SCIENCE
PAYLOAD

SPACECRAFT
ASSEMBLY

Figure 3.3-45. Science Payload Assembly Schematic

The Payload Support Structure (PSS) is also designed to provide a clean interface to the
OTA and the spacecraft, and is the main load carrying interface for launch. The interfaces
are as follows and are shown graphically in Figure 3.3-47:

ƒ The Spacecraft interfaces to Payload Support Structure through 3 bipods. This inter-
face also serves as isolation from the spacecraft.
ƒ The Payload Support Structure interfaces to Optical Telescope Assembly (OTA) Aft
Metering Structure (AMS) through 3 bipods.
ƒ The primary mirror attaches to Aft Metering Structure (AMS) through 3 bipods.

3-74
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Bipod interface to OTA

Radiators and support

structure Science Instru-
ments

PSS

Thermal Enclosure
(transparent)

Spacecraft

Payload
Launch support interfaces Electronics

Figure 3.3-46 Details of the PSS Sub-components

Primary mirror
attaches to Aft
Metering Struc-
ture (AMS)
through 3 bipods
(hidden by mirror)

Payload Support
Structure interfaces
to OTA AMS through
3 bipods Spacecraft interfaces to
Payload Support Structure
through 3 bipods
(isolation occurs between
this I/F)
Note: V-groove and thermal
enclosure sectioned for clar-
ity
Figure 3.3-47 Interfaces Between the PSS, the Spacecraft
and the Optical Telescope Assembly

3-75
TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.3.4 Spacecraft
3.3.4.1 Attitude and Pointing Control System Design
The Pointing Control System (PCS) controls all aspects of pointing the TPF Coronagraph
including the spacecraft attitude control system, the tip and tilt of the secondary mirror, and
the rotation of the fine guiding mirror. The Payload Module (where the coronagraph and
other science instruments reside) is isolated from the spacecraft by either an active (the cur-
rent baseline) or passive isolation system. The two isolation systems have both been devel-
oped, analyzed and compared, and require different PCS architectures. The passive isolation
system has no active control and is mature in development. The active approach is currently
at TRL 5, meaning that it has been testing in the laboratory in an environment reasonably
consistent (vacuum, temperature) with the flight environment. Hardware heritage has been
considered in the selection of components for both architectures. All components are either
fully mature, in an advanced state of development (TRL 5 or higher), or are a reasonable ex-
trapolation from existing hardware. Photographs of existing PCS hardware components are
shown in Figure 3.3-48.

Vibration is transmitted into the Payload Module from the spacecraft through the isolation
system via isolation leakage and by transmission across cables connected between the Space-
craft and Payload Module. Vibrations in the Payload Module are also caused by movement
of mechanisms on the payload side, thermal gradients, and external torques. The active isola-
tion system provides a higher degree of isolation because positional control between the
spacecraft and the Payload Module is induced through controllable magnetic coupling; there
is no physical contact. Because of this, less vibration compensation is required for the active
system. The active system has been analyzed based on a model that was developed at Lock-
heed Martin and tested on prototype hardware called Disturbance Free Payload (DFP).

Figure 3.3-49 shows schematics of both the active and passive PCS design options. Both sys-
tems receive light from the coronagraph target star and use the reaction wheel assembly in
the spacecraft to point the observatory. The starlight is reflected off the surface of the coro-
nagraph mask into a detector that senses starlight centering and provides feedback used to
control observatory pointing. TPF-C performance has been evaluated for both the passive
and active PCS design options and results are presented in this section. No decision has been
made at this time as to which of the active or passive PCS designs is selected for the TPF-C
baseline architecture as both appear to be viable in terms of system performance.

3-76
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Reaction Wheel View of DFP Interface

Assembly DFP 3D Testbed
Actuator pair
- &
Sensor pair

Payload Spacecraft

Actuator pair
DFP single &
actuator Sensor pair
assembly (1 of 3 pairs)

DFP Interface

Laser Metrology System hardware,

based on SIM external metrology
design shown here

Figure 3.3-48 Attitude Pointing and Control Mechanisms

3-77
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Gyro
Solar Sail &
Sun Shade
PASSIVE ARCHITEC-
S/C Star
RW Tracker Spacecraft hardware
Payload Pointing Hardware
S/ C Measurement Sensors
S/C Payload
Disturbances Local Disturbances
Local Disturbances
Coronagraph
Wavefront Control Mas
(DM) Tip/Tilt Coronagraph
Primary
Mirror Secondary θ Detector (for
Passive Mirror Alignment)
Isola- (PM) FSM Light
(SM)
Tip/Tilt Light
Light Reflected Light
image from
RWA SM Tilt mask
Control Angle
Light FGS Focal
Collec- Plane
FSM Mirror
Shaft Angle Centroid
Measurement

Solar Sail &

Gyro Sun Shade
ACTIVE ARCHITEC-
S/C
S/C Star
RWA Tracker Spacecraft hardware
Payload Pointing Hardware
S/ C Measurement Sensors
Payload
RWA Local Disturbances Local Disturbances
Control
Coronagraph
Wavefront Control Mask
(DM) Tip/Tilt Coronagraph
Vibration Primary
Mirror Secondary θ Detector (for
Isolation Mirror Alignment)
(DFP) (PM) FSM Light
(SM)
S/C side Tip/Tilt
Light Light Reflected Light
Non-
Angle control not image from
contact needed during TBD
payload mas
observation
control
Light FGS Focal
Collection FSM Mirror Plane
Shaft Angle
Centroid
(and centroid meas.) Measurement

Figure 3.3-49. Schematics of Two Alternative Pointing Control Systems: Passive & Active

3-78
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

The passive system controls the secondary mirror tip and tilt to remove off-center beam
walk in the telescope. The secondary mirror position is sensed using a laser metrology sys-
tem that has been developed at JPL for SIM. The laser metrology system measures pointing
angle of the secondary mirror and feeds that information to the Reaction Wheel Assembly to
control the overall observatory position. The Fine Steering Mirror (FSM) is controlled using
feedback from the starlight mask reflection and removes high frequency pointing errors.

The active system stabilizes the payload pointing using feedback directly from DFP position
sensors. With this architecture, the secondary mirror does not need to be pointed for tip/tilt
control. It is possible that the FSM control will also not be needed; however, the FSM loop
is included in the architecture until all noise sources are evaluated.

The requirements for the Attitude and Pointing Control System derive from elements in the
Observatory Error Budget and are allocated in terms of contrast degradation. The top level
contrast requirements are listed in Table 3.3-23. These contrast allocations have been trans-
lated into angular errors and optical aberrations that are listed in the tables in Table 3.3-24
and Table 3.3-25 Table 3.3-26 shows derived rigid body motion requirements.

Table 3.3-23. Table of Top Level Contrast Requirements in Terms of Contrast

Beam LOS mask Structure SD mask PM PM def. Total
Walk LOS error Deformation error deformation mask error contrast
1.90E-12 9.04E-14 5.46E-13 2.75E-17 1.64E-17 8.55E-13 5.19E-15 3.40E-12

Table 3.3-24. Line-of-Sight and Beamwalk Error Allocations

Rigid-Body Error Allocations
Image position (line of sight) errors
- Image jitter (mas) ≤ 0.30 mas
- Image offset (mas) ≤ 0.30 mas
Beamwalk on each optic in error budget
- Beamwalk due to pointing (mas) ≤ 0.04 mas

Table 3.3-25. Optical and Structural Deformation Error Allocations

Aberration Error Allocations (not Rigid Body)
Zernike
Structural Deformation (nm) Primary Mirror (nm)
mode
4 4.78E-02 4.00E-01
5 6.21E-03 4.00E-01
6 4.58E-02 4.00E-01
7 2.50E-03 2.00E-01
8 6.00E-03 4.00E-01
9 3.48E-03 3.00E-01
10 4.41E-03 4.00E-01
11 1.29E-04 5.00E-03
12 1.44E-04 5.00E-03
13 3.77E-05 5.00E-03
14 7.95E-05 5.00E-03
15 4.56E-05 5.00E-03

3-79
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.3-26. Physical Motion Requirements

Rx (mas) Ry (mas) Rz (mas) Tx (nm) Ty (nm) Tz (nm)
SM 0.377 0.251 1.078 2.6 5.5 1.1
Fold 1 (M3) 2.073 2.073 2.073 100.5 100.5 100.5
Fold 2 (M4) 2.073 2.073 2.073 100.5 100.5 100.5
Coronagraph Box 2.073 2.073 2.073 10.1 10.1 10.1
Observatory Rigid
4.000 4.000 1000.000 na na na
Body Pointing

One additional requirement applies to the Attitude and Pointing Control System that derives
from operational efficiency requirements. During a 30 degree slew of the observatory, the
slew and settle time must be completed in 30 minutes.

The two Attitude and Pointing Control designs were modeled using an integrated approach
which included observatory integrated structural and optical models. Disturbances flow
through the structure, perturb the optical response, perturbations are measured by sensors
and corrected by actuators that act on the structure. The integrated model captures all of
these processes with associated errors and uncertainties. The model identified the distur-
bance sources with the largest impact on the performance of the coronagraph and was used
to guide the observatory design choices. Engineering judgment identified the strongest de-
sign drivers, the reaction wheels. Error sources with lesser significance, such as sensor and
actuator noise, were modeled with simple approximations unless analysis predicted perform-
ance impacts. If so, then more detail was added to the model. Model uncertainty factors
were included in the error budget and consisted of model maturity– whether there was com-
ponent, subsystem or system level testing, and frequency based inaccuracy. Materials uncer-
tainties such as stiffness and damping were covered by a conservative knockdown factor.

Several integrated models were used to capture different performance aspects of the obser-
vatory dynamic response. A linear model was developed using DOCS Toolbox in MATLAB
for high-bandwidth disturbances. A non-linear model was used for transient response. Sev-
eral different levels of structural models, from high to low fidelity, were used to improve
analysis efficiency and accuracy. Linear optical sensitivity matrices provided efficient compu-
tation of optical response. Optical performance from the error budget was used as the analy-
sis metric. At this phase, only the primary mirror deformation was modeled. Optical defor-
mation aberration for the secondary mirror and subsequent optics is anticipated for the next
design cycle. Schematics of the passive and active Attitude and Pointing Control System
models are shown in Figure 7.

Modeling results are shown in Figure 3.3-50 through Figure 3.3-53. Figure 3.3-50 shows the
physical translations and rotations of the observatory optical elements, listed along the x-
axis. The translations are in units of nanometers and the translations are in units of nanora-
dians. The direction of motion (X, Y, and Z in translation and around the X, Y, and Z axes
in rotation) are indicated by the line color on the plots. The frequency which excites the
highest response is indicated by the shape of the data point for each optical element. The
requirements for each element are indicated by the pink, green and orange lines. Both sys-
tems meet requirements, with the passive system requiring secondary mirror steering.

3-80
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Disturbance source: Reaction Wheel Vibrations and System Noise Simultaneously

Passive System – meets requirements – Active System – meets requirements with
steering mirror is adjusted margin

Reqts Reqts
X&Y X&Y
Z Z

Reqts:
Xrot
Reqts: Yrot
Xrot Zrot
Yrot
Zrot

Figure 3.3-50. Rigid Body Disturbances, Both Passive and Active Systems

3-81
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.3-51 shows Line of Sight pointing variations and beam walk caused by jitter for
both systems. The performance of the observatory is shown in green and blue and the re-
quirements from the error budget allocation are shown in pink or red. The Line of Sight
plots have reaction wheel speed in Hertz along the x-axis and the log of the Line of Sight
deviation in milli-arcsecs along the y-axis. The beam walk plots have the magnitude of beam
walk in nanometers along the y-axis and each optical element along the x-axis. The shape of
the point symbols indicates which wheel speed frequency excites the larges beam walk re-
sponse. The Primary Mirror Aberration plots have Zernike modes along the x-axis and the
magnitude of the Zernike coefficient for the associated mode along the y-axis in units of na-
nometers. The data point symbol for each Zernike mode indicates the reaction wheel speed
frequency that excites the largest response. Both systems meet the requirements for Line of
Sight pointing and beam walk. The active system meets requirements for Primary Mirror
aberration, but the passive system does not meet requirements at the higher order Zernike
modes.

Jitter to Contrast
-K- f(u) 1
LOS
RWA LOS Contrast
Optical
disturbance 3
Sensitivities
1 Optical response
RWA forces Optical nodes
4
SM position Optical displacements
Actuator and isolator stroke
SM reaction force x' = Ax+Bu 2
y = Cx+Du Engineering requirements
FGM angle ASC nodes
Plant
FGM reaction force
Laser truss nodes

FGM LOS
cmd cmd x' = Ax+Bu
-K- LOS
x' = Ax+Bu y = Cx+Du 2
y = Cx+Du FGM to LOS FGM control FGS noise
7
FGM model FGM angle noise
-K-
FGM Angle
FGM to SM
SM
cmd x' = Ax+Bu
x' = Ax+Bu
y = Cx+Du -K-
y = Cx+Du 6 4
SM model SM position SM control metrology laser truss
noise noise
-K-
SM to ACS wheel
torque SC inertia
commands x' = Ax+Bu x' = Ax+Bu
-K- -K-
x' = Ax+Bu accels y = Cx+Du y = Cx+Du
ACS torque 3
y = Cx+Du ACS control Estimator
allocation ACS sensor noise
RW speed 5
control RW tach noise and
torque noise

Figure 3.3-51. Attitude Control Schematic

3-82
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Passive LOS DFP LOS

0 0
10 10
LOS Jitter Requirement LOS Jitter Requirement
-1 -2
10 10
Log Magnitude[masec]
Wheel speed range considered

Log Magnitude[masec]
-2 -4
10 10

-3 -6
10 10

-8
-4 10
10 LOS x max=4.6e-005 (req=0.3)
LOS x max=0.24 (req=0.3)
LOS y max=6e-005 (req=0.3)
LOS y max=0.22 (req=0.3) -10
-5 10
10 -1 0 1 2
-1 0 1 2 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10
Log Frequency [Hz]
Log Frequency [Hz]
Passive beam walk x - beam walk allocated in error budget Active beam walk
5 5
10 104
4 103
10 102
3
10 101
2 100
Beam walk [nm]

10
Beam walk [nm]
1
10-1
10 10-2
0 10-3
10 10-4
-1
10 10-5
-2 10
10 5.35Hz
-3
10 5.72Hz 5.49Hz
-4
10 5.73Hz 10.04Hz
-5
10
D M3
PM
SM

1s M 4
3
1s M M4
PM
SM

d p g M
l

C hel ing S
M ee dP S
2n y oll

d p g M
M

2n Cy ol

or
dP pil eD r
up R e M
C el ng S
M ee dP S

1s Co dC lMir
or
up R e M
dP pil D r

2n tPu erin neDe

pWnB ir
1s Co dCy Mir

2n u ars lMi
pWnB ir

ic r B
St 2n tPB
2n tPu ars lMi

1s lay

e S
ilR lay
ic r B

C
2n Pu rin neD
St 2n PB

Focul 2
1s lay

om s o M

1s Ste F dg

ld ter
irr
to lRe y2
e S
ilR lay
C

AP pi la r
Fo cul 2
om s o M

ld ter
1s Ste F dg

AP pi la r

irr
to lRe y2

O Pu ilRe Mi

c y
O Pu ilRe Mi

c y

y
l

M
e

O la
M

e
O la
e
t

i
C
D

t
i
t

e
h

t P

ne
ne
t

Fi
Fi

Passive PM aberration Active PM aberration

0 0
10 10
5.35Hz 10.04Hz
PM Aberration
9.86Hz 30.30Hz
-2 Requirements
Zernike amplitude [nm]

10
Zernike amplitude [nm]

PM Aberration
-1
10 Requirements
-4
10

-2
10
-6
10

-3 -8
10 10
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Zernike mode Zernike mode

Figure 3.3-52. Optical Responses of both Passive and Active Systems Caused by Dynam-
ics. Top: Line of sight; middle: Beam Walk; Bottom: Primary mirror aberrations

3-83
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

The final performance results are presented in Figure 3.3-53 showing the total contrast deg-
radation caused by dynamic jitter. The contributors to the total contrast are shown in differ-
ent colors. The left plot shows the contrast versus wheel speed for the passive design. The
right plot shows the contrast versus wheel speed for the active design. For both plots, the
requirement is shown by a solid red bar, the x-axis shows wheel speed frequency in Hertz
and the y-axis shows the magnitude of the contrast. The passive system exceeds the contrast
allocation around 5.35 Hz due to beam walk. The active system meets requirements.

Passive contrast -10 Active contrast

10
-12
10
-15
10

Log Magnitude[1]
-14
Log Magnitude[1]

10
-20
10
-16
10 c_BW c_BW
-25
c_LOS 10 c_LOS
c_maskerr_LOS c_maskerr_LOS
c_SD
-18 c_SD
10 c_maskerr_SD -30 c_maskerr_SD
c_PM 10
c_maskerr_PM c_PM
Total contrast max=8e-012 (req=3.4e-012) c_maskerr_PM
-20 Total contrast max=6e-014 (req=3.4e-012)
10 -35
-1 0 1 2 10 -1 0 1 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Log Frequency [Hz] Log Frequency [Hz]

Figure 3.3-53. Contrast Comparison using Active Isolation and Passive Isolation.

3.3.4.2 Vibration Isolation

Overview: The Pointing Control System (PCS) must maintain the physical motions of the
optical elements, and the position of the star image centroid on the coronagraph mask to
prevent excess star leakage. To achieve the pointing accuracy and jitter suppression required
to achieve the coronagraph requirements (0.04 mas jitter, better than 0.1 mas offset), both
disturbances caused by spacecraft sources, such as reaction wheels and solar panels, and in-
strument sources are significant. The TPF-C design approach is to attempt to place the in-
trinsically noisy components, such as reaction wheels on a noisy platform on the spacecraft,
and then limit the energy transmission into the optical payload, which will help to reduce
excitation of the fine guidance mirror (FGM) and structural elements. The secondary mirror
(SM) and FGM additionally produce local (payload mechanisms and structure being the
source) disturbances when articulated to correct for pointing error or mechanical distortion
(SM). If pointing of the payload was “perfect,” jitter would be reduced by limiting motion of
the SM and FGM, and the resulting disturbances. The payload and payload support module
are connected to the spacecraft by cables for power and data, as well as the isolation system
(which could be either passive or active), which becomes the path that disturbances are
transmitted from the spacecraft to the payload.

3-84
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

TPF-C has studied two isolation systems. A passive system based on a “spring model” de-
scribed below and an active system based on the Lockheed Disturbance Free Payload (DFP)
model. Passive isolation systems have had previous flight heritage, whereas active isolation is
relatively new, and the DFP approach analyzed by TPF-C is at the TRL-5 level of maturity,
but shows great promise. In addition to the isolation implementation, a fundamental differ-
ence between the using the DFP active system and the passive system is that approach to
correcting pointing errors uses a different set of hardware. Since the DFP is able to correct
for small pointing errors, the spacecraft no longer needs to make “fine” pointing adjust-
ments.

Comparison of the jitter and pointing errors due to the choice of isolation system is given in
Section 3.3.4.1.

Reaction Wheels: Since the largest contributor of high frequency vibration is the reaction
wheels, a brief summary is given. The current model of the reaction wheels is based on the
following assumptions.

ƒ The baseline design uses 6 Ithaco E wheels in a pyramid

ƒ The reaction wheels are modeled as a sum of sinusoidal disturbances acting at har-
monics of the wheel speed.
Nh
d (t ) = ∑ Ci f rw2 sin( 2πhi f rw t + φi )
i =1

ƒ Disturbance coefficients are derived from curve fits to force/torque vs RPM data
ƒ Disturbance fundamental corresponds to static/dynamic imbalance
– 0.273 g-cm, 21.4 g-cm2
ƒ The response is scaled to approximate 2 of the 6 wheels spinning at the same speed
provide a “real world” worst case scenario.
ƒ The structural/optical response is computed by performing an RSS of the responses
from each force/moment component from each wheel.
ƒ Maximum wheel speed is 3850 RPM (64 RPS), minimum wheels peed 3RPS.

Image stabilization: Any vibration not removed by the isolation system is suppressed by
an image control system. The image stabilization system uses nested control and the fine
guidance sensor (FGS) loops to remove residual LOS error, due to residual disturbances that
propagate through the isolators.

Control loop design parameters for the various pointing components are summarized in
Table 3.3-27.

3-85
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.3-27. Summary of Control and Sensing Loops and Passive Versus
DFP Usage Comments

Sample Band-
Control Loop Parameter Value Margins Pointing Req.
Freq width
FGM Break freq. 1 Hz 500Hz 7.01dB Passive and DFP 25.1 Hz
(fine guidance mirror) Lead 45º 25.6º high frequency
FGS (fine guidance sensor) 500Hz
SM Break freq. 0.001 Hz 1000Hz 49.11dB Passive system point- 0.1Hz
(secondary mirror) Lead 45º 45.7º ing SM. DFP does not
ACS Crossover 0.016 Hz 2Hz 2.06dB S/C ACS points pay- 0.043 Hz
(attitude control subsystem) Integral T.C. ratio 0.075 12.3º load with passive sys-
Estimator freq. 10 Hz tem.
Elliptical order 3 DFP points payload,
Elliptical ripple 1 dB and SC ACS limits
Elliptical atten. 30 dB DFP range of motion.
Elliptical freq. 0.56
RW speed Bandwidth 1 Hz 100Hz looser control re- 1Hz
control Lead 60º quired for DFP/

3.3.4.2.1 Passive Isolation

Passive isolation, analogous to using springs, is used to attenuate disturbance energy trans-
mission from the reaction wheels to the telescope. The TPF-C passive isolation design effort
focused on the need to apply realistic constraints to the performance of a passive isolator.
Less description of the passive isolation implementation is given here, both because it is
more commonly used in flight and that the description is simpler. However, the simple
spring model has limitations that are discussed in the next paragraph.

Some comments on passive Isolation and Modeling, constraints: The general response of a
passive isolator is that of a low-pass filter. simple models of passive isolators show a 40
dB/decade attenuation above the break frequency. Physical isolators exhibit an “isolation
floor” where the transmissibility rolls from 40 dB/decade to (approximately) flat. There are
four effects that drive isolator performance away from the nominal 40 dB/decade attenua-
tion of the simplified isolator model:
1. Isolator damper “lockup”: a pure damper acts as a rate feedback – which transmits
force with + 20 dB/decade gain compared to a pure spring.
2. A non-ideal response of the payload and spacecraft structures: the simple damper
model applies when the payload and structure roll off at 40 dB/decade. A structure
will roll off between 10 and 30 dB/decade above its first mode. If the payload and
spacecraft roll off at an average 20 dB/decade each, the transmissibility from distur-
bances, through both structures and the isolator, will be flat.
3. The isolator hexapod geometry: the typical isolator arrangement leads to coupling
between isolators, leading to a high frequency floor
4. Cross-axis modes of the isolator: these modes can couple into the axial response,
leading to localized high frequency amplification.

3-86
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

The TPF-C passive isolation design deals with these effects in the following manner.
Damper lockup can be controlled by introducing a spring in series with the damper that ef-
fectively filters high frequency energy transmission. The other three effects are captured in
the TPF-C analysis with a physical isolator model that couples the payload and spacecraft,
and that includes the cross-axial modes of the isolator. The TPF-C passive isolation design
and analysis deal with these effects in the following manner. Damper lockup can be con-
trolled by introducing a spring in series with the damper that effectively filters high fre-
quency energy transmission. TPF-C analysis captures the latter three effects with a physical
isolator model that couples the payload and spacecraft, and that includes the cross-axial
modes of the isolator.

Passive Isolation Placement

The TPF-C isolator stages are placed in two locations. The first is between the Reaction
Wheel Assembly (RWA) and the spacecraft, and the second between the payload and the
spacecraft. A possible additional stage of isolation would be to place individual isolators on
each reaction wheel, in place of or in addition to the RWA isolator. The advantages of the
single RWA assembly isolator are that it increases the suspended mass, enabling a lower
break frequency, and that it requires fewer isolators. Analysis presented in [3.3.4.1], ACS,
shows that the vibration suppression is sufficient.

Payload isolator. For the baseline design, the payload isolator is modeled as a set of 3-axis
springs at each of the spacecraft/support module attachment locations. The springs are
30,000 N/m each.

The RWA isolator is a hexapod design using struts modeled on Honeywell D-struts (Davis
et al. (1994)). The RWA mass is 61.4 kg, and the target frequency is 1.5 Hz. Each strut is
modeled in NASTRAN with 3 nodes, two CBAR elements, two CONM2 elements, and 12
CELAS2 lumped stiffnesses. A 42,000 N/m flexure is assumed. The strut has a first bending
(cross-axis) mode of 102 Hz.

3.3.4.2.2 Active Isolation

The model for the active isolation system is the Lockheed Disturbance Free Payload (DFP).
In addition to the active isolator described below, passive isolation (see 3.3.4.2.1) is still used
for the RWA isolation, although future studies may show that it is unnecessary.

The DFP concept is based on a strict mechanical separation of the payload from the space-
craft support module, so that no mechanical path exists for transmission of structural vibra-
tion through the isolator. Non-contact actuators at the payload-spacecraft interface allow the
payload to react against the mass of the spacecraft to control inertial attitude and position.
The position sensing is illustrated Figure 3.3-54.

The limited stroke and gap of the interface actuators is managed by control laws that com-
mand spacecraft reaction wheels based on non-contact interface sensors, essentially com-
manding the spacecraft to follow the payload in inertial space. Disturbances occurring
through the isolation mechanical separation are eliminated, hence it is possible that only dis-
turbances through other paths—cables, heat pipes, etc… are paths from the spacecraft

3-87
TPF-C STDT REPORT

module to the payload. Moreover, the non-contact interface sensors do not participate in the
derivation of payload inertial attitude control, since it is the payload Figure 2: DFP sensor.
sensors that are controlling the pointing; thus, the payload attitude isolation is not limited by
the noise characteristics of the DFP sensors.

Figure 3.3-54. Electrical Concept for DFP Sensor.

Sensor
Metallic
target

Sensed
Spacecraft distance Payload

Figure 3.3-55. Sensors Based on Inductive (Eddy-Current) Sensor Technology

The DFP actuators have a range of roughly 1 degree of travel, allowing the DFP to “point”
the payload, decreasing the range of travel for the secondary mirror, and allowing the SC to
point the payload more coarsely without compromising the coronagraph pointing.

The differences between the passive and active vibration isolation design features are sum-
marized in Table 3.3-28.

3-88
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.3-28. Summary Differences Between Passive and Active Isolation

Control Loop DFP Passive Isolation

FGM Required to take out high frequency dis- Required to take out high frequency disturbances
(fine guidance mirror) turbances to the coronagraph mask. Cen- to the coronagraph mask. Centers star image on
ters star image on coronagraph target coronagraph target point. Offloaded by SM.
point.
FGS (fine guidance sensor) Measures pointing error. Measures pointing error.

SM Metrology measurements used to main- Metrology measurements used to maintain align-

(secondary mirror) tain alignment. ment. Also used to offload FSM pointing range.
ACS Takes out DFP pointing to keep DFP Points Payload.
(attitude control subsystem) actuators within usable range.
RW speed Somewhat loosely controlled since SM Very tightly control. Needed to point Payload.
control pointing is performed by DFP.

REFERENCES

P. Davis, D. Cunningham, and J. Harrell, Advanced 1.5 Hz Passive Viscous Isolation Sys-
tem, 35th AIAA SDM Conference, Hilton Head, South Carolina, 1994.

3.3.4.3 Thermal Control and Sunshield

As has been made previously clear, a fundamental requirement driving the TPF-Coronagraph
(TPF-C) system design is to control (or, perhaps more practically stated, effectively eliminate)
thermally- and structurally-induced wave-front error (WFE).

The mission therefore presents the thermal system designer with major challenges to main-
tain unprecedented levels of thermal stability during very long imaging integration times.
Further complicating the task is the requirement (at least in the FB1 approach) that, for
speckle subtraction purposes, the initial image formation (following a slew to a new target
and settling to a stable structural and thermal condition) must be followed by a ‘dither’ or
roll maneuver about the boresight axis of about 30 degrees. This dither maneuver in effect
‘moves’ the Sun relative to the observatory, creating a powerful thermal destabilizing influ-
ence.

It is this 30o dither that drives the FB1 thermal control system design. Were there no need
for such a dither, or a means of accomplishing speckle removal without moving the observa-
tory relative to the Sun, thermal control would be significantly simplified.

3-89
TPF-C STDT REPORT

primary mirror thermal control approach optical baffle

replicated for secondary mirror 6-layer V-groove
thermal shield to
‘remove’ the Sun
and provide cold
bias even with
Laser metrology direct Sun loading
system provides
real-time
compensation for
secondary mirror rigid-body multi-zoned radiant heater
support tower cools to relative motion plate maintains ULE primary
equilibrium inside MLI between primary mirror at temperature where
(black outer layer) and secondary CTE minimized
mirrors

heated ‘isothermal’ electronics and detector

enclosure cooling radiators, fed by
heat pipes
aft metering
structure (AMS)
inside-to-out cold biasing provides
payload support opportunity for precision active
structure (PSS) spacecraft thermal control

Figure 3.3-56. TPF-C thermal control architecture

The thermal control architecture adopted for TPF-C is shown schematically in Figure 3.3-56.
There are two fundamental aspects of the FB1 thermal control system, both of which are
critical to the achievement of success.

The first fundamental aspect of the thermal control system design is, to the greatest possible
extent, to passively control of the effects of moving the relative position of the Sun midway
through the imaging process. Especially since it is not possible to directly apply active ther-
mal control to the reflective faces of the primary mirror (M1) and the secondary mirror
(M2), passive control (in the form of highly effective thermal shielding) is essential for con-
trolling environmentally induced spatial transient thermal distortions in the radiative back-
ground presented to the reflective face of the primary mirror by the large stray light baffle
surrounding the incoming optical beam between M1 and M2. Controlling these gradients in
the radiative background presented to the reflective faces of M1 and M2 is necessary because
fluctuations in background result in fluctuations in the radiant flux rates from different parts
of the mirror face, because such variations produce internal temperature gradients within the
mirrors.

The most novel and important passive thermal control feature is a 6-layer conical V-groove
shield, pictured in Figure 3.3-57. The reader is directed to Section 4.1.4.1 for a brief discus-
sion of a design variant of this baseline conical sunshield that holds promises of improved
thermal performance, improved compatibility with the detector cooling radiator, and im-
proved feasibility with respect to packaging and deployment.).

3-90
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

V-groove perimeter
support truss

V-groove
extendible
boom

V-groove layers

Payload/Space-
craft interface
and isolation

Spacecraft
bus

Solar Arrays

Solar Sail Spacecraft

Assembly

Figure 3.3-57. TPF-C V-Groove Sunshield

The second fundamental aspect of the thermal control system design is active thermal con-
trol, meaning the precise addition of resistive heating to the alignment-critical optical struc-
ture to maintain thermal stability during a full observational sequence of image, dither, re-
image. The entire optically critical assembly (with little exception) is operated near room
temperature, because the materials used for mirror and metering structure are biased in their
fabrication processes to minimize their respective coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE) at
‘room’ temperature. This approach simplifies manufacturing and ground testing. (The
reader is directed to Section 3.5 for a discussion of the thermal aspects of ground testing,
including that of the Sun shield.) Since the combination of thermal control surface proper-
ties on the exterior of the sunshield, along with the fact that the telescope is pointed into the
hemisphere away from the Sun, place a cold bias on the observatory, heating is required to
maintain the optical system and instruments at room temperature. The exceptions are (1)
the M1-M2 metering structure, which is thermally isolated at both ends and allowed to cool
to ‘equilibrium’, since the alignment between M1 and M2 is maintained real-time, even dur-
ing observations, by a laser metrology system driving an actively-controlled hexapod mount
at M2; and (2) science instrument detector assemblies, which are cooled to the neighborhood
of –100 C by a passive radiator and low-temperature heat pipes.

Those portions of the sunshield which are adjacent to and behind the edges of the primary
mirror (PM) are less effective at rejecting post-dither thermal disturbances from the Sun than
are those portions of the Sun shield which are in front of M1. Therefore, a highly thermally
conductive enclosure, shown in Figure 3.3-58 surrounds the edges of M1, the aft metering
structure and the instrument cavity. In addition, a highly thermally conductive, multi-zoned
radiant heater plate is positioned directly behind M1, to provide a stable means of providing
necessary heat to M1 without having to attach heaters directly to the back side of M1. Opti-
cal metering structure between the base of the secondary mirror (M2) support tower and the
telescope aft metering structure (AMS), as well as between the payload support structure
(PSS) and the AMS, and between these structures and the science instruments, is contained
in the cavity defined by these two actively controlled, thermally isostatic structures.

3-91
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Science
Instruments
External
radiators

Thermal
enclosure

Payload Payload support

Science
electronic boxes structure
Payload
(hidden)
Assembly
Figure 3.3-58. Thermal Enclosure

Prior to the FB-1 cycle, these structures were maintained at constant temperature in our
models, to allow independent assessment of the performance of the passive Sun shield.
At the end of the FB-11 design and analysis cycle, the thermal team was just beginning to
explore the details of the heater control system. The reader is referred to Section 3.4.1.1 for
further discussion of this topic.

Three other important aspects of the overall FB-1 thermal design approach are worthy of
mention here:

First, the thermal control of M1 and its intimately associated equipment is analogous to the
approach taken for M1.

Second, all payload-specific electronics (with the exception of those that dissipate very low
and arguably stable power levels and that, for functional reasons are better located elsewhere
in the cavity) are placed within the science instrument cavity, on thermally and structurally
isolated ‘pallets’. Their (during observations) ‘constant’ dissipative heat flows through heat
pipes feeding a radiator sitting alongside the detector cooling radiator. We do this (as op-
posed to keeping some or all of these electronics on the spacecraft side) in order to minimize
the thermal and vibration disturbance potential represented by the electrical cabling passing
between the spacecraft bus and the science payload.

Third and finally, detectors and electronics are cooled passively. The alternative is active
cooling, by placing a cooling source on the spacecraft side and circulating a fluid to remove
heat. The passive approach was chosen to minimize the vibration potential represented by
the active cooling conduits passing between the spacecraft and the payload, and to eliminate
the reliability uncertainty associated with active cooling.

3.3.4.4 Solar Sail

The TPF-C design includes a solar sail to balance the torque induced by solar pressure on the
sunshield. Without a solar sail, observation times would be limited by reaction wheel capac-
ity, with a current estimate of only 4 hours. The FB-1 sail design is 14 ft. long with 2 separate
3 ft. wide panels deployed on opposing sides of a canister type, coilable longeron boom. A

3-92
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

single axis actuator feathers the sail for adjusting the torque balance (Figure 3.3-59). The sail
material is silver coated Teflon chosen to provide the additional reactive torque from re-
flected photons.

V-Groove
Sunshield

S/C Bus

Solar
Arrays

Solar
Sail

FB-1 Design Proposed Design

Figure 3.3-59. Comparison of Baseline and Proposed Solar Sail Designs.

Feathering the sail introduces a secondary torque about the sun line that would limit obser-
vation time to about 100 hours before saturating reaction wheels. Several options for a per-
fectly balanced system have been studied for future designs. The preferred method is to ad-
just the angle between the 2 sail panels, creating an X shape facing the sun (Figure 3.3-59).
This can be achieved by adding an additional actuator between the two solar sail segments.

3.3.4.5 Solar Array

TPF-C is powered by solar arrays using triple junction cells with 27.4 % efficiency. The FB-
1 array area is 12 m2, sized to provide at least 3,000 W of end of life power for: maximum L2
sun range, a 85 % cell packing factor, and environmental degradations. Figure 3.3-60 shows
the array configured as 2 wings each with 2 rectangular panels. The density by area is 5.77
kg/m2. Array pointing is provided by single axis actuators on each of the 2 wings plus rota-
tion of the combined array and sail mast.

3-93
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Flat Panel Solar Array

Ultra-Flex Solar Array Panel

Figure 3.3-60. Comparison of Baseline and Proposed Solar Array Designs.

Arrows Depict the Direction of Deployment.

Future TPF-C designs should consider use of ATK’s Ultraflex style array as shown in
Figure 3.3-60. This array, originally qualified for the Mars ’01 Lander and now to fly on the
Phoenix mission, provides dramatic reductions in both mass and stowed volume. The Ul-
traflex array, with its slight umbrella shape, can also provide greater stiffness than conven-
tional arrays.

3.3.4.6 Electronics
The TPF-C spacecraft requires separate electronics for both science and engineering applica-
tions, which are mounted on two thermal control panels on the PSS. The only electronics on
the OTA are the Laser Metrology Beam Launchers and actuators. In addition, electronics
inside the optics box are minimized to provide thermal stability for the optics.

The two electronics thermal panels are placed at the current locations in the PSS (see
Figure 3.3-61. and Figure 3.3-46) for several reasons. The thermal panels are placed away
from the detector cold zone and stable optics assemblies to minimize thermal flux at these
locations. However, the distance between the coronagraph and science electronics is con-
strained, necessitating placement of the electronics close to the science instruments. The en-
gineering electronics are not constrained and are placed further away from the critical cold
zones. Furthermore, the electronics are placed towards the exterior of the PSS to allow ac-
cess to the electronics boxes during Integration and Test.

All electronics are redundant, except for the General Astrophysics Instrument (GAI) and
Laser Metrology electronics. The box dimensions for the electronics are based on a 9U
VME card format. The size of the box is based on a 3cm per card width (translates to length
box dimension) and a 2 cm clearance in all dimensions. The mass of the boxes are estimated
at 1 gm/cm3 (consistent with CDS box on SeaWinds instrument that uses 6U VME cards).

3-94
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

The electronic hardware design concept is summarized in Figure 3.3-61

Science Electronics Thermal Panel

Spectrometer Coronagraph General Astrophysics
Fine DM Controller
36W x 36L x 38H 36 x 48 x 38 Instrument
Width

36 x 36 x 38 50 cm
50kg 66kg 36 x 24 x 38
50kg
20W 34W 34kg
50W
44W
Laser
Length Metrology
Total Electronics Mass & Power = 200kg & 148W Beam
Launchers
180 cm
LD5
3W each
Engineering Electronics Thermal Panel @8
locations
Around PM
Payload System Laser Metrology
Electronics OTA Mechanism
OTA Thermal Control LFS + LFSL
36W x 48L x 38 Control Electronics
Width

36 x 36 x 38 40 x 68 x 40
66kg 36 x 24 x 38 50 cm
50kg 110 kg
152W 34kg
40W 6W
20W

Length
Total Electronics Mass & Power = 260kg & 218W

217 cm

Electronics Electronics Electronics Electronics

Payload
Coronagraph at Detector at Detector General at Detector at Detector
Spectrometer Acquisition
Optics 0.12W 0.4W Astrophysics 1.38W 0.13W
Optics Camera
2W Instrument
2W (Head Only)
Mostly near Electronics Electronics Optics Electronics Electronics
0W
DMs by Detector by Detector 5.5W by Detector by Detector
elsewhere
2W 18 W 50W 4W

Figure 3.3-61. Strawman Allocation of Power

Denoting the Size of the Electronics Boxes, the Mass, and the Power Required for each
Subsystem. Power Estimates do not Include Thermal Heaters.

3.3.4.7 Communications
The baseline telecom design provides a 1 Mbps downlink rate at a range of 0.5 AU (EDA
orbit after 5 years), which supports the downlink of 2 days worth of coronagraph data in a
single 6-hour pass. A single 6-hour pass would be planned each day, but the loss of one pass
could be accommodated.

The baseline design is a conventional X-Band system. Two antenna panels on deployable
booms with 2 axis of articulation are required to provide continuous coverage for the EDA
orbit. A much simpler antenna configuration is possible for the L2 orbit, since earth is al-
ways oriented away from the star viewing direction.

A high rate spacecraft downlink is also provided which is capable of 64 Mbps, for a Ka-Band
link to 34-m DSN stations. A daily downlink pass of 2.5 hour duration on average is as-
sumed.

3-95
TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.3.5 FB1 Performance Requirements

TPF-C performance is measured in terms of the level and stability of scattered light in the
dark hole. The scattered light level is expressed in terms of instrument contrast, where con-
trast is defined as the integrated scattered light in a diffraction-limited resolution spot, nor-
malized by the coronagraph mask throughput, and divided by the light from the star that
would be present without a coronagraph mask. A rigorous definition is given in Green &
Shaklan (2003). Table 3.3-29 gives the working requirements as of June, 2005.

Table 3.3-29. TPF-C Contrast Error Budget Top Level Requirements

Perturbation Requirement Comment
Static Contrast 6.00E-11 Coherent Terms
Contrast Stability 2.00E-11 Thermal + Jitter
Instrument Stray Light 1.50E-11 Incoherent light
Inner Working Angle 4 λ/Dlong 57 mas at λ=550 nm, Dlong = 8 m
Outer Working Angle 48 λ/Dshort 1.5 arcsec at λ=550 nm, Dshort = 3.5 m
Bandpass 500-1100 nm Separate observ. in 100 nm bands.

The contrast level and stability are both functions of position in the image plane. We have
found that the dynamic evolution of low-order aberrations and the predominance of low-
order imperfections in the optics have their largest impact at the IWA, thus we evaluate the
contrast at the IWA where we have the tightest engineering requirements, we evaluate the
contrast error budget at the IWA. The dynamic (though not necessarily the static) contrast
levels are smaller at larger working angles. We have not yet performed a detailed study of
contrast stability at the OWA, though it is expected to be small compared to the IWA.

Over the last 3 years has led us to we have concluded that it is impractical to work within 3-4
λ/D (~ the third Airy ring) because as one removes diffraction at smaller working angles,
the Lyot aperture is reduced while aberration sensitivity increases. Our work on aberration
sensitivity (Green & Shaklan 2003, Shaklan & Green 2005) shows that for band-limited
masks, the combination of reduced Lyot throughput and increased aberration sensitivity
drives stability requirements (wave front shape change per unit time) up by ~ 1 order of
magnitude when moving from 3 to 2 λ/D, and a factor of 4 between 4 and 3 λ/D. Our
inner working angle of 4 λ/D represents a compromise between the required resolution (~
60 mas), the largest aperture that can fit in an existing launch shroud, and the engineering
requirements at the IWA.

The Contrast Error Budget (CEB) comprises the static terms (initial wavefront setting and
stray light at the start of an observation) and dynamic terms (any changes to the wavefront
during an observation) that contribute to image plane contrast. Static terms include wave-
front sensing and control, stray light, coronagraph mask imperfections, and polarization
leakage. Dynamic terms include motion of an optic or bending of an optic due to vibrations
or thermal effects, and line-of-sight pointing fluctuations. Figure 3.3-62 shows the structure
of the error budget including reserve factors, mean image plane contrast, and the standard
deviation of contrast as detailed below.

3-96
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Ideal Mask
Thermal Bending R1 Aberration Contrast
C-Matrix
Mask Errors
Jitter Bending R2 Aberration Contrast

Ideal Mask
Contrast

Mask Error
Contrast
Thermal Struct. Deformation R3 Secondary C-Matrix Aberration
<Id>
Ideal Mask
Contrast
Jitter Struct. Deformation R3 FGM C-Matrix Aberration
Mask Errors
Contrast
Rigid Body Pointing R4 Uncomp. C-Matrix Aberration
Ideal Mask 2
Contrast σI = 2Is Id + Id
C-Matrix Mask Error
Contrast

C-Matrix Beam Walk

BW PSD Contrast

C-Matrix
Beam Walk
BW PSD Contrast

Image Motion R5
Beam Walk <Is>
BW PSD Contrast

Image Offset R5 C-Matrix

Mask Cent.
Contrast

Static R6 Static
Contrast

Background
Incoherent Background R7
Contrast

Figure 3.3-62. Error Budget Structure. ‘C-matrix’ is a Sensitivity Matrix or Equation. R1-R7
are Multiplicative Reserve Factors.

CEB rolls up the allocations for individual error contributions into an observatory system
contrast. It is iterated regularly to reflect changing design baselines and system understand-
ing. It is used to manage the allocation of challenging requirements between system compo-
nents and to manage the reserve margins on each of those allocations. The CEB exists as a
set of Excel spreadsheets utilizing data from several models described in Section 3.4.1.2.

Initial work has focused on the dynamic (thermal and jitter) part of the error budget for two
reasons. First, dynamic terms are used to set requirements on telescope stability, from which
design constraints follow, e.g. stiffness, thermal stability, and vibration isolation require-
ments. With dynamic requirements in hand, the TPF-C design team has been able to proceed
with a design that can be modeled, compared to requirements, and iterated. Static require-
ments, on the other hand, drive technology, e.g. the approach to wavefront sensing and con-
trol, optical manufacturing, contamination control, and high-dynamic range baffling, among
other things. Second, dynamic models are largely based on linear sensitivity matrices which
are simple to develop and test. These are explained in detail in Section 3.4.1.1. In contrast,
modeling of static wavefront contributors involves computer intensive diffraction propaga-

3-97
TPF-C STDT REPORT

tions, electromagnetic modeling of mask transmission, and requires a broad-band wave front
control algorithm to compensate for scattered light. This modeling is now underway and will
be folded into the error budget studies.

Control Systems

Two control systems are represented in the CEB. The first is a multi-tiered pointing control
system. We assume that the pointing errors are measured on a high-precision camera located
in the coronagraph. This camera has yet to be designed, but might utilize light reflected from
the coronagraph mask or measure the distribution of light diffracted around the Lyot stop.
The high-frequency pointing is compensated by a fine-guiding mirror (FGM) at or near a
pupil image in the coronagraph. This mirror is desaturated by tip-tilt motion of the secon-
dary mirror, which in turn is desaturated by the spacecraft’s reaction wheels or other point-
ing control mechanism. The CEB makes no assumptions about bandwidth but does assign a
pointing residual to each subsystem. Our spreadsheet contains two switches allowing us to
turn the secondary and FGM on and off while automatically redistributing residual pointing
errors to the appropriate sensitivity matrices. The residuals will be reallocated to match the
predicted subsystem bandwidths and disturbances once the dynamics modeling has been
performed.

The second control system consists of a laser metrology truss between the primary and sec-
ondary mirrors, coupled to actuators attached to the secondary mirror. It maintains the rela-
tive positions (plus pointing offsets) between the primary and secondary. Position measure-
ments are based on a SIM-like 6-beam laser metrology system (Shaklan et al, 2004). We as-
sume that the metrology system has adequate bandwidth to compensate for thermal errors
but is too noisy to compensate jitter. We note that the change from a 4th-order to an 8th or-
der coronagraph mask has relaxed the secondary positional stability requirements (and laser
metrology precision requirements) by 2 orders of magnitude compared to our earlier study
(Shaklan et al 2004).

Allocations and Reserves

The error budget allocation process begins with a first order sensitivity analysis. Engineering
judgment is used to partition allowable errors throughout the subsystems. In some cases,
the allocations point directly to the difficult requirements, such as the primary mirror stabil-
ity, while in others requirements are derived indirectly through engineering analysis, as is the
case for temperature stability requirements on the primary mirror. Reserve factors are allo-
cated for each source and account for the performance reserve, the modeling uncertainty
factor and the error in the modeling. The modeling uncertainty relates to aspects of the
model which do not accurately reflect physical behavior while the modeling error refers to
inaccuracies in the as-built model or physical properties. These reserve allocations are ini-
tially chosen based on engineering judgment and over time modified to reflect bounding of
model calculations via testbed results. Presently, the reserve factors R1 – R7 (fig. 3.3.5-1) are
all set to 2. In practice, the modeling activity carries additional model uncertainty factors of 3
and 10 for low- and high-order modal amplitudes, respectively.

3-98
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Combining Static and Dynamic Contrast

The error budget tracks contrast (energy) contributions from many sources. Here we briefly
summarize how the contrast terms are combined, and how the contrast variance is deter-
mined. Assuming a set of random, uncorrelated complex field amplitudes in the Lyot plane
of a stellar coronagraph, the summed variance of the contributions at a point in the image
plane is equivalent to the sum of the intensity (contrast) contributions from each field com-
r
ponent weighted by the component variances. That is, given an aberration φ ( x , t ) defined as
r
the sum of time-varying orthogonal modes ai (t )φi ( x ) ,

∑ a (t )φ ( x )
r r
φ ( x, t ) = i i (1)
i =1

where the variance of the amplitudes is σ i2 = ai2 , it can be shown that the mean intensity in
the image plane is given by

∑σ
r 2 r
I (n ) = i I i (n ) (2)
i =1

r
where I i (nr ) is the intensity at an image point n for the ith aberration. In other words, contrast
terms sum linearly; they are not combined as the root-sum-square of contrast values. (Although from eq. 2
it can be shown that the wavefront errors do combine in a root-sum-square sense.) Further,
it is shown that in the presence of both static contrast I s and dynamic contrast I d , the mean
contrast level (ignoring incoherent scatter) is the sum of these terms,

I = Is + Id (3)

while the variance of the contrast includes static and dynamic cross-terms and is given by

2
σ I2 = 2 I s I d + I d (4)

Eq. 4 was first published by Soummer & Aime (2004).

The TPF-C science requirements are tied to the engineering requirements by both I
and σ I . The mean intensity level, I , determines the instrument contrast and the standard
deviation, σ I , determines the stability of the contrast.

3-99
TPF-C STDT REPORT

REFERENCES

Green, J.J., & Shaklan, S.B., “Optimizing Coronagraph Performance Designs to Minimize
Their Contrast Sensitivity to Low-Order Optical Aberrations,” Proc. SPIE Vol. 5170, pp.
25-37 (2003).

Kuchner, M.J., Crepp, J., & Ge, J., “Eighth-order Image Masks for Terrestrial Planet Find-
ing,” ApJ 628, pp. 466-473 (2005).

Shaklan, S.B., et al, “Metrology System for the Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph,” Proc.
SPIE Vol 5528, pp. 22-31 (2004).

Shaklan, S.B., & Green, J.J., “Low-Order Aberration Sensitiity of Eigth-Order Coronagraph
Masks,” ApJ 628, pp. 474-477 (2005)

Noecker, M.C., “TPF Coronagraph Wavefront Changes Due to Beam Walk,” Proc. SPIE
Vol. 5905 (2005).

Soummer, R. & Aime, C., “Statistics of Pinned Speckles in Direct and Coronagraphic High
Contrast Imaging,” Proc. SPIE Vol. 5490, pp. 495-503 (2004).

3.3.5.1 Static Error Budget

The portion of the CEB addressing the dark-hole light level that is present when the system
is perfectly stable is called the static error budget. The static error budget considers both in-
coherent scattered light (e.g., from multiple reflections, particulate contamination, polariza-
tion cross-coupling, or off-axis sources) as well as coherent light (e.g., wave front and reflec-
tivity imperfections on real optical surfaces). Thermal and jitter effects are carried in the dy-
namic error budget (Section 3.3.5.2.).

3.3.5.1.1 Incoherent Scattter

TPF-C has a significant optical bandwidth, thus a short (micron-scale) optical coherence
length. Light arriving in the focal plane that has not followed a direct path, but instead has
scattered two or more times, will combine incoherently with the directly imaged starlight.
Light reflecting off of (and to an extent diffracting around) particulates also contributes to
incoherent scatter, as does light from off-axis sources.

Polarization cross-coupling is another form of incoherent scatter. When light from one po-
larization is rotated by aperture-dependent off-normal reflections into the orthogonal com-
ponent, the two components have no mutual coherence and different aberration content.
The wave front control system corrects the weighted mean of these, resulting in light leakage
especially near the inner working angle.

The light leakage is required to be below the level of the solar system zodiacal light and the
exo-zodiacal light around the target star. These sources lead to a background level of 10-10 –
10-11 relative to the target star. We carry a requirement of 1.5 x 10-11 contrast for incoherently
scattered light so that it does not contribute significant shot noise during planet detection.

3-100
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

The incoherent light is treated as static for the duration of an observation; there is no change
in this light level during the sequence of line-of-sight rolls to build up an image.

Particulate Scatter

Particulate scatter is the main source of incoherent single-scatter light. For a given surface
contamination density, the scatter grows worse as the beam diameter shrinks. Thus the pri-
mary mirror has the most relaxed particulate contamination requirement while the small op-
tics where the beam is 10 cm in diameter have the tightest requirement. Since the TPF-C
field of regard is only ~ 2 arcsec across, we specify the particulate contribution in terms of
the BRDF at zero angle (the value is indistinguishable from 1 arcsec). Table 3.3-30 shows
the required BRDF at zero angle, the approximate surface cleanliness class (not to be con-
fused with clean room classification), and the fractional obscured surface (after Dittman,
2002).

Table 3.3-30. Required Optical Surface Cleanliness

BRDF (0 deg) Approx Surf. Clean Class Obscuration Ratio
Primary Mirror 40 500 3.E-03
Secondary Mirror 5 300 3.E-04
Fold Mirrors 0.1 200 4.E-05
SSS mirrors 0.02 <100 3.E-06

We note that the calculations performed to generate the table assume that both the forward
and backward scattered light are incoherent with the unscattered beam. In fact, the forward
component (which is much larger than the backscattered one) is simple light loss and can be
represented as a half-wave shift that follows a 1/λ wavelength amplitude dependence. It is
partially correctable by the wave front control system. This is an area of ongoing research
that may result in relaxed cleanliness requirements.

Polarization Cross Talk

Polarization cross-terms leak directly through the two independent polarization channels.
The cross-polarization amplitude and phase follow the incidence angle across the optics,
forming tilt, focus, coma, astigmatism, etc. This is a rather serious problem for 4th-order co-
ronagraphs and the visible nuller instrument (Sect. 4.1.3.5) at 4 λ/D because they do not suf-
ficiently attenuate low-order aberrations. At smaller inner working angles, the problem grows
rapidly and becomes the dominant source of scattered light. Eighth-order coronagraphs
(Shaklan & Green, 2005) and shaped pupil coronagraphs (Green et al., 2004) are relatively
insensitive to this effect and we find that there is no significant polarization leakage if these
kinds of coronagraphs can be realized (Balasubramanian et al., 2005).

Multiple Scatter

Multiple scatter has several sources, including particulates, molecular contamination, and
baffling. Multiple scatter from particulates and molecular contamination is expected to be
well below the single-scatter level. Some preliminary baffle design has been completed under
the assumptions that we do not look within 95 degrees of the Sun, Earth, or Moon; there

3-101
TPF-C STDT REPORT

can be no direct illumination of the inside of the main telescope baffle from these sources.
We do not yet have a specification for proximity of bright stars and planets.

3.3.5.1.2 Coherent Scatter

Coherent scatter refers to the speckles that appear because the wave front is not an ideal,
uniformly illuminated plane wave. The deviations from ideal are caused by imperfect optics
and optical misalignments.

Phase Errors

Optical surfaces are specified by their Power Spectral Density (PSD). The PSD has low,
medium, and high spatial frequency branches that contribute to the static error in different
ways. The low frequencies may be very large – several microns or more – because some
fraction of gravity release and the thermal equilibrium temperature are unpredictable on-
orbit. This level of deformation requires a large-stroke DM (we refer to it as a coarse DM)
or active primary mirror control. We assume in FB1 that the large scale error is compen-
sated by a coarse DM and that the residual wave front error is compensated by the fine DM.
Thus the static low-spatial frequencies do not contribute to the static contrast.

Mid-spatial frequencies, covering 4 to ~ 48 λ/D, are compensated by the high-precision

DM. The optical bandwidth of the compensation and the configuration of the compensation
scheme (Michelson or sequential DMs) dictate the maximum PSD for optics not conjugate
to the pupil plane.

Shaklan & Green (2006) have shown that the propagation of phase errors from non-pupil
optics into the pupil plane leads to wavelength-independent amplitude errors. The sequential
configuration generates wavelength-independent amplitude compensation, so this effect
does not limit the PSD or the bandwidth. The Michelson configuration has 1/λ2 compensa-
tion, so it controls contrast over a finite bandwidth. Figure 3.3-63 shows the required PSD
for mid-spatial frequencies for several key TPF-C optics in the Michelson configuration as-
suming a 100 nm bandpass centered at 630 nm, for a contrast level of 10-12 at any spatial fre-
quency.

Figure 3.3-63 also shows the required PSD in the sequential configuration. The first order
propagation terms are fully compensated broad-band (as with the Michelson), but the sec-
ond order terms are not. This leads to a relaxed requirement in mid-spatial frequencies but
the 4th-order slope makes the requirements for the two configurations comparable at about
20 cycles/aperture.

High spatial frequencies by definition scatter their light outside the dark hole. The mixing of
high-spatial frequencies (e.g. 50 cycles per aperture beats with 55 cycles/aperture) creates
low and mid-spatial frequency amplitude speckles (5 cycles/aperture in this example) that
scatter into the dark hole (Give’on et al, 2006). The wavelength dependence of the amplitude
varies as 1/λ2. This is perfectly compensated by the Michelson configuration. We are pres-
ently analyzing the required high-spatial frequency PSD in the sequential configuration.

3-102
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

The dashed curves in Figure 3.3-63 show the PSD of state-of-the-art optics manufactured
for extreme-ultraviolet lithography systems. The optics are coated, mounted aspheres with
0.3 nm wave front errors. The curves show that for the Michelson and sequential configura-
tions, there is substantial performance margin up to 10 (Michelson) and 20 (sequential) cy-
cles/aperture. To operate beyond 20 cycles/aperture, TPF requires either 1) optics superior
to the SOA, or 2) reconfiguration of optics to move them closer to pupil images, to operate
in 100 nm bandpasses beyond 20 cycles/aperture.

Figure 3.3-63. Required 2-D PSD of Optical Surface Height in the Michelson and Sequential
Configurations Assuming A 100 nm Bandpass. We also Show the Surface PSD Achieved
for EUV Optics. The EUV Curve is a Fit to Data Provided by Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory of Interferometric Measurements of Two Aspherical Optics Produced for EUV
Lithography By Tinsley. The R.M.S. WFE of the EUV Optic for the Spatial Frequencies
Shown is 0.30 nm.

Amplitude Errors

Reflectivity non-uniformities, like phase errors, lead to speckles in the dark hole. We use the
same methodologies described for phase errors to specify the reflectivity uniformity assum-
ing different wave front control schemes. We assume the reflectivity variations are grey; they
have uniform fractional losses across the optical spectrum of interest.

As noted above, the Michelson wave front control system exhibits 1/λ2 wavelength depend-
ence. This does not compensate the wavelength-independent reflectivity variations over a

3-103
TPF-C STDT REPORT

broad band. Figure 3.3-64 shows the required reflectivity uniformity requirement for the
Michelson configuration (horizontal line) assuming a 100 nm bandpass and contrast = 10-12
at any spatial frequency.

The sequential DM configuration has greatly reduced reflectivity uniformity requirements

compared to the Michelson because the propagation of light reflected from the DM (λ-
dependent) cancels the wavelength dependence of the DM phase (1/λ) creating a wave-
length-independent amplitude. The amplitude uniformity for the optics comes from the
propagation of amplitude ripples to phase ripples, which has λ-dependence and is not can-
celled broad-band by the 1/λ DM surface phase. Figure 3.3.5.1-2 shows the reflectivity re-
quirements on key optics in the system assuming the sequential DM configuration. It also
shows the control authority (green dashed curve) of the DM assuming it pistons only 30 nm
at any spatial frequency. The mirror surfaces amplitude variations must be below the solid
and dashed diagonal lines.

Figure 3.3-64. The Solid Diagonal Lines Show the Allowed RMS Reflectivity Variation vs.
Spatial Frequency in the Sequential Configuration for a Periodic Deformation Resulting in
a Contrast Floor oOf 10-12 per Optic. The Requirement for the Michelson Configuration is
the Horizontal Line at 2.2e-5. The Dashed Line Shows the Allowed Reflectivity Variation
Assuming that the DM is Limited to 30 nm Piston and is at a Distance of 3m from the Pupil.

Note that there is no requirement on the primary mirror (PM) except for the green dashed
line. This is because the PM is located at a pupil conjugate so there are no propagation ef-
fects to the exit pupil. This analysis indicates that reflectivity variations of 1% at 4 cy-
cles/aperture (in a 1 cycle/aperture bandwidth) are allowed. Thus the sequential DM con-

3-104
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

figuration relaxes the reflectivity uniformity requirements by several orders of magnitude

compared to the Michelson. We also point out that at 1-3 cycles/aperture, the requirement is
significantly relaxed compared to the green-dashed line in fig. 3.3.5.1-2 because most of this
light is blocked by the coronagraph and it scatters inside the dark hole.

3.3.5.1.3 Drivers of Mirror Figure

The PM surface figure at low and mid-spatial frequencies is compensated in broad-band
light by the DMs, and the amplitude uniformity requirement is likely achievable with current
technology. The high-end spatial frequency requirements are TBD. Other than the high-end
frequencies, what drives the PM figure?

The only hard requirement known as of this writing is the need to deliver a diffraction-
limited image to the General Astrophysics Instrument (GAI). This instrument does not, in
its present configuration (Sect. 4.1.3.4), have an adaptive optics system, so it relies on the
telescope to be diffraction limited, i.e. r.m.s. surface errors ~ 50 nm and negligible align-
ment errors. We assume the secondary mirror is significantly better than the primary. This
assumes that a sequential DM configuration is in place. Using the Michelson DM configura-
tion (as well as the Visible Nuller instrument, Sect. 4.1.3.5), the requirements are substantially
tighter. We are still evaluating the high-spatial frequency requirements for frequencies be-
yond the control bandwidth of the DM. We must be sure not to violate the requirements of
the GAI over its field of regard (up to 10 arcmin from the target star).

3.3.5.1.4 Summary
We find that the static wave front allocation of 5 x 10-11 is met assuming:

1. Particulate contamination meets the requirements of Table 3.3-30.

2. Optical surface PSDs are at or below the curves of Figure 3.3-63 (assume a sequen-
tial DM configuration).
3. Reflectivity uniformity is better than the curves in Figure 3.3-64.
4. The telescope (not including the wave front control system) produces a diffraction-
limited image
5. We do not yet have a specification for high-spatial frequencies (light falling outside
the dark hole).

REFERENCES

K. Balasubramanian, D. Hoppe, P. Z. Mouroulis, L. Marchen, and S. Shaklan: “Polarization

compensating protective coatings for TPF-Coronagraph optics to control contrast degrading
cross polarization leakage”, to appear in Proc. SPIE 5905 (2005).

M.Dittman, “Contamination Scatter Functions for Stray-Light Analysis,” Proc. SPIE vol.
4774, pp.99-110 (2002).

Give’on, A., Kasdin, N.J., Vanderbei, R.J., and Avitzour, Y., “On Representing and Correct-
ing Wave Front Errors in High-Contrast Imaging Systems,” accepted for publ. in JOSA-A
(2006).

3-105
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Green, J.J., Shaklan S.B., Vanderbei, R.J., and Kasdin, N.J., “The Sensitivity of Shaped-Pupil
Coronagraphs to Optical Aberrations,” Proc. SPIE 5487, pp. 1358-1367 (2004).

Shaklan, S.B., & Green, J.J., “Low-Order Aberration Sensitivity of Eighth-Order Corona-
graph Masks,” ApJ 628, pp. 474-477 (2005)

Shaklan, S.B., & Green, J.J., “Reflectivity and Optical Surface Height Requirements in a
Broad Band Coronagraph I: Contrast Floor Due to Controllable Spatial Frequencies,”
submitted to Appl. Opt. (2006).

3.3.5.2 Contrast Stability Error Budget

Time-variable errors include optical aberrations, beam walk and image motion. Aberrations
arise as the system is perturbed from its ideal design, independent of the quality of the op-
tics. Aberrations result from bending of optics (the primary mirror is of greatest concern), as
well as from structural deformation. When the structure deforms, the secondary mirror
moves relative to the primary mirror, as do downstream optics. This introduces low-order
aberrations that scatter light near the inner edge of the dark hole. Aberrations contribute to
contrast in two ways: first, in the case of the ideal mask and Lyot stop, the mask and stop act
as a spatial filter that passes a fraction of the light to the image plane. Second, mask trans-
mission and phase errors allow aberrated light through the system, as if there were a light
source located at the position of the mask error.

Beam walk is the motion of the beam across the optics. Both rigid body pointing errors and
structural deformation cause the beam to deflect from its initial state at the beginning of an
observation. When the beam reaches the deformable mirror (DM), it contains wave front
corrugations that are shifted with respect to the compensating corrugations on the DM. The
resulting wavefront adds to the scattered light level. The phase deviation of the wavefront
varies linearly with displacement and spatial frequency, while the scattered energy varies as
the square of the uncompensated wavefront error (Noecker, 2005).

In addition to aberrations and beam walk, one other dynamic term contributes to image
plane contrast. This term is labeled ‘image motion’ and is the energy that leaks around the
mask when the beam is not perfectly centered on it. For the 8th-order Lyot coronagraph (Ku-
chner, Crebb, and Ge, 2005, Shaklan and Green, 2005) that we have baselined, the mask in-
tensity leakage is proportional to the 8th power of wavefront tilt.

Eq. 4 of Sect. 3.3.5 demands a balance between the static and time-variable contributions. As
the static contribution Is grows larger, the time variable contribution Id is more tightly con-
strained. For example for Is = 6x10-11 (our self imposed limit to keep contrast well below
scattered exo-zodiacal light), we require Id = 3x10-12 to maintain σI = 2x10-11. At present our
best estimate of Is is 3.6x10-11, allowing Id = 5.14x10-12. This is the requirement for time-
variable contrast contributions.

Table 3.3-31 is a roll-up of time-variable contrast contributors, including bending of the op-
tics, beam walk across all optics, and pointing errors. The roll-up is based on allocations of

3-106
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

engineering requirements (e.g., allowed motion of a given optic, allowed bending of an optic)
applied throughout the system. Allocations were derived from extensive modeling efforts on
a previous 6-meter version of TPF-C.

Perturbation Contributor Nature Contrast Fraction

Structural Defomation Beam Walk Thermal 8.29E-13 16.12%
Jitter 6.33E-13 12.31%
Aberrations Thermal 3.28E-14 0.64%
Jitter 4.43E-17 0.00%
Bending of Optics Aberrations Thermal 8.60E-13 16.72%
Jitter 8.60E-13 16.72%
Pointing Beam Walk 1.29E-12 25.10%
Image Motion 9.04E-14 1.76%
Mask Error 5.46E-13 10.63%
SUM 5.14E-12
Table 3.3-31. Rolled Up Time-Variable Error Budget Contributors

The largest grouped contributor to image plane contrast is beam walk caused by pointing
errors. The majority of this occurs on the first five mirrors following the secondary mirror,
near the Cassegrain focus. The walk is due to 0.4 mas of pointing error that remains uncom-
pensated by the secondary mirror. (Recall that the secondary corrects up to 4 mas of rigid
body pointing, but 0.4 mas is at frequencies beyond the secondary mirror control band-
width.) The first two folds and the first off-axis parabola have ‘Super Fold’ and ‘Super OAP’
PSDs, while the cylindrical optics are about 2.5 times worse. To reduce the beam walk, we
must adopt a combination of better pointing and better optical surfaces. Note that if the
secondary mirror is not used in the pointing control loop, and if rigid body pointing stability
is σ = 4 mas, there is 10x more beam walk on these optics, resulting in contrast of 1.3x10-10
(and the overall time-variable contrast going to 1.67x10-10).

The single largest contrast term in the error budget is the ‘Mask Error’ term at the bottom of
Table 3.3-31. As noted above, this term is the leakage of light that is offset by 0.3 mas with
0.3 mas random pointing error, through a mask with a 5x10-4 transmission error at 4 λ/D.
We expect that it will be challenging to build a mask to this level of precision. The leakage
falls off as the square of the pointing error, so a reduction in pointing error will relax the
mask requirement.

3-107
TPF-C STDT REPORT

PM shape: (Thermal and Jitter) Secondary:

z4=z5=z6=z8=z10=0.4 nm z Thermal: Δx=65 nm,
z7=0.2 nm, z11=z12=5 pm Δz=26 nm,
tilt=30 nrad
Jitter: 20x smaller

Laser metrology:
ΔL=25nm
Δf/f=1x10-9

Mask centration:
offset=0.3 mas Mask error = 5e-4
Fold mirror 1: at 4 λ/D
rms static surf =0.85nm amplitude=0.3mas
Thermal: 10nrad, 100 nm
Jitter: 10 nrad, 10 nm 4 mas rigid
body pointing

Coronagraph optics motion:

Thermal:10nrad, 100nm
Jitter: 10 nrad, 10 nm

Figure 3.3-65 Summary of Major Engineering Requirements to Meet the Time-Variable Er-
ror Budget. Thermally Induced Translations Lead to Beam Walk that is Partially Ccompen-
sated by the Secondary Mirror. Jitter is Partially Compensated by the Fine Guiding Mirror.

Bending of optics is mainly bending of the primary mirror. The 8th-order mask filters out
low-order bending up through Z10 (trefoil), but higher order modes (Z11, spherical aberra-
tion and above) scatter light at much lower aberrations levels. Figure 3.3-65 [shows the re-
quirements on the primary mirror wave front bending modes (surface deformation is 2x
smaller). The major contributors are 0.2 nm RMS. of coma (contrast = 2.7x10-13), and 0.005
nm of Z11 and Z12 (3.7x10-13 combined). We assume that bending of the secondary is 4x
smaller than the primary, and all other optics bend 8x less than the primary. As aberration
leakage scales as the 4th (Z3-Z10) or 2nd (Z11 and higher) power of aberration amplitude, the
downstream optics play only a small role in the overall contrast. Mask errors combined with

3-108
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

the small primary mirror aberrations do not significantly increase the contrast. Presently we
have placed identical requirements on thermal- and jitter-induced bending but will adjust this
as our model fidelity improves.

Finally, structural deformation (the motion of optics relative to one another, with the PM
fixed) contributes both beam walk and aberrations. The beam walk is a far worse effect,
again dominated by optics M3-M7. Thermal motions of the secondary mirror are corrected
to the precision of the laser metrology truss (25 nm per beam RMS); this results in ~ 20 nm
of motion along the line-of-sight, and 65 nm of lateral motion. With the system stop placed
at the DM, most of the beam motion occurs on the secondary mirror but it is only a small
contrast contributor because the PSD has not scaled with the optic diameter relative to the
downstream optics. Optics between the secondary and coronagraph mask are restricted to
thermally-induced motions of 10 nrad and 100 nm in tilt and translation, respectively. These
motions are partially compensated by the secondary mirror. Within the bandwidth of the
fine steering mirror, the motions are 10 nrad and 10 nm. Higher frequency (uncompensated)
motions are restricted to 1 nrad and 1 nm.

3.4 Baseline Observatory Performance

3.4.1 Modeling Approach

Because of physical, financial, and infrastructure constraints, TPF-C—more so than any pre-
vious mission of its class—will have to rely on modeling and simulation to demonstrate its
performance prior to launch. The requirements for the larger, more flexible and more pre-
cise system will not be able to overcome excessive perturbations from the ground environ-
ment such as gravity, jitter and temperature. These challenges preclude the end-to-end
(“e2e”) system, encompassing the coupled thermal, structural, optical, control and science
instrument components, to be tested on the ground as a system. The project will have to rely
heavily on the use of engineering and science simulations to predict on-orbit performance
requirements from the lowest level of assembly on up. For full verification of the on-orbit
performance, analyses will have to incorporate all the sub-system features leading to an end-
to-end simulation as depicted in Figure 3.4-1. Analyses will not be limited to predicting the
end-to-end TPF-C system, but will be extended to simulate the full planetary signal extrac-
tion process, incorporating planetary system models as well as the complete on-orbit obser-
vational maneuvers.

At the core of this modeling approach is the need to effectively and accurately integrate the
thermal, structural, and optical simulations that are inter-related by multi-physics control.
This is depicted graphically in Figure 3.4-2.

3-109
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.4-1. TPF-C Modeling and Simulation Roadmap

Perturbations / Controls / Optimization

Figure 3.4-2 Integrated Simulation Process for TPF-C

3-110
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

The ability to do such analyses is pushing existing commercially available analysis tools be-
yond their limits of applicability in terms of precision, physics, process turn-around time, and
shear physical size of the problems. Current understanding of the system indicates that the
8m class optical system needs to be as stable as picometers in wavefront and sub-milli arcsec
in pointing, pushing the simulations into the realm of multi-scale physics. These extremely
small requirements impose on the models a level of predictive accuracy heretofore never
achieved, especially in the area of microgravity effects, material property accuracy, thermal
solution convergence, optical diffraction and polarization effects, disturbance environment
models and all other second order physics typically ignored. This further imposes extreme
challenges on the approach to experimental validation of models, since ground testing condi-
tions and sensor accuracy will often exceed performance levels expected on orbit. Hence to
support TPF modeling needs, new modeling tools and analysis paradigms are proposed
which emphasize computational accuracy and fully integrated simulations.

TPF has developed a technology plan that addresses the means by which models and analy-
ses will be validated to meet the mission needs. The goal is to develop and validate on a
suite of testbeds, a modeling methodology which authenticates the processes and models
that will eventually be implemented for predicting the TPF flight performances. This will
involve modeling the testbeds to the best of our ability by comparing measured and pre-
dicted performances, quantifying Modeling Uncertainty Factors (MUFs) to reflect where
the agreement between the model predictions and measurements breakdown, incorporat-
ing the MUFs within the testbed requirements to validate the error budget allocation
process, then incrementally implementing the same procedure to build up the flight sys-
tem models starting with the flight materials characterization through to model validation
of progressively higher levels of flight hardware assembly. The goal of the model valida-
tion activity will be first to identify and then to improve those aspects of the integrated mod-
els, such as thermo-mechanical physical parameters and model forms, which contribute the
most to reducing errors in our final optical metrics: contrast, null depth, OPD, and WFE.

By the end of the project, the primary questions asked to the analysts will be “why do you
believe the prediction?” To help achieve this challenge, a novel modeling strategy will be im-
plemented. It is standard practice to include hardware fabrication tolerances as margins
within the error budget. For TPF it is proposed to treat models as “software fabrication” by
including additional margin in the error budget to account for modeling tolerances, a.k.a.
modeling uncertainties. This implies that the accuracy of the prediction will be quantified by
tracking contributions to the modeling errors during the project lifecycle.

Because the system performance objective now takes into account the predictability vari-
ances of the analysis, the design goal is no longer to select the design which meets the best
nominal performance, but one that meets the best bounded performance including the mod-
eling uncertainty. This means for instance that, from the view point of predicting perform-
ance and meeting the error budget, a low CTE (coefficient of thermal expansion) material
having high variability and high uncertainty may not be as good a design choice as a higher
CTE material with low variability and low uncertainty. Additional examples of modeling un-
certainties include the nonlinear mechanics of hinges/latches, damping, etc.

3-111
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Another mean of reducing modeling uncertainty is to allow on-orbit adjustments through

control strategies, either active or passive. Current design features include the active deform-
able mirror for wavefront correction, active thermal control of the secondary mirror assem-
bly and the aft-metering structure, active position alignment of the secondary mirror tower,
and active vibration isolation of the reaction wheel disturbances. In these instances, the con-
trol errors will define the performance uncertainties. TPF will continue exploring, when nec-
essary, other mitigating design solutions which implement control strategies for on-orbit ad-
justments. Other features that could be considered, but are not yet part of the baseline de-
sign of TPF, are active or passive structural damping, active wavefront control of the
primary through mechanical actuators or distributed thermal control, or active wavefront
control through a two-stage deformable mirror.

In effect, the TPF modeling challenge is now turned into validation of analysis bounds,
whereby the uncertainty needs to be quantified and managed in the error budget by propa-
gating error contributions from the lowest level of assembly on up. Another implication of
this new modeling paradigm is that modeling margin allocations will be used to derive levels
of accuracy required from the model validation, as well as the measurement accuracy of the
test facility itself. Questions regarding what constitutes a validated model have plagued pro-
jects in the past. Through the use of the modeling error margins, we will now be able to de-
rive rational and consistent acceptance criteria for the validation and delivery of models.

In summary, TPF-C has developed a modeling approach which spans the lifecycle of the
project, from mission formulation and optimization, technology, design and performance
verification through launch, and is later carried into the operational phases of the project
once on orbit.

3.4.1.1 Engineering Models and Sensitivity Analysis

The engineering models and analyses described herein follow the process depicted previ-
ously in Figure 3.4.1-2. Based the CAD descriptions of the design, thermal, structural, optical
and control models are built. The flow of the analysis starts with the definition of thermal
observational environment applied to the thermal model to generate temperatures. These
temperatures, either steady-state or transient, are mapped onto the structural model to gen-
erate thermal distortions. In turn these are mapped into the optical model from which Con-
trast and wave-front error (WFE) are predicted. similarly for jitter, reaction wheel distur-
bances and slew motions are applied the structural model to generate dynamic structural re-
sponses which are in turn applied to the optical model. The metrics of interest for dynamic
simulations are not only Contrast and WFE, but also line of sight stability and slew settling
times. As a means to rapidly assess optical performance, linear sensitivity matrices are de-
fined which map structural motions at the optical degrees of freedom of interest to WFE
and Contrast. The following describes in detail the models and analysis results.

It should be noted that for FB1 this process employed commercial off the shelf tools, which
proved to be used at the limits of their capability in terms of problem size, model turn-
around time and precision and accuracy. It is recognized that in the future TPF-C will need
to deploy improved modeling tools and capabilities. These are described in the Technology
Section 5.

3-112
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.4.1.1.1 Optical Performance Models

TPF-C optical performance modeling employs several models, as shown in
Figure 3.4-3. Static models describe the optical performance of various algorithms and opti-
cal effects (e.g. stray light) that are independent of dynamic effects. Dynamic models de-
scribe the change in wavefront and contrast leakage that occur when the state of the system
changes. Dynamic models used to compute the error budget include:

ƒ A Fraunhofer pupil-to-image plane model is used for calculating image plane con-
trast as a function of wavefront components for ideal coronagraph designs as well as
coronagraphs with mask transmission errors. The wavefront components are de-
composed into Zernike polynomials that are orthogonal over circular and elliptical
apertures. This is called the ‘diffraction aberration sensitivity’ model.

ƒ A MACOS-based aberration sensitivity model determines the Zernike mode ampli-

tudes when any optical component is moved over 6 degrees of freedom (DOF).
This model is the ‘Zernike sensitivity matrix.’ MACOS stands for Modeling and
Analysis of Controlled Optical Systems and is the JPL optical sensitivity and diffrac-
tion code.

ƒ The Diffraction Aberration Sensitivity model computes the scattered light level
throughout the image plane resulting from Zernike aberrations in the system. The
model utilizes Fourier Transforms to represent Fraunhofer diffraction between the
entrance aperture, the coronagraph mask, the Lyot stop, and the final image plane.

ƒ The calculation of wave front errors and loss of contrast due to beam walk is de-
scribed in detail by Noecker (2005). The beam walk δx at each surface is determined
by a ‘beam walk sensitivity matrix’ from MACOS. The error budget is based on one
location in the image plane, 4λ/D away from the star image; thus we are interested
in one spatial frequency, kx, at each mirror, the one that has 4 cycles across the beam
diameter. Both kx and the power spectral density (PSD) are computed accordingly
for each mirror. The PSD function we use is flat below a turnoff spatial frequency
and decreases as f-3 above that frequency. The PSD amplitude and turnoff frequen-
cies are selected for the primary, secondary, small flat, and small powered optics
(Table 3.4-1). The PSD of the DM is the summed PSD of the other optics in the sys-
tem in front of the mask (for the critical spatial frequencies comprising the ‘dark
hole’) since its wavefront is set to be equal and opposite to the summed wavefronts
of the other optics. Its roll-off parameter of 320 cycles/m is scaled by the ratio 10
cm / 8 m from the primary mirror value of 4 cycles/m.

ƒ The model of the laser metrology system between the primary and secondary mirrors
is based on a simple linear point-to-point analysis of the metrology beams to deter-
mine beam length sensitivity to the 6 degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) motion of the
secondary. We use ray tracing of the TPF-C telescope to determine aberration sensi-
tivity versus motion of the secondary mirror. These two models are combined to
yield the aberration sensitivity versus metrology beam lengths. The coronagraph
model determines image plane contrast as a function of aberrations. We can thus de-

3-113
TPF-C STDT REPORT

termine by combining the linear ray trace and coronagraph models, the image plane
contrast versus metrology beam length deviations (Shaklan et al, 2004).

Static error models, as noted above, are based on Fresnel diffraction analysis and include
broad-band multi-DM wave front control systems. Coronagraph mask errors include phase
and amplitude transmission errors measured in the laboratory (Halverson et al., 2005), and
theoretical models based on detailed electromagnetic calculations of mask transmission (for
binary masks) (Lay et al, 2005). We have also modeled the expected distribution of microme-
teoroid damage to the primary mirror. We are currently studying scatter from particle con-
tamination to determine what fraction of the forward and backward scattered light can be
compensated by the DMs. Standard polarization ray-tracing is used to determine polarization
amplitude and phase non-uniformity in the off-axis system (Balasubramanian et al., 2005)
but we have not yet performed modeling of polarization effects arising from coating non-
uniformities (Breckinridge & Oppenheimer, 2004). The full scope of these models and the
details of the static error budget will be the subject of future work.

Laser Metrology MACOS Beam Walk PSD

Model Sensitivity Matrix Models

Dynamic input, MACOS Zernike

Structural Models Sensitivity Matrix
e.g. reaction wheel noise

Thermal input, Diffraction

Mask
e.g. Sun position change Thermal Models Aberration
Errors
Sensitivity
Dynamics Models

Static Models

Wave Front
Contrast
Sensing Models

Polarization
Models

Mask
Leakage Models

Contamination
Models
Scattering
Micrometeoroid Model
Models

Figure 3.4-3. Models Used to Calculate Static and Dynamic Contrast.

Table 3.4-1. PSD Specifications for Optics Modeled in the Contrast Error Budget
Primary Secondary Fold Super Fold OAP Super OAP Anamorphic 1 Anamorphic 2 DM
D (m) 8.02 0.83 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.23 0.10 0.10
k0 (cy/m) 4 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 320
A (m^4) 9.60E-19 9.60E-19 1.25E-20 7.58E-21 1.25E-20 1.09E-20 5E-20 7.5E-20 8.52E-22
n 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
RMS WF 8.51E-09 9.55E-09 2.15E-09 1.67E-09 2.15E-09 2.00E-09 5.24E-09 5.27E-09 1.62E-08

3-114
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.4.1.1.2 Structural Models

Because the wavefront stability requirements during long integrations are severe, careful
structural analysis of the system is needed to quantify the expected physical distortions and
the associated reductions in contrast performance.

Structural finite element models of FB1 were generated for the purposes of design feasibility
studies. Model size and fidelity was made detailed enough to capture the first order struc-
tural effects, within an expected accuracy of generally 10 to 20 %.

The models included many idealizations: small displacement, material linearity, ideal flexures,
fittings, hinges and latches. We used the small displacement assumption and modal superpo-
sition for computing displacements induced by dynamic and thermal disturbances. Material
properties were assumed to remain constant during the analyses; however, coefficient of
thermal expansion spatial variability within the primary mirror was accounted for in a sepa-
rate study. Conservative, bounding material property values were used when possible. Flex-
ures were not modeled in detail, but were assumed to behave in an ideal fashion. Member
fittings were also not modeled in detail; however, associated masses were smeared onto the
parent members. Hinges and latches were assumed to behave ideally, such that mating sur-
faces are rigidly locked together after deployment. Hinge and latch non-linearity will be ad-
dressed in a separate study.

We developed both a stowed (launch) configuration, and a deployed (in-orbit) configuration.

The stowed configuration structural model is used for evaluating the structural vibration
modal frequencies, to ensure compliance with launch vehicle requirements. The stowed
model is also used to demonstrate design feasibility with respect to member stress levels, and
project mass margin.

The deployed configuration model is used for characterizing the system dynamic behavior
(modal frequencies and eigenvectors), which is needed for pointing and attitude control
analysis: including reaction wheel jitter and slew-settle analyses. We also use the deployed
configuration model for evaluating the effects of thermal disturbances on system perform-
ance. System performance is evaluated either directly, using end-to-end modeling, or indi-
rectly, using wave-front error budget requirements, derived from contrast.

Stowed (Launch) Configuration Model

The launch configuration model (Mv4a-S) consists of the stowed observatory, as well as
launch-dedicated hardware. There are launch support struts and a launch vehicle/payload
interface adaptor that provide structural support during the launch phase only, and are
ejected thereafter.

Deployed (In-Orbit) Configuration Model

The deployed configuration model (Mv4a-D) consists of a science payload, as well as a
spacecraft with isolation system. The science payload is composed of the deployed tele-
scope, having a 12 m separation between primary and secondary mirrors, and science in-
struments. Currently, we have only modeled the coronagraph instrument, but additional in-
struments can be added as needed.

3-115
TPF-C STDT REPORT

The spacecraft sub-system is composed of the bus, propulsion tanks & thrusters, reaction
wheels, sunshield & baffle, solar array, solar sail, antennae, and dynamic isolation system.
The bus hardware also provides a primary load path for launch support.

Primary Mirror Model

The primary mirror, being the most critical component of the telescope, was modeled using
three different levels of fidelity, based on the requirements for a particular mode of analysis.
The baseline primary mirror design has an Ultra-Low-Expansion (ULE) glass substrate, us-
ing a light-weighted honeycomb sandwich type of design: having two face-sheets separated
by a honeycomb core. The core structure is composed of multiple glass segments that are
jointed into a monolithic structure via fusion to the face-sheets. This construction design is
consistent with the current state of the art manufacturing techniques being used for large
ULE mirrors. Our baseline primary mirror design has 21 segments joined together as shown
in Figure 3.4-4.

16 7
3 10
19
15 6 12
21
18 2 9
20 14 5 11
8
17 1
13 4

Figure 3.4-4. Primary Mirror Core Segmentation

The basic mirror segment is hexagonal in shape, measuring 1.2 meters flat-to-flat, based on
what can be accommodated with standard ULE glass boules, which are approximately 1.5
meters in diameter and 0.15 m (6 inches) thick. However, there are six segments that are
only partial hexagons, due the accommodation of the overall elliptical shape of the mirror.
Each of the core segments has an edge wall around its perimeter.

The mirror design parameters are as follows:

ƒ Major axis dimension = 8 m
ƒ Minor axis dimension = 3.5 m
ƒ Overall thickness = 0.25 m
ƒ Front face-sheet thickness = 6 mm
ƒ Back face-sheet thickness = 5 mm
ƒ Honeycomb core wall & edge thickness = 1.4 mm
ƒ Core hex-cell size (flat to flat) = 80 mm

The Low-Fidelity primary mirror model is composed of a single layer of plate elements, hav-
ing the equivalent overall in-plane and bending properties of the light-weighted mirror con-
struction. This model does not capture core cell print-through, or through-thickness com-

3-116
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

pliance, but it has the fewest degrees of freedom, and is used for most of the dynamic re-
sponse analyses.

The Mid-Fidelity mirror model is composed of two layers of plate elements, representing the
front and back face-sheets, and solid elements representing the honeycomb core structure.
This model does capture through thickness compliance, and is used primarily for the thermal
distortion analysis. However, this model doesn’t capture core cell print-through or core
segment separation effects. Comparison of Mid-Fidelity with High-Fidelity model results
allows us to verify the applicability of our simplifying assumptions.

The High-Fidelity mirror model is similar to the Mid-Fidelity model, except that the honey-
comb core structure of three critical segments was also modeled using plate elements. The
core structure of the other segments is modeled using solid elements. Having the detailed
core model for the three critical segments allows us to evaluate the extent of print-through
effects, and quantify the effects of neglecting these.

Secondary Mirror Model

The secondary mirror was modeled as a simple lumped mass, because we expect design fea-
sibility to be realistically limited by the primary mirror. Our baseline assumption is that the
secondary mirror rigid-body motion can be controlled with feedback provided by a metrol-
ogy system (laser truss), for response frequencies less than approximately 1Hz. The secon-
dary mirror is mounted on a hexapod-type actuator (probably two-stage), which can control
all six degrees of freedom. We expect to use the active control to compensate for thermal-
induced distortions, which are generally very slow, but cannot use this system to compensate
for disturbances caused by the reaction wheels, which operate above 1 Hz.

Tensioned Membranes
The sunshield and solar-sail use pre-loaded (tensioned) membranes to provide adequate
stiffness to keep their shapes during operation. The stiffening effects of these tensioned
membranes were incorporated directly into the models, using effective finite element proper-
ties. In particular, it was important to adequately capture the low frequency modes which
might influence the attitude control performance, as well as modes which might couple with
the dynamics of critical optical elements. See Section 6.1.1.2 of the Minimum Mission Re-
port for further details.

Launch Analysis
For launch analysis, we analyzed the response to quasi-static loading using launch vehicle
limit load factors, combined with equivalent acoustic pressure. We also performed a normal
modes analysis to verify that our fundamental axial and lateral modes were greater than the
minimum allowable frequencies specified in the launch vehicle payload planner’s guide.

In-Orbit Thermal Distortion Analysis

For in-orbit thermal distortion analysis, we looked at the system performance for a 20 degree
dithering observational scenario. Dithering involves the rotation of the telescope about the
line-of-sight (LOS) by approximately 20 degrees, without adjustment or compensation with
the deformable mirror, and is performed in an effort to reduce the effects of diffraction
speckles. Ideally, the telescope diffraction speckles should remain stationary in the target im-

3-117
TPF-C STDT REPORT

age, and the planet image should move with respect to the speckles. See Section 6.5.1 of the
Minimum Mission Report for analysis results and further details.

CTE Variability Study

We performed a Monte-Carlo type study of the effects of primary mirror coefficient of
thermal expansion (CTE) spatial variability on system performance. We assumed that the
mirror would be made of high quality ULE glass, having CTE spatial variation tolerances
consistent with the TDM specifications. The results of this study showed that the uniform
cte assumption (30 ppb/K) is overly conservative for the focus response, but under-predicts
some of the higher Zernike terms such as astigmatism and coma. Additionally, we found that
having a capability of optimally placing the mirror segments, based on measured spatial maps
of CTE distributions, before final mirror blank assembly, has the potential of greatly reduc-
ing the response magnitudes, allowing much enhanced system contrast performance. See
Section 6.5.1.3 of the Minimum Mission Report for further details.

ULE vs. SiC Primary Mirror Trade Study

We performed a trade study comparing the performance of ULE and Silicon Carbide pri-
mary mirrors for a typical 20 degree dithering scenario, using the existing minimum-mission
configuration. This simplified study assumed uniform material properties and geometry for
both mirror materials. We found that the ULE mirror outperformed the Silicon Carbide mir-
ror by a factor of approximately 400 to 600, based on wave-front error.

3.4.1.1.3 Thermal Models

In order to reveal thermally induced optical system distortions to the necessary level, TPF
Coronagraph thermal models were built to predict transient temperature response (at high
spatial resolution) at the μK level. Early in the program and focused primarily in the Mini-
mum Mission phase, our chief thermal analyst deeply investigated a number of thermal
analysis codes, including radiation packages and temperature solvers, from steady-state and
transient points of view. Only after carefully studying and comparing output from these
various packages did he begin to generate results.

In order to translate thermal output into WFE, it was necessary for our analyst and the struc-
tural analysts to develop efficient and accurate means of transferring thermal output into
structural software, so that distortions could be mapped and resulting WFE determined.

Over a period of about a year, this process was improved to the degree that the team began
to see clearly the effects of design options on transient thermo-optical performance.

By the time the FB-1 phase was concluding, the total system (TMG I-DEAS) thermal model
comprised over 18,000 nodes and nearly 40,000 elements. Figure 3.4-5 shows a view of the
total system model, as well as the science payload portion of that same system model.

3-118
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.4-5. TPF-C Thermal Model

Because the Sun shield performance is critical to the transient response prediction domi-
nated by radiation, and because the 6-layer Sun shield is made up of mostly highly reflective
and highly specular material, a very time-consuming Monte Carlo analysis was required to
generate the Sun shield internal radiative conductances to a sufficient level of accuracy. So
these radiative couplings were generated separately and then transported into the system
transient response model.

To generate a thermal transient response, the ‘Sun’ is ‘positioned’ corresponding to its loca-
tion during the steady-state or pre-dither imaging period, and a steady-state temperature so-
lution is generated. Then, using that steady-state temperature field as initial conditions, the
‘Sun’ is ‘moved’ to the post-dither position and a transient temperature response is gener-
ated. (The reader is directed to section 3.4.2.1.2a for a discussion of a typical result from this
modeling process.)

Transient dither analyses conducted during the FB-1 design and analysis phase were limited
to cases where the mean solar flux vector is normal to the telescope line of sight, because
distortions of M1 dominate the total WFE and these cases are believed to produce the
worst-case M1 distortions. As mentioned in section 3.3.4.3, these M1 distortions arise as a
result of solar induced changes in the spatial temperature field presented to the M1 face by
the interior surfaces of the main telescope baffle. Future work will include post-dither tran-
sient system response for cases where the mean solar flux vector is pointed at the aft end of
the observatory, where changes are most likely to effect the aft metering structure and per-
haps place more stringent demands on the active portions of the thermal control system.

3-119
TPF-C STDT REPORT

REFERENCES

Balasubramanian, K., et al, “Polarization compensating protective coatings for TPF-

Coronagraph optics to control contrast degrading cross polarization leakage,” Proc. SPIE
Vol. 5905 (2005).

Breckinridge, J.B., & Oppenheimer, B.R., “Polarization Effects in Reflecting Coronagraphs

for White-Light Applications in Astronomy,” ApJ 600, pp. 1091-1098 (2004)

Halverson, P.G., et al, “Measurement of Wavefront Phase Delay and Optical Density in
Apodized Coronagraphic Mask Materials,” Proc. SPIE Vol. 5905 (2005).

Lay, O.P., et al, “Coronagraph Mask Tolerances for Exo-Earth Detection,” Proc. SPIE Vol.
5905 (2005).

Noecker, M.C., “TPF Coronagraph Wavefront Changes Due to Beam Walk,” Proc. SPIE
Vol. 5905 (2005).

3.4.1.2 Throughput Models

The current baseline TPF-Coronagraph design is based on a Ritchey-Chrétien telescope with

a 8mx3.5m elliptical shaped primary mirror and a 0.89x0.425m secondary mirror separated
by 12m. Anamorphic beam shaping optics are employed for circularizing the beam at the
100mm diameter pupil in the back end. The coronagraph is implemented with a gray scale
8th order occulting mask at an intermediate focal plane followed by an appropriate size Lyot
stop. For a detailed description of the optical system, see [sections 3.3.3.1 and 3.3.3.2].

For the baseline system bandwidth spanning 500 to 800nm, protected silver coatings are
employed for all the mirrors in the system. Silver was chosen over aluminum primarily to
improve the throughput and to mitigate polarization induced contrast degrading effects of
aluminum [Balasubramanian et al, Proc. SPIE 5905-17, 2005]. Aluminum suffers from a re-
flectivity dip at around 800nm and consequently the throughput drops significantly when a
number of surfaces are considered. Figure 3.4-7 shows the throughput losses from one to
four aluminum surfaces in comparison with those of silver surfaces in Figure 3.4-6. With
silver as the choice, the key components that cause throughput reduction besides the 23
front surface reflectors are the Lyot stop (34%) and occulting mask (56% at 4λ/D) followed
by the cube beam splitter (94.8%) for the Michelson configuration and the polarizing beam
splitter (95%) that splits the two orthogonal polarizations into two separate coronagraph
paths. These four components alone cause a throughput efficiency of about 17%; together
with the reflection losses at the 23 reflecting surfaces and losses at other transmissive optics,
the system total efficiency becomes about 9% at the inner working angle (IWA) of 4λ/D.
Beyond 5λ/D, the average throughput ranges from about 12.3% to 13.6% for different
wavelengths.

Table 3.4-2 shows the efficiencies of various components and net system throughput for 500
and 700nm wavelengths. Extending the bandwidth to either end of this spectrum presents

3-120
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

challenges in coating designs and transmissive optical elements. However, one may consider
aluminum only for the first 3 mirrors to enable extended blue end (i.e., below ~ 450nm) for
science instruments at the front end, taking a small additional loss in throughput for the co-
ronagraph; this is a subject for further investigation taking into account all the phase and po-
larization effects potentially induced by aluminum in the front end curved mirrors

Unprotected Silver
n and k data from Essential Macleod™ Standard materials
100
Reflected Throughput (%)

1 surface
90 2 surfaces
3 surfaces
80
4 surfaces
70

60

50
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Wavelength (nm)

Figure 3.4-6. Reflected throughput after 1, 2, 3 and 4 silver surfaces at normal incidence
.
Unprotected Aluminum
n and k data from Essential Macleod™ Standard materials
100
Reflected Throughput (%)

1 surface
90 2 surfaces
3 surfaces
80
4 surfaces
70

60

50
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
Wavelength (nm)

Figure 3.4-7. Reflected throughput after 1, 2, 3 and 4 aluminum surfaces at normal inci-
dence

3-121
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.4-2. Throughput estimate for 500nm and 700nm wavelengths at the Inner Working
Angle (4λ/D) and for the region from 5λ/Δ το 40λ/D.
500nm @ IWA 500nm (average 5λ/D to 40λ/D) 700 nm @ IWA 700 nm (average 5λ/D to 40λ/D)
Total
Times light Total optical Total optical Total optical
Equipment Qty Efficiency optical Efficiency Efficiency Efficiency
sees optic efficiency efficiency efficiency
efficiency
Primary Mirror 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Secondary Mirror 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Super Fold Mirror 1 (Optic 3 / M 3) 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Fold Mirror 2 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Super OAP 1 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Anamorphic Optic 1 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Anamorphic Optic 2 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Coarse DM 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Pupil Relay 1 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Pupil Relay 2 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Polarizing BS2 2 1.0 0.950 0.903 0.950 0.903 0.950 0.903 0.950 0.903
Pol BS Anti-Ref Coating 2 2.0 0.994 0.977 0.994 0.977 0.995 0.979 0.995 0.979
Optic 13 Fold Path 1 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Optic 13 Fold Path 2 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Michelson BS2 1 1.0 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.948 0.981 0.981 0.981 0.981
Mich BS Anti-Ref Coating 1 4.0 0.994 0.977 0.994 0.977 0.995 0.979 0.995 0.979
Fine DM 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Compensating Wedge 1 2.0 0.999 0.998 0.999 0.998 0.999 0.998 0.999 0.998
Comp Wdg Anti-Ref Coating 1 4.0 0.994 0.977 0.994 0.977 0.995 0.979 0.995 0.979
Fold/FSM 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Pupil Relay 3 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Pupil Relay 4 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
OAP 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Fold 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Occulting Mask1,3 1 1.0 0.560 0.560 0.790 0.790 0.560 0.560 0.790 0.790
Mask Anti-Ref Coating 1 2.0 0.994 0.989 0.994 0.989 0.995 0.990 0.995 0.990
Fold 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Collimator 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Fold 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Lyot Stop 1 1.0 0.340 0.340 0.340 0.340 0.340 0.340 0.340 0.340
OAP 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Fold 1 1.0 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.978 0.975 0.975 0.975 0.975
Total System 0.090 0.127 0.087 0.123
Total System (w/o) Lyot 0.265 0.373 0.257 0.362
Total System (w/o) Lyot and Mask 0.473 0.473 0.459 0.459
1
Occulting mask transmission is the same over all bands due to necessary implementation of different masks for different wavelengths
2
Optical cement not included in throughput calculations
3
Occulting mask throughput is 0.79 over most of the dark hole. At 4 lambda/D, the throughput is approximately 56%.
Therefore a value of 0.675 was chosen as a compromise between the value at 4 lambda/D and the value over the remainder of the dark hole.

REFERENCE

Kunjithapatham Balasubramanian, Daniel J. Hoppe, Pantazis Z. Mouroulis, Luis F.

Marchen, and Stuart B. Shaklan, Polarization compensating protective coatings for TPF-
Coronagraph optics to control contrast degrading cross polarization leakage, in Techniques
and Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets II, edited by Daniel R. Coulter, Proc. SPIE
Vol 5905, PP 5905H-1 to 5905H-11, (2005).

3.4.1.3 Instrument Models

We use an idealized instrument model for our Design Reference Mission (DRM) studies and
a detailed instrument model, described in Section 3.4.1.1, for engineering analysis. Here we
describe the idealized DRM model. The two models have the same characteristic systematic
noise floor and inner working angle (IWA).

3-122
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

The instrument is modeled as a coronagraph with the following characteristics: it has a sys-
tematic noise floor; it has a well-defined IWA with circular symmetry, and it has a detector
with pixels that Nyquist sample the incident image and add read noise and dark current
noise. The assumed throughput was described in Section 3.4.1.2.

The systematic noise floor is assumed to be Δmago = 25, as described in the DRM section of
this report. The floor applies to the level of residual speckles in the difference image formed
from two images observed at different rotation angles about the line-of-sight (the ‘LOS
dither’). The speckle variations are driven by thermal and vibrational changes in the state of
the telescope at the two orientations. We have not modeled multiple dithers but note that
multiple dithers do not necessarily reduce the noise floor because the same speckle patterns
might simply reappear at the (very low) dither frequency. For the next iteration of modeling,
we will set the noise floor to Δmago = 25.5 based on the program completeness studies de-
scribed in the DRM.

The effective IWA is assumed to be an azimuthally independent radius of 65.5 mas. The
instantaneous IWA using a linear 8th-order band-limited mask with IWA = 4 λ/D ap-
proaches 57 mas (along the telescope’s high-resolution axis) from the star. When the pattern
is dithered in 30 deg steps, and the dither pattern is rotated in 60 degree steps, the effective
IWA is 65.5 mas, with more complete coverage at larger angles and worse coverage at
smaller ones. For simplicity in modeling, we assume it is a step function with a hard-edge
circular IWA = 65.5 mas.

The detector model comes from the published work of Brown (2005). We adopt his as-
sumptions, summarized here. The detector quantum efficiency is 0.8. The pixels critically
sample the point spread function at λ=550 nm, leading to a sharpness factor of 0.07. The
dark current rate is 0.001 counts/s/pixel and the read noise is 2 counts/pixel. The detection
signal-to-noise ratio calculations account for the factor of 2 increase in background variance
when two images are differenced.

Our DRM studies include a simple planet characterization instrument model that scales the
detection integration time by 4.5 (Heap, private communication), e.g. it takes 4.5 times as
long to characterize the planet to the required spectral resolution as it takes to detect the
planet in a 100 nm bandpass using 3 rotations about the line-of-sight. (The characterization
time is 13.5 times longer than the single-rotation, two-dither detection time.) More advanced
models have recently been provided from the instrument concept studies but have not yet
been integrated to the TPF-C project DRM studies.

REFERENCES

Brown, R.A., “Single-Visit Photometric and Obscurational Completeness”, ApJ 624, 1010-
1024 (2005).

3-123
TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.4.2 FB1 Design Performance Assessment

3.4.2.1 Contrast Performance
The major result of our FB1 modeling work is that the environmental perturbations during
operation appear to be controlled adequately—both thermally and dynamically—to ensure
that the image plane contrast remains stable to the required levels. The current sunshade iso-
lates the telescope and payload adequately. Active vibration control easily isolated the pay-
load from reaction wheel vibrations. Passive vibration isolation control could be effective
but with less margin and with more tuning necessary. Vibrations from mechanisms in the
instruments and starlight suppression system have yet to be included, but selective damping
seems feasible and promising. The next cycle will include these.

An important feature of this area is that the commercial thermal and dynamic analysis soft-
ware have limitations that are becoming well understood, and the team has implemented
patches where appropriate to produce believable results. For longer term production mode
use, better integrated modeling tools are being developed which will provide parallel code
architectures for much improved analysis cycle time, efficient inter-operability between the
multi-physics analyses (thermal, structural, dynamics, controls and optics) and numerical al-
gorithms required for high accuracy solutions.

Our analysis and modeling have shown that the combination of the baseline wave front con-
trol system and baseline optical specifications are not compatible with broad-band contrast
suppression. We have learned how to modify the dual-deformable mirror wave front con-
troller to perform over a broad band while relaxing wave front and reflectivity uniformity
requirements. The new design also reduces the number of optical components in the system.
These changes will be incorporated in the next design cycle.

The primary mirror assembly meets all operational requirements, but needs more considera-
tion of fabrication, ground handling and testing accommodations. In the baseline design,
launch loads are too severe around the mounting points. This complex assembly will need
more development to address the full range of difficulties it will encounter. Furthermore, the
FB1 observatory mass margin is too low for the capability of the chosen EELV launch vehi-
cle. FB1 was not focused on mass optimization but significant improvements have already
been identified and will be applied to the next cycle.

Within FB1, the active thermal control system was simplified to include only heaters as lo-
cally applied power within the thermal enclosure. FB1 purposely strove to only derive re-
quirements on the active control system rather than include detailed features which were not
yet well understood. The goal was to use FB1 to understand how difficult and challenging
the active control system will be before addressing how it should be implemented. FB1 sen-
sitivity analyses defined the heater location, power levels and cycles required for maintaining
the observatory thermally stable. This information will be used in the next cycle to design a
higher fidelity representation of the active thermal control system.

Conclusions from the FB1 design and analysis cycle, along with open trades for possible de-
sign alternatives, will guide the next design cycle toward better performance and deeper de-
tail. The team and community have gained significant knowledge through this exercise and
will continue to do so as it waits for the start of the next design iteration, FB2.

3-124
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.4.2.1.1 Contrast Stability Performance

Our overall contrast stability requirement for changes in contrast relative to a perfectly black
‘dark hole’ is 3.4 x 10-12. When mixed with a static contrast floor of 5 x 10-11, the contrast is
stable to 2 x 10-11, our requirement for SNR =5 at a contrast of 10-10. Our models predict
that dynamic and thermal performance meet the contrast stability requirement with margin.

3.4.2.1.1.1 Dynamics
The performance of both the active (Dewell et al., 2005) and passive isolation systems is
given in Table 3.4-3. Results are shown for structural damping of 0.1% and 0.5% (see Blau-
rock et al, 2005). The highlighted boxes show performance categories that do not meet re-
quirements. The bottom line of Table 3.4-3 shows that the total contrast stability perform-
ance easily meets the requirement for the active isolation system, but requires 0.5% structural
damping to meet the overall requirement for the passive damping system. The active system
contrast is dominated by the Line-of-Sight (LOS) offset term (which enters via assumed
mask errors), thus it is not a function of damping.

Table 3.4-3. Dynamic Contrast Stability Results

Passive Passive Active Active Contrast

0.1% 0.5% 0.1% 0.5% Req
Beam walk 7.7e-12 2.6e-12 1.2e-20 1.1e-22 1.9e-12

LOS 8.1e-17 5.7e-18 1.2e-20 1.2e-20 9e-14

LOS mask error 9.7e-14 7.4e-14 6e-14 6e-14 5.5e-13
Structural 1.6e-16 3.4e-17 3.3e-26 1.8e-27 2.8e-17
deformation
SD mask error 7.9e-17 2.7e-17 5.3e-26 6e-28 1.7e-17
PM deformation 1.8e-12 6.6e-13 5.9e-21 8.9e-21 8.5e-13
PM deform. 4.9e-16 1.8e-16 2.6e-24 1.3e-23 5.2e-15
mask error
Total contrast 9.5e-12 3.3e-12 6e-14 6e-14 3.4e-12

Note that many of the contrast requirements are well below 3 x 10-12; this is related to the
ability of the eighth-order coronagraph mask to reject low-order aberrations. For example,
the ‘Structural deformation’ error is the contrast related to the appearance of low-order aber-
rations in the optical train as the secondary mirror and other optics jitter. The contrast would
be substantially more severe if a 4th-order mask or the Visible Nuller was used because they
are much less efficient at rejecting low-order aberrations. The deviations of the 8th-order
mask from its ideal design lead to the ‘mask error’ boxes on the left side of the table. The
most severe error for the active control system is the leakage of an imperfectly centered star
image through a mask imperfection of a part in a thousand appearing at 4 λ/D.

3-125
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.4-3 shows the contrast after applying reserve factors to both the engineering pa-
rameters (e.g. motion of an optic) and the models. The FB1 error budget carries a factor of 2
reserve on all dynamic engineering terms as well as the mask leakage term, and the dynamics
models carry an uncertainty factor of 3 for low order structural modes (0–20 Hz), ramping
up to a 8.8 for modes above 40 Hz. Thus, if the error budget requirements are met and the
models are accurate, the structural deformations will be 6–20 times smaller than the values
used to calculate the contrast values in the table. For beam walk effects and mask errors, this
will lead to a factor of 6–20 reduction in contrast from the values in the table. For aberra-
tions, the effect is squared so we would see factors of 36–400 reduction in contrast.

3.4.2.1.1.2 Thermal
Changes in thermal gradients through the primary mirror and through the structure lead to
both low-order deformations and beam walk that scatter light near the inner portions of the
dark hole. Figure 3.4-8 shows the predicted bending modes of the primary mirror after a 30
degree roll of the telescope about the line of sight. The sun is assumed to be normally inci-
dent to the line-of-sight at angles of 195 and 225 deg (where 180 deg is along the short axis
of the telescope opposite the secondary tower). This combination of angles is the most
thermally sensitive roll studied to date. The simulation includes the passive isolation of the
V-groove sun shield but it assumes that the temperature of the back-plane of the PM is held
constant. The figure shows the requirements and two different PM cases; one is a uniform
CTE ULE mirror; the other is a mirror in which each of the 23 boules has 4 layers of CTE
variation, with each layer having bias, side-to-side, radial, and axial CTE variations of ~10
ppb. (See Kissil (2004) for more detail). As seen in the figure, the uniform CTE assumption
is not conservative as it generally underestimates the wave front error relative to realistic
variations in the CTE.

The thermal requirements are depicted by circles for each of the elliptical Zernike modes
shown on the bottom of the figure. The 8th-order mask is effective at rejecting the first 10
Zernikes, but it begins to leak Z11 (spherical aberration) and higher order astigmatism and
coma. As with jitter, each of the requirements carries a factor of 2 reserve; the maximum
allowed contrast per aberration would still be met a factor of 2 above the requirement curve.

The thermal control system meets all the requirements including the higher-order modes.
This was not the case with a 4th-order mask. With substantial margin in the lowest modes, we
will rebalance the requirements in the next round of analysis to improve margin at the higher
modes. We have not yet looked at sun angles incident from behind the telescope, and we
have not yet analyzed the CTE variation with temperature. If needed, we can significantly
improve performance with segment positioning based on CTE measurements of the actual
boules.

3-126
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Steady-State Dither Results

30 deg Dither (195-225)
1 nm

Varying Req
CTE

1 pm

Uniform
CTE

Zernike Component Number (4= Power/Focus, etc)

Figure 3.4-8. Thermal deformation of the Primary Mirror

We also show that, for the simple secondary tower model considered, thermal deformation
of the structure (carrying optics modeled as rigid bodies except for the PM) leads to motions
that do not exceed the error budget allocations. Figure 3.4-9 shows the motion of the secon-
dary mirror and other key optics in the train after the same 30 deg dither described above.
The secondary mirror moves laterally by less than 60 pm and axially less than 10 nm. In this
model, we have assumed the tower holding the secondary is made entirely of graphite epoxy
with CTE = 10-7. In reality, the tower has hinges, joints, and multiple materials and inter-
faces that will be modeled. For thermally induced motions, a 6-point metrology system
measuring 6-DOF motion between the secondary and primary mirrors is in place. The me-
trology has a precision of < 25 nm and it is used closed-loop with the secondary-mirror ac-
tive position control system.

Figure 3.4-9 shows the motions of M3, M4, and the (modeled as) rigid coronagraph box
containing the SSS optics. The motions are relative to the vertex of the primary mirror. Sev-
eral optics move almost as much as the allocated requirement of 10 nm; in the next round of
error budgeting we will reallocate to provide margin against motion of these optics.

In conclusion, we find that the jitter requirements are met with orders of magnitude of
margin using the magnetically isolated active isolation system. We have some overall
margin with a passive system but require 0.5% structural damping and have only low fi-
delity with respect to mounting structures, hinges, and joints. The thermal requirements
are also met with similar caveats. We are still early in the design phase, and there are

3-127
TPF-C STDT REPORT

many possibilities to improve performance as our models grow in fidelity and present
new challenges.
All Optics Motions are Relative to Primary Mirror
Motion Budget Values Derived from Beam-Walk Effects
100 nm

100 nm

50 nm

0.13 nm/min
10 nm

Secondary Mirror M3, M4 & Coronagraph Box

Figure 3.4-9. Motion of Optics after a 30 Deg LOS Slew

3.4.2.1.2 Static Contrast Performance

The static contrast is the residual light level in the dark hole once the wave front has been
set. We require this level to be better than 10-10 of the incident star light for two reasons: 1) it
then does not contribute significant shot noise, and 2) it reduces sensitivity to changes in the
state of the system (e.g. bending of optics, jitter). Section 3.3.5 gives the relationship between
static contrast and contrast stability.

Assuming a 100 nm bandwidth, it has been shown Sect. 3.3.5.1 that state-of-the-art optics
provide static contrast margin up to ~ 20 cycles/aperture for the SSS and fold optics. This
result is based on the sequential wave front control system and it does not account for the
PSD of the optics outside the controllable spatial bandpass. Spatial frequencies beyond the
control range of the DM may require a Michelson controller for broad-band compensation.

The secondary mirror requirements are relaxed compared to the smaller optics. The secon-
dary mirror surface requirements can be relaxed relative to the assumed 4.5 nm r.m.s. surface
error without reducing the useful bandpass or significantly increasing system beam walk sen-
sitivity.

We do not yet know the low, mid, and high spatial frequency requirements on the primary
mirror because the work to date has focused on compensation of phase at planes conjugate
to the PM, and compensation of amplitude using sequential DMs. The sequential configura-
tion provides wavelength-independent amplitude control. We believe (but have not proven
conclusively) that the requirement on mid-spatial frequencies of the PM is set only by the
dynamic range of the deformable mirrors (DMs). The low-spatial frequency requirement is
set only by the range of the coarse DM, and the high-spatial frequency requirement awaits
analysis of broad-band frequency mixing and compensation. We can conclude, however, that

3-128
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

the PM requirements are significantly relaxed compared to the current FB1 baseline (4.5 nm
r.m.s. surface).

We have determined the requirements on particulate contamination but have not modeled
contamination in the system. We do not know the limiting static contrast due to particles on
the PM.

We have not implemented a wave front control scheme that provides timely, broadband per-
formance. Our laboratory work has demonstrated repeatability to lambda/10000 (Green et
al 2003) in monochromatic light. Many ideas for wave front sensing and control have been
proposed, but none adequately address the broadband sensing requirement. This is a high
priority for future work.

REFERENCES

Blaurock, C., Liu, K-C., Dewell, L., and Alexander, J., “Passive Isolator Design For Jitter
Reduction in the Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph”, Proc. SPIE vol. 5867. (2005).

Dewell, L., Pedreiro, N., Blaurock, C., Liu, K-C., Alexander, J., Levine, M., “Precision Tele-
scope Pointing and Spacecraft Vibration Isolation for the Terrestrial Planet Finder Corona-
graph,” Proc. SPIE vol. 5899 (2005).

Kissil, A. et al, “Integrated Modeling Applied to the Terrestrial Planet Finder Mission”, Proc.
SPIE vol. 5867, 306-317 (2005).

Kissel, A. et al, “Structural Modeling for the Terrestrial Planet Finder Mission”, Proc. SPIE
vol. 5528, 10-21 (2004).

Liu, K-C., Blaurock, C., Alexander, J., and Dewell, L, “Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph
Pointing Control System Design and Ealuation for Flight Baseline 1”, Proc. SPIE vol. 5867
(2005).

Shaklan, S. B. et al, “Metrology System for the Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph”, Proc.
SPIE vol 5528, 22-31 (2004).

3-129
TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.4.2.2 System Thermal Performance

As was explained in Section 3.4.1.1, by the conclusion of the FB-1 phase of the project, the
total thermal system model had been developed to the point that it became possible to pre-
dict the transient thermal response of the total system to a 30-degree dither, with the initial
condition being the steady-state total system temperature field under the influence of a stable
pre-dither Sun position.

The right-hand side of Figure 3.4-9 shows the total change in the primary mirror (M1) tem-
peratures resulting from such a 30-degree dither, from 195o to 225o. This dither was found
to have a significantly greater impact in comparison with the dither from 255o to 285o, be-
cause the former induces (at least for constant control heater power) a bulk temperature
drop in M1. The latter move, being symmetrical about the long dimension of M1, induces no
such bulk temperature drop.

Figure 3.4-10 orients the reader to the relative movement of the Sun with respect to the ob-
servatory during the dither for which the total transient response is shown. The dither is as-
sumed to occur instantaneously, which is effectively true given the very long system re-
sponse thermal time constant. In this case, all throughout the post-dither response period,
the control heater nodes in the system model were supplied with a fixed power level (ap-
proximately 14 kW total, spread among various parts of the system, but concentrated mainly
on heating the isostatic structures surrounding the science payload and the M1 heater plate).
These heater power levels were determined during a series of initializing steady-state runs.
0 deg Clock
Angle
Looking from Star toward PM
Radiator Side

285 deg

270 deg 90 deg

255 deg

Sun block MLI

210 deg
225 deg 195 deg 180 deg Radiator Side

Figure 3.4-10. Clock Angle Definition for Thermal Analyses

The maximum (steady-state) change in the primary mirror (M1) temperature field from pre-
to post-dither is approximately 0.23 mK (Figure 3.4-11).

3-130
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

0C
Primary
Mirror

225 deg -229e-6 C

195 deg
Figure 3.4-11. Delta Steady-State Temperatures on the Primary Mirror from a 30o Dither

Other parts of the system underwent more or less temperature excursions, the maximum of
approximately 10 mK being the peak of a generalized overall cooling due to a decrease in the
cross-sectional area presented by the isostatic thermal enclosure to the warm part of the inte-
rior of the Sun shield following the dither (Figure 3.4-12). The secondary mirror (M2) sup-
port tower saw some changes on the order of a few mK, but this change is well-within the
compensatory capture range of the active M1-M2 laser metrology system.

154e-6 C
-.00269 C

Science
Payload
-.00463 C

-.000744 C

0C

-.01 C
Figure 3.4-12. Delta Steady-State Temperatures on the Observatory from a 30o Dither

The corresponding time constant is approximately 6 hours, but even at the steady state con-
dition following the dither, the resultant WFE falls within the thermal distortion contribu-
tion to the overall error budget (Figure 3.4-13).

3-131
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.4-13. Delta-Temperature Time-History of Averaged Temperature of PM

30 deg Dither (195 to 225 deg)

3.4.2.3 Gravity Sag

Analysis was performed to assess the amount of deflection on the primary mirror due to
gravity. The analysis was performed on the high fidelity model of the primary mirror which
represents in detail each cell of the hexagonal core, the front facesheet and back facesheet of
the PM, as well as the mirror mount assemblies. The high fidelity finite element model of the
mirror contains over 300,000 elements and over 189,000 node points. The model is shown
graphically in Figure 3.4-14.

Figure 3.4-14. High Fidelity Finite Element Model of the

Primary Mirror used for the Gravity Sag Analysis

The analysis applies a 1-g field onto the primary mirror assembly perpendicular to the mirror
surface and predicts the resulting deflections. Although the mirror is made of ULE glass and

3-132
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

is 90% lightweighted, it still weighs 1065.9 kg. All dimensions chosen for this baseline design
are such that it can be manufacturd by currently available processes.

The analysis shows that for the flight baseline 1 design, the maximum deflection due to 1-G
load applied is 0.473 mm in the direction perpendicular to the surface of the mirror. This is
the estimated deformation that will need to be off-loaded on the ground in order to perform
optical measurements during ground testing. Figure 3.4-15 graphically shows the 1-G sag on
the mirror where the red area is the largest deformation.

Figure 3.4-15. Gravity Sag of Primary Mirror Assembly

The optical performance due to a 1 G gravity loading was then estimated, after rigid body
motion and tilt were removed from the deflections. Figure 3.4-16 shows the results graphi-
cally where the RMS OPD error is 62 μm, P-V error is 229 μm, and the errors are then de-
composed into the first 15 Zernicke coefficients.

3-133
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.4-16. Optical Performance Due to 1-G Sag on the Primary Mirror

3.4.2.4 Launch Loads

The same high fidelity primary mirror model described in previously in [section 3.4.2.3] for
gravity sag, was used to estimate the mirror stress due to launch. Table 3.4-4 summarized the
launch loads, allowable strengths of materials and safety factors currently being used for the
PM stress analysis. The quasi-static loads applied to the mirror assembly are 6 G in the X,
and 5 G in the Y and Z directions. The acoustic load is 10 G in the Z direction. Recall that
the mirror is folded vertically in the shroud in its launch configuration. The loads are based
on the Delta IV loads manual and on acoustics analysis. The allowable strengths of the ULE
and RTV bonding material are the same that are being used for the Technology Demonstra-
tion Mirror (TDM) program. All factors of safety are based on the recommendations listed
in NASA-STD-5001.

The results summarized in Table 3.4-5 show that FB1 PM assembly has negative launch
margin in the PM and RTV bond material, while the margin is positive in the mount hard-
ware. The high stresses are concentrated around back facesheet and mirror core where the
mounts are bonded.

Since the flight baseline 1 design for the PM showed a negative margin of safety, modifica-
tions to the design were considered. These modifications included adding stiffness to the
areas behind and around the mount locations. Although the margins of safety improved they
were unfortunately still negative. It was concluded that for FB2 the mounts would have to

3-134
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

be completely redesigned as to not apply excessive loads onto mirror during launch. Prelimi-
nary analyses looked at the advantage of using launch locks as shown in Figure 3.4-17. With
8 launch locks and an additional 414 kg of weight, this design shows positive margin of
safety in the PM and the stresses in the PM were found to be less than 5.0 Mpa. This is just
one option that would allow the PM to pass the launch load requirement. Other options are
being evaluated.

Table 3.4-4. Allowable Strengths and Factors of Safety used for the PM Launch Loads
Analysis

Component Peak Stress (Mpa/ksi) Margins of Safety

Quasi-static Load (6 G in X, .5 G Z)
Acoustic Load (10 G in Z)
PM ULE 151.8 / 22.02 -.97
66.71 / 9.68 -.92
RTV 20.64 / 2.99 (tensile) -.95
6.16/.89 (tensile) -.83
Ti bar 403.5 / 58.5 .59 (ultimate) / .64 (yield)
469.4 / 68.08 .36 (ultimate) / .41 (yield)
Invar Mount 50.52 / 7.33 5.53 (ultimate) / 3.15 (yield)
70.47 / 10.22 3.68 (ultimate) / 1.97 (yield)

Table 3.4-5. Launch Stress on the FB1 PM Mirror Assembly

Materials ULE RTV Invar Titanium

(Ti-6Al-4V)
Allowable 15.2 Mpa/2200 psi 2.1 Mpa/300 psi 461.9 Mpa/67 ksi 896.3 Mpa/130 ksi
(tensile) (tensile) (ultimate) (ultimate)
1.2 Mpa/173 psi 262.0 Mpa/38 ksi 827.4 Mpa/120 ksi
(shear) (yield) (yield)
96.5 Mpa/14 ksi
(microyield, 1ppm
plastic deformation)
Source for ITT TDM baseline ITT TDM baseline Daniel Polis MIL-HBK-5H
Allowable NASA code 541
Factor of 3.0 2.0 1.4 (ultimate) 1.4 (ultimate)
Safety (FS)
5.0 (analysis only) 1.25 (yield) 1.25 (yield)
Source for NASA-STD-5001 NASA-STD-5001 NASA-STD-5001 NASA-STD-5001
FS

3-135
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Mod 5-8 includes 414 kg of additional weight and 8 launch locks.

479 x 277mm (18.8” x 10.9”). Wall
thickness is 42mm (include both side
facesheet)

870 x 583mm (34.2” x 22.9”)

(exclude 479 x 277 mm area). Core
thickness is 6 mm. Both side
facesheet thickness is 7.3mm.

867 x 582mm (34.1” x 22.9”). Core

thickness is 4 mm. Back facesheet
thickness is 5 mm. Front facesheet is
7.3 mm.

Figure 3.4-17. Modified PM Assembly with 8 Launch Locks

3.4.2.5 Stray Light

Understanding and controlling stray light due to in-field and out-of-field sources will be
critical to the success of TPF-C. This section summarizes preliminary stray light analysis re-
sults incorporating the effects of surface imperfections and contamination of the primary
and secondary mirrors of the pre-Phase-A baseline TPF-C architecture. The results from ad-
ditional stray light analyses incorporating scatter off the interior of the baseline primary mir-
ror baffle that is part of the larger sunshield are also discussed.

The baseline optical design for TPF-C incorporates an off-axis reflecting Cassegrain tele-
scope followed by a Lyot type coronagraph. For these analyses, only the telescope front end
was modeled. The telescope front end consists of an 8 meter x 3.5 meter elliptical off-axis
parabola (OAP) primary mirror followed by a secondary mirror OAP 12 meters away. The
focal length of the telescope is 120 meters and covers a square sensed field of view (FOV) of
3.6 arc-sec. The secondary OAP is followed by a 45 degree fold mirror, a pair of OAPs (with
an aperture STOP between them), and a second fold mirror. This back end simulates how
the light from the telescope would be coupled into the coronagraph, and the 3.6 arc-sec
FOV is modeled at this simulated coronagraph focus. The optical model originally devel-
oped in ZEMAX was imported into TracePro for stray light analysis. TracePro was used for
all stray light calculations, and some calculations were verified using Optical Surface Analysis
Code (OSAC).

The following Table 3.4-6 summarizes the various cases analyzed in TracePro, including the
details of the surface properties (BRDFs) applied in the various cases. The results of the
analyses are summarized in a detailed report to be published separately.

3-136
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.4-6. Summarization of Cases Analyzed in TracePro

Baffles, Field
ID Tel. Type PM SM Inputs Outputs
Stops
Preliminary Runs
1 8m Cass no external baf- Perfect surface Perfect Sur- Shoot rays Measure the Point
w/ 12m fles; two back face IN from Source Transmit-
PM/SM end parabolas point sources tance from the ex-
separation simulate the co- within a few ternal point sources
ronagraph field arc-sec of to the active detector
stops after the the target area of the back end
telescope focus. star (LOS) simulator.
2 same same TDM BRDF TDM BRDF same same, but subtract
out all non-scatter
reflections
3 same same TDM BRDF TDM BRDF same same; provide one
+ low/high + low/high set of data for low
Contamination Contamination contamination, and
one for high con-
tamination
Runs with external scattering surfaces, but no specially-designed baffles
4 same Scattering sur- Perfect surface Perfect Sur- Shoot rays Measure the Point
faces: Inside of face OUT from Source Transmit-
sunshade; out- selected tance from the active
side/inside of points repre- detector area of the
cylindrical tower sentative of back end simulator
simulator; sides the active to the hemisphere
of PM; closeout detector area centered on the tar-
behind PM; all of the back get star (LOS)
"typical" black; end simula-
same back end tor
simulator
5 same same TDM BRDF TDM BRDF same same, but subtract
out all non-scatter
reflections
6 same same TDM BRDF TDM BRDF same same; provide one
+ low/high + low/high set of data for low
Contamination Contamination contamination, and
one for high con-
tamination
Runs with TBD external specially-designed baffles
7 same TBD same same same same
8 same TBD same same same same
9 same TBD same same same same
10 same TBD same same same same

3-137
TPF-C STDT REPORT

To simulate the surface imperfections, the Power Spectral Density (PSD) specification of the
Technology Demonstration Mirror (TDM) was converted into a BRDF, which was then
used as input to the TracePro optical model. Scattering calculations in TracePro are consis-
tent with the well-known Harvey-Shack formulation of surface scatter, which is based on
Kirchoff’s scalar diffraction theory. Based on the PSD of the TDM mirror, a preliminary
PSD specification was derived for the secondary mirror, which when converted into a
BRDF is used as input for the secondary mirror surface property in the TracePro model.
Once the scattered light distribution (BRDF) is specified in TracePro, it is treated as a statis-
tical rather than a deterministic phenomenon. Generally, a brute-force scattering analysis
would require tracing many millions of rays to get just a handful onto the collecting surface.
TracePro allows the user to define an “important area”, known as “importance sampling”
when generating random scattered rays. The direction and solid angle subtended by the de-
tector is specified as the “important area” and only rays scattered towards the “important
area” are created, though their flux is scaled as if power had been scattered into the entire
hemisphere. This eliminates the need for generating millions of rays and thereby controls
computer run times.

For contamination, we followed the exhaustive study performed by Spyak and Wolfe and
published as a series of four articles in Optical Engineering. Part 1 of the series compares
measurements of scattered light due to spherical particles on mirror surfaces with predic-
tions by Mie Theory at 0.632microns. His data demonstrated that the Mie model fit the
spherical particle data quite well for both visible and infrared radiation out to 10 microns.
Part II of the series showed that the same Mie-modeled data compared well against observed
scatter by dust in spite of the spherical-particle assumption. These measured BDRFs served
as input for various cleanliness levels in predicting in and out-of-field scatter.

From this preliminary analysis, we conclude that scattering due to contamination is compa-
rable to scattering due to surface imperfections at reasonably achievable cleanliness level of
300.

3.4.2.6 Trades

Cassegrain Telescope vs Gregorian Telescope

A trade between a Cassegrain and Gregorian design for the telescope was investigated and is
summarized in Table 3.4-7. A fixed distance of 12 m between the primary and secondary
mirrors was enforced, which necessitated the Gregorian design to have a faster primary mir-
ror surface. The resulting greater incident angles lead to higher sensitivities to alignment and
polarization for the Gregorian design. On the other hand, the concave secondary mirror for
the Gregorian design is generally considered easier to fabricate than the convex version for
the Cassegrain design, and the internal image for the Gregorian design allows the opportu-
nity for a field stop to help control stray light.

3-138
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 3.4-7. Summary of Cassegrain vs. Gregorian Telescope Design Trade Study
Subject Cassegrain Gregorian
Alignment Sensitivity +
Polarization Sensitivity +
Fabrication Issues +
Stray Light Rejection +

Although the effect of stray light rejection has yet to be quantified, the team decided to con-
tinue with the Cassegrain telescope as the baseline design for TPF, and to continue the stray
light investigations in parallel.

Primary Mirror Material Trade Study

ULE vs Sic
To gain insight into the possibility of using silicon carbide (SiC) for the PM, we simply
changed material properties in the PM model, which was coded for ULE. Realizing that a
SiC mirror would not look like a ULE mirror, we elected to run the comparison to quickly
ascertain whether there is a significant advantage from one material to the next. ULE was
shown to be the best candidate, mostly because of the difference in the dominant heat trans-
fer mode. For SiC, internal radiation is insignificant compared with conduction, whereas for
ULE internal radiation is the dominant mode of heat transfer working to equilibrate internal
thermal gradients.

The mirror deformations for a typical 20 degree dithering scenario were compared for ULE
and SiC. This simplified study assumed uniform material properties and geometry for both
mirror materials. Because of the different heat transfer mechanism, found that the ULE
mirror outperformed the Silicon Carbide mirror by a factor of approximately 400 to 600,
based on wave-front error.

3.5 Verification Approach

This section addresses the formulation completed to date of an approach to TPF-C verifica-
tion readiness for launch. Consistent with this early phase of design, we address herein not
only a notional baseline verification approach but a number of options and alternatives that
are within the scope of project formulation, such as for balancing system risks, working
within assumed cost constraints, attempting to make use of existing test facilities, or enhanc-
ing verification fidelity. Because the pre-Phase A formulation of TPF-C has been halted
midstream in the process, trades and analyses supporting refinement of the baseline that
evaluate these options and alternatives suggested from across the TPF-C design team, STDT
and review panels have not been completed. Similarly, many critical aspects of this notional
approach to verification, such as implementation costs and verification effectiveness, have
not yet been fully assessed. As addressed in Section 5.1.3, completion and refinement of this
formulation of our approach to TPF-C verification is one aspect of further work rated
amongst the highest in importance and priority at this time by the design team and STDT.

3-139
TPF-C STDT REPORT

This section puts forth our strawman baseline approach to integration and test of the TPF-C
observatory system (Section 3.5.1), drawing heavily from work conducted by the TPF-C veri-
fication working group as documented in Smith et al 2005 (Section 3.5.4 and attached in the
appendices). Within this strawman verification approach we include our list of key assump-
tions, including a subset of those observatory level requirements that drive, or are driven by,
the observatory verification approach. Because we assume at the outset that TPF-C observa-
tory verification requires testing supported by rigorous analyses at each major level of as-
sembly, we describe next in Section 3.5.2 our approach to validation and verification of TPF-
C modeling and analyses, drawing heavily from the work conducted by the TPF-C integrated
modeling working group as documented in Levine et al 2004 plus many ensuing TPF-C pro-
ject library documents. Open issues, trades and analyses supporting continued formulation
of this TPF-C verification strawman are identified in Section 3.5.3. Finally, key References
related to the verification of TPF-C are listed in Section 3.5.4.

Note also that the approach to TPF-C verification documented herein relies heavily on many
aspects of supporting TPF-C technology development plans now in place and in work, as
documented in the TPF-C Technology Plan, Dooley et al 2005. Examples of this interdepend-
ence are the significant NASA investments made in fabrication of the Technology Demon-
stration Mirror (TDM), infusion of state of the art vibration isolation technology, as well as
in nanometer precision observatory modeling and analysis techniques validation

3.5.1 Baseline System Integration and Test

We follow the verification process shown conceptually in Figure 3.5-1. This process starts
with top level requirements and constraints developed and specified prior to Phase A by
NASA, and controlled thereafter. Those top level considerations include science observa-
tions, mission profiles, cost and schedule, as listed in the figure examples. During the Phase
A formulation timeframe, these top level considerations are flown into a baseline observa-
tory design, error budgets with allocations, and a strawman verification flow. During this
TPF-C pre-Phase A study we have initiated those aspects of the verification process because
of the many unique and challenging aspects of TPF-C development and implementation.
During Phase B/C/D implementation an iterative set of design cycles with corresponding
test-verifiable design parameters are derived and specified, to enable the verification test and
analysis flow. Examples of aspects of these activities in the process are listed in the figure.
Again because of uniqueness of the TPF-C challenges, we have made inroads into defining
critical aspects of these implementation phase activities of the verification process.

3-140
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Top Level Requirements Formulation Implementation

Observatory Design Observatory Design Cycles

Key Performance Requirements • Reference & Alternatives • Configuration & Models
• Star Search & Completeness • Design Trades • Analyses & Sensitivities
• Resolution & Spectral Range
• Performance Predictions
• Observing Conditions
• Areas for Improvement
• Mission Budget & Risk Posture
• Launch Readiness Date Error Budget & Allocations
• Mission Orbit & Lifetime • Contrast & Contrast Stability
• Others • Straylight & Working Angles Test-Verifiable Engineering
• Bandpass & Discrete Bands Design Parameters
• Others • Stiffness, Mass, etc.
• PSF, Througput, etc.
Verification Constraints • Interfaces, etc
• Budget Allocation for Verification
• Integration Schedule & Critical Path Strawman Verification Flow
• Test Facilities, Availability, Shipping • Priorities & Goals
• Acceptance Criteria Verification Tests & Analyses
• Modeling & Analysis Tools Validation • Tests & Results
• Verification Trades
• Test Configuration Design • Test Models & Analyses
• Test Models & Analyses • Uncertainty Factors
• Sensitivity Analyses
• Flight Models & Analyses
• Assessments & Acceptance

Figure 3.5-1 TPF-C Verification Process, with Examples of Key Considerations

3.5.1.1 Key Assumptions

In developing this strawman, we assumed the following observatory performance levels

(Shaklan et al 2005, Ford 2004) as guidance for verification needs and approaches:
• Static contrast of 6e-11 for coherent light
• Contrast stability of 2e-11, accounting for thermal and jitter disturbances
• Instrument stray light of 1.5e-11 for incoherent light
• Inner & outer working angles of 4 and 48 times λ /D, respectively
• Bandpass of 500-800nm, with an upper end stretch goal of 1050nm
• Bandpass observed in at least three 100nm bands
• Spectral resolution of 70, with a goal of 140
• Mission lifetime of 5 yrs (10 yr goal) at L2
From these we derive measurable engineering test parameters (Smith et al 2005) as guidance
for strawman test configurations, such as:
• PMA figure stability of 0.2 to 0.4 nm RMS, and <0.05 for spherical aberration
• PMA temperature stability to within about 0.001K
• Position stability of the SMA relative to the PMA of about 25nm
• Occulter mask lateral position stability of about 0.5 microns

Our general approach to flowing these key driving requirements down into engineering
terms that are test verifiable at the component, subsystem and element levels of planned
testing and analyses is shown in Figure 3.5-2 TPF-C Requirements Flowdown Approach
(Smith et al 2005)
This starts with high level science performance requirements, and flows those down into
elements, subsystems and components, as shown notionally in the figure.

3-141
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 3.5-2 TPF-C Requirements Flowdown Approach (Smith et al 2005)

3.5.1.2 Strawman Observatory I&T Flow

Our approach uses the strawman integration and test flow shown in , developed in 2005 by
the TPF-C verification working group, as a basis for formulating a workable approach to
TPF-C observatory verification planning. The rationale and basis for this overall observatory
I&T flow is further described in Smith et al 2005. We summarize below this overall obser-
vatory flow, and summarize in subsequent sections the most critical aspects of lower levels
of assembly verification supporting this flow.

As seen from the figure, we plan an initial set of subscale experiments, used as a logical ex-
tension for supplementing existing testbed technology development work, representing
planned early risk reduction activities. These subscale tests primarily validate modeling and
analysis methods, enabling refinement in analytical approaches driven by comparing test re-
sults to pre- and post-test analytical predictions. We plan to iterate such subscale hardware
behavior comparisons, with the goal of characterizing all significant sources of modeling un-
certainty, enabling us to drive the TPF-C flight design such that it minimizes the effects of
model uncertainties on system level performance predictions and margins. These subscale
hardware tests are shown in the upper half of this figure, and include a subscale Primary Mir-
ror Assembly (PMA), Secondary Mirror Assembly (SMA), and Optical Telescope Assembly
(OTA) assemblies of the payload element, and the sunshield and the Pointing Control Sys-
tem (PCS) assemblies of the spacecraft element. Sizes of these subscale articles may vary

3-142
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

and are the subject of trades, but are roughly ¼ scale, with a goal of using full scale mecha-
nisms in those subscale assemblies whenever possible.

Flight hardware verification is shown in the bottom half of the figure. Assuming a success-
ful subscale methods validation program is completed early in the TPF-C development pro-
gram to infuse all its results into the flight design in a timely fashion, then the flight hardware
verification plans focus on the largest risk item, the integrated OTA, and critical aspects of
its supporting lower levels of assembly. Our strawman approach relies on extensive optical
testing of the standalone PMA and SMA separately, each under a variety of diagnostic test
conditions. This then evolves to a combined PMA and SMA intermediate level assembly
testing to ensure compatible optical performance in their closed-loop control mode, using
either full aperture or sub-aperture testing (a key verification trade). Parallel tests character-
ize the OTA flight structure assembly, initially without any optical assemblies, primarily
driven by the contrast stability requirements imposed on relative position of SMA and PMA
as well as on PMA figure stability for about 2 weeks of continuous observation. These three
major assemblies of the OTA (the PMA, SMA and OTA Structure) are then integrated and
tested in a large vacuum chamber such as JSC Chamber A. At each of these sequential steps
of assembly, models are built and analyses are conducted of the test article in its test configu-
ration for comparison to test results, as a means to drive down uncertainties applicable to
final verification of analytically predicted flight performance.

For the two critical spacecraft elements, the sunshield and PCS subsystem, we rely on ad-
vances made by other programs (such as JWST for their sunshield) to infuse their lessons
learned, facilities and approach to ground test verification. We assume that the majority of
TPF-C verification for these two subsystems can be accomplished by subscale article testing
correlated to analyses, and by only analyses of the full scale flight hardware, using analytical
modeling and analyses methods validated previously on the subscale hardware. We note that
dropping or deferring for too late into the TPF-C program these sunshield and PCS subscale
hardware test articles adds significant cost, risk and uncertainty to later verification of the
flight hardware.

Major trades and supporting analyses yet to be completed, aimed at advancing this strawman
formulation and anchoring its assumptions, include: full versus sub-aperture collimator test-
ing; use of existing versus new test facilities; the scope, timing and fidelity of the subscale
test articles; and completion near term of a collection of defining ground test configuration
analyses, as described in Smith et al 2005 and identified in Section 3.5.3.

3-143
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Smith/Krim/Pitman/Ohl/Lisman/Martino TPF-C Verification Plan Summary Updated 5/14/05

Methods Validation Mirror Coupon Material Coupons S/C Vibration Isolation Subscale Sunshield
• Validates Methodology SI Simulator • Model Correlation
Full Scale
• Modeling, Analyses, Testing TDM-2's ? Hinges & Latches
• Thermal
- Reference Technology • Dynamics
• Reduces Risks
- Alternate Technology
Subscale OTA
• Design, Performance • Optical Tests • Structural
• Quantifies Uncertainties Subscale • With & Without HCIT • Deployments
• Persistent High-Contrast Images • Packing
OTA Structure • TDM-1 Pathfinder
• Effects on Layers
• Subscale PMA
Testbeds Subscale PMA • Dynamics • Model Correlation • Efficiency
• Metrology • Thermal • Contrast
TCS Testbed HCIT
• CTE/Thermal • Deployment • Stability Subscale PCS Simulator
PCS Testbed TDM • Mounts • Nonlinearities •Thermal • Model Correlation
• Thermal •Structural • Control Dynamics
WFSC Testbed • Structural •Dynamics • Active/Passive
• Dynamics • Straylight • Closed-loop Optical
Metrology Others Control with SMA
• Unknown-Unknowns

Flight Hardware 8g Static in Long Axis Direction

Acoustic Loads 8m Collimator ?

• Verifies Design PMA & SMA
• Estimates Performance Collimator
• Quantifies Uncertainties • Collimator Size Trade S/C Simulator
• Full vs Partial
8g Static in Long Axis Direction S/C Vibration Isolation
PMA • Optical Train Truth Test
• Correlate with
• Metrology
• CTE
3m Metrology Signals OTA
• PMA Surface Check JSC
• Mounts
• CoC Interferometer Chamber A
• Thermal
• Prescribed PMA
• Structural
Disturbances
• Dynamics TPF-C
• Instrument Simulator
MSF
Interface Checks

Instrument • Model Correlation

Simulator (s) •Thermal
•Structural
•Dynamics
SMA •Straylight
• Metrology
• CTE • Sensitivities
• Mounts
• Thermal
OTA Structure
• Flight (and ETU?)
• Structural
• Sensitivity
• Dynamics
• Vertical vs Horizontal
• Hexapod
• Joints, Linearity
• Model Verification
• Dynamics
•Thermal

LEGEND
PMA = Primary Mirror Assembly HCIT = High Contrasting Imaging Testbed WFSC = WaveFront Sensing & Control S/C = SpaceCraft
SMA = Secondary Mirror Assembly TDM = Technology Demonstration Mirror TCS = Thermal Control Subsystem SI = Science Instrument
OTA = Optical Telescope Assembly ETU = Engineering Test Unit PCS = Pointing & Control Subsystem CTE = Coefficient of Thermal Expansion

Figure 3.5-3. Strawman TPF-C Observatory Integration & Test Flow

144
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

3.5.1.3 Strawman OTA Element I&T Flow

We assume that the PMA will be tested and then delivered attached to the flight Aft Metering Struc-
ture (AMS) complete with any required actuators. We also assume all relevant subsystems will have
been qualified and integrated into one complete SMA, including the secondary mirror (SM), the SM
hexapod support mechanism, the SM thermal enclosure, the SM support tower and the laser truss.
Our verification approach for the OTA starts with verifying the PMA, using the strawman approach
shown in Figure 3.5-4. We consider a series of incremental steps to PMA verification, in each case
repeating prior measurements after making a configuration change (such as adding flight mounts) to
ensure understandable changes to PMA figure and response to prescribed and finely controlled ap-
plied loads (mechanical and thermal). The particulars in approach are subject to considerable trades,
such as the key trade of whether or not to use actuators to control PM shape during ground testing,
also during flight, or not at all. Regardless of this and other trades, the PMA verification test flow,
requirements and assessment are guided by an iterative process of refining math models, analysis
techniques and test configuration details that collectively demonstrate the maximum achievable cor-
relation between analytical prediction of test results, thus reducing uncertainty factors imposed on
flight PMA performance analytical predictions (refer to Section 3.5.2.2.).

Figure 3.5-4. Strawman TPF-C PMA Integration & Test Flow (Smith et al 2005)

3-145
TPF-C STDT REPORT

This PMA verification is complemented with parallel verification of the SMA, using the strawman
approach shown in Figure 3.5-5. Similarly, these SMA verification steps incrementally change con-
figuration and subject the SMA to know loads, evaluating change in figure and response, compared
to SMA level model predictions.

Figure 3.5-5. Strawman TPF-C SMA Integration & Test Flow (Smith et al 2005)

OTA level verification follows these lower level PMA and SMA levels, using the strawman approach
of testing of only the OTA optics and only the OTA structure, as two separate and parallel activities,
followed by testing of the same OTA flight structure with flight optics integrated. Each of these
tests are summarized below and described more fully in Smith et al 2005.

The flight OTA optics are integrated by means of test fixtures and tested at first interferometrically
for combined optical prescription, as shown in the left side of Figure 3.5-6, and then with a surro-
gate Starlight Suppression System (SSS) as shown in the right side of Figure 3.5-6. The former tests
are done either full aperture or by sub-aperture stitching, a significant verification trade involving
cost, risk and verification fidelity. The latter tests are done primarily to verify the critical interface of
the SSS to the OTA, and could readily be repeated in a similar fashion to verify the somewhat less
critical interfaces between the OTA and each science instrument. In both cases, a similar set of tests
proceeded these during the OTA subscale methods validation efforts, providing a strong basis for
flight OTA model and analysis correlation with test results, and an important set of critical verifica-
tion milestones that would need to be satisfied prior to subsequent levels of testing.

3-146
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

OTA Optics-Only Testing

OTA Figure Testing OTA to SSS Interface Testing

Figure 3.5-6. Strawman TPF-C OTA Optics-Only Testing (Smith et al 2005)

The flight OTA structure, at first without any mounted optics as shown at the left of Figure 3.5-7, is
tested in parallel to the aforementioned OTA optics-only tests. This OTA structure-only assembly
is tested rigorously under a variety of static and then dynamic load conditions, and most likely in
both a vertical and horizontal orientation, under room temperature (RT) and thermal vacuum cham-
ber environmental conditions. Goals include assessing response linearity at magnitudes and regimes
of interest to the flight article, obtaining the maximum practical degree of predictability from models
and analyses, and flagging all aspects of nonlinearity, performance sensitivity to operating conditions,
and other sources of uncertainties. Upon completing these tests the OTA optics are integrated and
a subset of OTA optics and structure testing is repeated, as described in Smith et al 2005.

Figure 3.5-7. Strawman TPF-C OTA Testing (Smith et al 2005)

Our strawman approach to the final step of contemplated optical tests of the flight OTA consists of
payload level performance checks under simulated on-orbit conditions and environments, to the
maximum extent practical, as shown in Figure 3.5-8. This uses an optical test package to enhance

3-147
TPF-C STDT REPORT

our ability to measure with sufficient fidelity the payload performance parameters needed to com-
plete analytical verification of the flight payload (see Smith el al 2005).

Figure 3.5-8. Strawman TPF-C Final Payload Optical Testing

Next, a series of confirmation tests will be completed on the integrated OTA flight assemblies. The
initial of these tests will be a repeat of PMA figure testing, carried out at the PM center of curvature,
with the PMA now integrated into the OTA. Initially, compensation for gravity forces will be ac-
complished by actuation of the primary mirror on the basis of previous measurements at the vendor.
(Note: Actuation of the primary mirror is not currently part of the baseline design. However, since
the maximum deformation of the PM due to gravity in the present design will exceed 600 microns,
some form of gravity compensation will be required to make any useful optical measurements of
telescope performance.) Interferometric measurements at the center of curvature will enable the
surface errors to be minimized in the presence of gravity. The SM alignment will then be initiated
with traditional metrology techniques and will be refined in a double pass interferometric measure-
ment also illustrated in the TIM report. This measurement requires an accurately flat mirror. It is
assumed that at this level of assembly, a flat of approximately 2 m in diameter will be used for sub-
aperture sampling of the 8 m PM with “wavefront stitching” to evaluate the entire wavefront. Since
gravity compensation procedures will not completely remove the effects of gravity on the telescope
wavefront, the predicted on-orbit performance will use modeling and analysis methods validated
from the subscale and full scale OTA testing. These optical measurements may require activation of
the laser truss to compensate for thermal induced fluctuations in addition to vibration isolation. The
clean room facility is kept at a constant temperature, with heat lamps or equivalent sources provid-

3-148
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

ing the desired thermal gradients indicative of OTA flight element on-orbit performance environ-
ments (such as the significant thermal gradients along the SMA tower).

The test facility will provide class 1000 conditions, at least in the neighborhood of the telescope op-
tics, and will incorporate vibration and vibro-acoustic isolation from the chamber background. We
envision leveraging to the extent practical test facilities and approaches developed for the JWST,
modified as needed to accommodate TPF-C. The interferometric tests will be made in air with si-
multaneous phase sensing interferometers that utilize high speed data acquisition and bright sources
to mitigate the effects of thermally induced turbulence. Alignment, stability, wavefront error,
throughput, polarization, straylight, and other characteristics of the OTA will be tested.

3.5.1.4 Instrument Integration and Test

After the telescope has been aligned and its performance established the instruments are attached to
the AMS and test verified. At the present level of maturity of TPF-C, these instruments include the
coronagraph/spectrograph and the General Astronomical Instrument (GAI). For preliminary and
perhaps continuous in-orbit alignment of the telescope we project the need for a wavefront measur-
ing device independent of the coronagraph, such as a phase retrieval system. This can be a physically
separate system sampling the image space close to but outside of the 4 arcsecond field of the coro-
nagraph, or can be included in the WFC. Another option is to make the external surface of the co-
ronagraph entrance aperture a mirror, flat or powered, and use it to reflect out of field stellar images
to the wavefront analyzer. (This capability can also help with in-orbit alignment of the telescope-
coronagraph system and with target acquisition.) The integrated components now constitute the
science payload and the principal task at this point is alignment. (Note: In the present science pay-
load configuration no optical measurements can be performed because the gravity off-loading actua-
tors will have been removed in order to make room for the instruments. This leaves the telescope
image unusable.) There will be additional measurements to be made unique to the instruments such
as throughput, flat-fielding and scattered light tests. Alignment tests can be performed using a colli-
mator with an aperture smaller than the primary mirror, say 2 m., and for these purposes can be an
on-axis system.

Since radiative cooling of the instruments will not be effective in ambient conditions, suitable alter-
native cooling methods will have to be found that will allow the PMA/AMS to remain thermally
stable. At this stage of integration detector exposure times can be short (tens of seconds) and long
term temperature variations will not be important. After the ambient tests are completed the ther-
mal enclosure surrounding the AMS and instruments will be installed. The science payload will be
folded into its launch configuration and shipped to a facility in which thermal-vacuum (T/V) tests
will be performed. At present, these tests are planned to be conducted in the same JSC Chamber A
facility now planned for JWST, though that is a trade for TPF-C.

The primary added value of the T/V test is to evaluate the performance of the thermal control sys-
tem including its capacity to handle heat generated by the instruments, and to correlate the test re-
sults with math models. The absolute temperatures attained and in particular the stabilities of those
temperatures are critical to the effective performance of the science payload. The spacecraft includ-
ing the sunshield is not included in these tests. The tests will require test stands providing isolation
from the ambient vibration background and shrouds cooled to at least LN2 temperatures, and per-
haps LHe temperatures, simulating cold space and its stability. In the absence of the sunshield an
aluminized kapton sheet is substituted and configured to approximate the temperature profile com-

3-149
TPF-C STDT REPORT

puted for the interior surface of the actual sunshield. Solar driven flux can be simulated by heaters.
It is anticipated that thermal noise will mask variations in the PM figure arising from the simulated
dither-produced variations in solar heating. Changes in the solar heating will be “overdriven” and
the results correlated with math models, which have been validated by measurements on subscale
optics. The effects of simulated variations in the solar heating will be measured optically using the
telescope wavefront sensor and/or the coronagraph imaging detector. A collimator will provide the
optical stimulus through an opening, or openings in the thermal shroud that closes out the telescope
aperture. It is planned that the ambient vibration background seen by the science payload due to the
T/V facility will be attenuated to levels below those introduced on-orbit by the reaction wheels. This
will permit the input of disturbances simulating the dynamic effects of wheel noise such that its ef-
fect on the coronagraph performance can be evaluated.

Presently no optical end-to-end tests of the telescope-coronagraph system have been baselined. Its
performance is to be inferred through use of validated models supported by rigorous testing of both
the subscale test articles and lower levels of assembly. As an example, vibration isolation system be-
tween the science payload and the spacecraft will have been demonstrated in both a testbed (see Sec-
tion 3.3.4.2) and the subscale PCS simulator. Analytical methods with appropriately derived uncer-
tainty factors are then use to verify the flight system vibration isolation. Similarly, a “reduced” coro-
nagraph test involving a small collimator or phased collimated beam array, a specially designed oc-
culter and if needed a specially designed Lyot stop could provide data to allow correlation to previ-
ously validated sub-scale models. Considerations of coronagraph testing will be moot; however, if
as noted previously, the absence of PM gravity off-loading mechanisms prevents optical testing of
the science payload. The remaining value of the T/V test is to correlate thermal models such that
the resulting on-orbit thermal predicts are shown to be in acceptable ranges.

3.5.1.5 System Integration and Test - Description and Requirements

After thermal vacuum testing the spacecraft will be integrated with the science payload to form the
observatory, which is then subjected to EMI and EMC tests in its folded configuration. Then, the
observatory is integrated to the launch support structure and subjected to environmental tests, e.g.
vibration, acoustics, low level sine sweep, sine-burst and shock. The specifics of these tests and test
levels will be determined during implementation. The unique character of the primary mirror will
have a strong effect on the decision. Post environmental/pre-ship functional tests will be made, and
pending favorable results the observatory will be shipped to the launch site.

3.5.2 Model Verification and Validation

3.5.2.1 Philosophy
Because TPF-C cannot be fully tested on the ground, successful implementation of the mission re-
quires that models accurately predict sub-nanometer level performance prior to launch. This poses a
major challenge on the modeling technologies which will need to demonstrate predictive accuracy to
levels heretofore never achieved, representing about 2 orders of magnitude improvements over the
current state-of-the-art (e.g., SIM is ~100pm for rigid body motions of 35cm optics, JWST requires
~150nm WF stability of its telescope with 6m segmented/active optics). By the end of the project,
the primary questions asked to the analysts will be “why do you believe the prediction?”

3-150
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

To help achieve this challenge, a novel modeling strategy will be implemented on TPF-C. It is stan-
dard practice to include hardware fabrication tolerances as margins within the error budget. For
TPF-C it is proposed to treat models as “soft ware fabrication” by including additional margin in the
error budget to account for modeling tolerances, a.k.a modeling uncertainties. This implies that the
accuracy of the prediction will be quantified by tracking contributions to the modeling errors during
the project lifecycle. In effect, the TPF-C modeling challenge is now turned into validation of analy-
sis bounds where the uncertainty needs to quantified and managed by the error budget.

3.5.2.2 Approach
Definitions
The NASA System Engineering Handbook SP-610S (June 1995) is clear about the distinction be-
tween verification and validation: “The purpose of verification is to ensure that the subsystems con-
form to what was designed and interface with each other as expected in all respects that are impor-
tant: mechanical connections, effects on center of mass and products of inertia, and so on. Valida-
tion consists of ensuring that the interfaced subsystems achieve their intended results… While vali-
dation is even more important than verification, it is usually much more difficult to accomplish…
Strictly speaking, validation can be accomplished only at the system level, while verification must be
accomplished throughout the entire system architectural hierarchy.”

When applied to models, model verification checks that the various sub-component models and dis-
cipline models are properly built and integrated, while model validation assesses how well the inte-
grated models correlate to the measured data. This also is not to be confused with error budget vali-
dation which demonstrates that the as-built system meets the requirement goals through a combina-
tion of both analysis and tests.

Verification Plan
On TPF-C, model verification will be enforced by strict management of the model configuration and
of the integrated modeling process. The model management approach will be described in the
“Model Delivery Guideline Document” which will dictate for all disciplines the requirements for the
delivery of each system and sub-system model. Examples of the issues addressed in this project
document include:
• System level definitions of coordinate systems and units
• Modeling design cycles will be defined for several project maturation phases which will have
prescribed levels of detail and configuration fidelity.
o For each modeling cycle, descriptors of the sub-component models used to assemble
the system models will be recorded as to keep historical information on the fidelity
of the results.
o At each modeling cycle, a review board will verify that the delivered models are con-
sistent with the “Model Delivery Guideline” requirements.
• A TPF-C Material Database will maintain the project approved material properties to be
used for all analyses. Among other things, the database will track the measurement uncer-
tainty of the various properties so as to propagate these uncertainties up to system modeling
tolerances.
• At each model cycle delivery, it will be required to perform baseline analyses to verify the
sanity of the results. For structural analyses, examples include performing unit gravity analy-

3-151
TPF-C STDT REPORT

sis checks, rigid body characteristics for stiffness matrix checks, isothermal expansion
checks, etc…
• Subsystems will be pre-allocated node numbering schemes such as not to experience overlap
at the time of system model integration

Validation Plan
A systematic approach will be used to identify which error budget terms, starting from Level 2 re-
quirement levels on down. A Project “Verification and Validation matrix” will document which re-
quirement will be validated by analysis and which will be directly validated by tests. Each of the
terms validated by analysis will be linked to a metric, such as Contrast, wave-front error (WFE), line-
of-sight (LOS) jitter, etc … In turn each of these metrics will be associated with a type of analysis
(e.g., static errors, thermal distortion analysis, and dynamic jitter analysis), each of which requires a
set of parameters and assumptions for the development of the models. Each of the models, pa-
rameters and assumptions used for validating the error budget terms, will then need to be validated
themselves through a series of tests or testbed results, starting from the lowest level of assembly on
up.

For now, the most critical issues for TPF-C models include 1) precision material property measure-
ments, 2) validation of the physics described in the models such as mechanism frictional stability,
scattered light behavior, thermal performance prediction of the sunshade and polarization propaga-
tion, and 3) validation of scaling laws used to extrapolate the results from the ground to flight envi-
ronment especially for thermal gradients and jitter. Testbeds and breadboards needed to validate
these most critical modeling risks are in the process of being defined, and will be described in the
upcoming release of the TPF-C Technology Plan. As the design of TPF-C matures test-analysis vali-
dation of the actual hardware and instruments will be defined in more detail, culminating with the
final I&T at the highest system assembly possible.

Validation of TPF-C models will fall in one of two categories: 1) validation of absolute predictive
accuracy, such as that needed for removing 1-g sag effects from ground test data to predict on orbit
performance. Initial estimates require that predictive models need to be better than 0.5%, or 1 mi-
cron, of the total 1-g sag estimate; 2) validation of relative predictive accuracy, such as that needed to
predict the stability of the system between the beginning and end of 2 observational states. Although
stability requirements represent some of the tightest requirements on TPF-C, the validation goal for
relative predictive accuracy will rely mostly on understanding the sensitivities of the parameters driv-
ing the change at each state, providing relaxed expectation from the modeling capability.

In either case, the approach implemented on TPF-C will require that validated accuracy be bound by
the modeling uncertainties. An implication of this new modeling paradigm is that modeling margin
allocations will be used to derive levels of accuracy required from the model validation, as well as the
measurement accuracy of the test facility itself. Questions regarding what constitutes a validated
model have plagued projects in the past. Through the use of the modeling error margins, we will
now be able to derive rational and consistent acceptance criteria for the validation and delivery of
models.

A corollary goal for the TPF-C project is to develop design concepts which reduce the amount of
modeling uncertainty. Examples include previous work done for SIM whereby Microdynamics De-
sign Guidelines were developed for improved linearity in hinge/latch mechanisms, development of

3-152
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

passive/active damping devices to increase nominal structural damping levels in critical modes to
deterministic values, use of materials with minimal variability in physical properties, and develop-
ment of opto-thermo-mechanical architecture strategies that minimize uncertainty in component
interfaces such as those found in joining/bonding of CFRP parts. Because the system performance
objective now takes into account the predictability of the analysis, the design goal is no longer to
select the design which meets the best nominal performance, but one that meets the best bounded
performance including the modeling uncertainty. This means for instance that, from the view point
of predicting performance and meeting the error budget, a low CTE material having high variability
and high uncertainty may not be as good a design choice as a more uniform material having higher
CTE, or that an active 1-g sag figure control approach may be favored over a passive one to reduce
the modeling uncertainty margins.

3.5.3 TPF-C Verification Open Issues

The strawman baseline verification approach put forth herein requires further formulation and re-
finement, primarily by means of completing verification related trades, analyses of ground test con-
figurations, and observatory design refinement decisions. The highest priority work items currently
identified for future TPF-C verification risk reduction work are listed below:

• Scope, timing and fidelity of the planned subscale test articles, test configurations and sup-
porting analytical model analyses
• Analyses of the PMA ground test configuration to estimate the effectiveness of its zero-G
metrology mount
• Trade of full aperture versus sub-aperture collimator testing at the OTA level
• Analyses of the combined PMA and SMA level of assembly ground test configuration
thermo-mechanical stability under achievable levels of ground test vibration isolation and
planned flight assembly thermal control
• Trade of the extent of combined OTA, SSS and Instruments optical level testing
• Trade of OTA level and Observatory level test facilities, ranging widely from use of existing
facilities to creation of a new dedicated facility at a launch site
• Analyses of the SSS effectiveness and stability achievable during ground testing

3.5.4 TPF-C Verification References

Below we list citations related to the subject of TPF-C verification, alphabetically ascending by pri-
mary author name.

Dooley, J. A. and P. R. Lawson, TPF-C Technology Plan, Version 1.1 dated 2 March 2005, JPL
Publication 05-8, TPF-C Library File ID 14310

Ford, V. G. (2004) The Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph: Technology and Mission Design
Studies, Proceedings of SPIE - Astronomical Telescope and Instrumentation 2004, Glasgow Scotland, June
2004. Paper [5487 182]

3-153
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Levine, M, G. Moore, S. A. Bassinger, A. Kissil, E. Bloemhof, S. Gunter (2004) Integrated Modeling

Approach For The Terrestrial Planet Finder Mission, Proceedings of SPIE - Astronomical Telescope and
Instrumentation 2004, Glasgow Scotland, June 2004. Paper [5497-18].

Levine, M. et al. (2004) Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph – Minimum Mission Baseline Design and
Analysis, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA, Report JPL D-28535, April 28, 2004.

Shaklan, S. B., L. Marchen, J. J. Green O. P. Lay (2005) The Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph
Dynamics Error Budget, Proceedings of SPIE, 2005.

Smith, A. M., C. Blaurock, M. Krim, M. Levine, A. Liu, A. J Martino, R. Ohl, J Pitman (2005) Inte-
gration and Verification of the Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraphic Observatory, Techniques and
Instrumentation for Detection of Exoplanets II, D. Coulter editor, Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 5905, pp. 59051C1-
12, 2005.

3-154
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

4.0 Alternate Concepts and Trades

There are many alternate approaches that must be studied to further optimize the performance of
TPF-C. These approaches span the entire observatory, from the nature of the primary mirror, to
the type of coronagraph used, to the type of data processing required to extract the planet image.
Some of these studies have been carried out to one degree or another, and are summarized in this
section.

A major issue affecting the primary mirror is gravity sag during ground testing. A way must be
found to support the mirror to provide a figure sufficient for testing (e.g. ~ 1 wave error). In FB1,
the mirror is not actuated – it is supported kinematically and must release on-orbit into a shape that
falls within range of a coarse deformable mirror located in the optical train. Alternatively, we can
use a few actuators to bend the primary mirror to within the capture range of the fine DM, eliminat-
ing the need for the coarse DM. Another possibility is to provide ~1000 actuators behind the pri-
mary, eliminating the need for a fine DM as well (although at least one other fine DM is needed for
control of amplitude-induced speckles). Actuating the primary has the added advantage of providing
a diffraction-limited wave front to the general astrophysics instrument (GAI) – in the current design
(sect 4.1.3.4) the GAI does not have a deformable mirror.

The GAI could also perform more science if the ultraviolet spectrum were available. We thus con-
sider using Aluminum coatings on the primary mirror, secondary mirror, and fold mirror that pre-
cede the coronagraph; however we must look at the resulting impact to the coronagraph throughput
in the visible and near infrared.

We also consider different primary mirror designs. Because we have baselined a linear (as opposed
to elliptical) band limited coronagraph mask, the Lyot stop throughput is significantly higher if a rec-
tangular aperture is used instead of the baselined ellipse. We consider a rectangle with rounded cor-
ners, called a ‘racetrack’ design and show how it impacts performance.

The baseline coronagraph includes polarizing beamsplitters, as well as non-polarizing beamsplitters

in the Michelson wave front control system. It also has accommodations for band limited masks as
well as shaped-pupil masks. Analysis during the FB1 cycle showed that many of the optics in the
train are not required, and that superior wave front control could be accomplished with a different
deformable mirror configuration.

Another important aspect of the design that is being reconsidered is the V-groove sun shield con-
figuration. The FB1 shield has a circular cross section and allows the telescope to spin 360 degrees
around its line of sight. But the shield presents several difficulties, including interference with radia-
tor views to space and deployment challenges. We consider an approach dubbed the ‘sugar scoop’
because it contains incomplete conical layers leaving an opening to space for radiators and providing
additional exit paths for heat as well as an improved deployment scheme.

In parallel with the FB1 project work, NASA funded industry and university Instrument Concept
Study (ICS) teams to conduct studies of alternative coronagraph designs (the visible nuller interfer-
ometer, and pupil remapping combined with anti-halo apodization). They also funded the study of a
candidate for the primary planet detector (CorECam), the spectrometer (CorSpec), and the general
astrophysics wide-field camera. These are described below.

4-1
TPF-C STDT REPORT

4.1 Science Payload

4.1.1 Alternative Concepts and Trades, with impact on Aperture size
4.1.1.1 Three-Mirror Anastigmat Telescope Design Option

4.1.1.1.1 Motivation
As discussed in other sections of this report, a wide-field survey camera (WFC) that could observe in
parallel with the planet detection system could be a valuable addition to the TPF-C mission. The in-
strument concept study of this camera developed a scientific case for a diffraction limited field of
view of up to 10 arcmin radius from the optical axis, where the coronagraph field of view is located.
However, the current baseline telescope design is a two-mirror system that was designed to satisfy
the requirements of the planet detection instrument alone. The diffraction-limited field of view of
the two-mirror system is less than 95 arcsec.

An attempt to design WFCs that work with the current two-mirror design was not completely satis-
factory. A field corrector was needed to control the aberrations from the two-mirror telescope; an
all-reflective corrector system was prohibitively large, so glass corrector plates were used instead.
The WFC system performance was adequate at longer wavelengths but was significantly degraded in
the 400–700 nm wavelength range. Concerns remain about the manufacturability of the corrector
plates and about the difficulty of aligning the system.

The fold mirrors needed after the secondary were quite large, approaching a one meter major diame-
ter. This is driven mainly by the distance from the preceding pupil and the large field of view desired
for the WFC. Previous coronagraph optical designs had a smaller fold mirror mainly because they
did not aim for such a large field of view.

There would be significant benefits to the WFCs if the baseline telescope design could be changed
to a three-mirror system. Preliminary analysis shows that it could be done with only minor detriment
to the planet-detection system. Table 4.1-1 summarizes the requirements for a telescope that could
support both instruments.
Table 4.1-1. System Requirements for a Telescope
That Would Support both the Coronagraph and the Wide-Field Camera
Parameter Value
Primary Diameter 8 × 3.5 m
System F/# 17.3
Diffraction-limited FOV at λ = 500 nm 6 × 20 arcmin
On-axis RMS wavefront error < 2 nm
(used by coronagraph)
Coronagraph pupil diametera,b 25 cm
WFC pupil diametera,c < 15 cm
Minimum primary mirror f/# > F/1.5
Maximum number of reflections in the coronagraph 4
beam path (telescope only)
a
at an accessible location
b
coronagraph path without wide-field pickoff mirror
c
wide-field camera path, with wide-field pickoff mirror

4-2
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

4.1.1.1.2 A Preliminary Three Mirror Design

We investigated a few preliminary designs to determine if a three mirror anastigmat (TMA) could
give adequate performance for the proposed wavefront control’s (WFC) fields of view. We did not
try to satisfy all the requirements in Table 4.1-1 due to funding and time limitations. We found that
the TMA design shown in Figure 4.1-1 achieved adequate performance to support the WFC. Figure
4.1-2 shows a plot of RMS wavefront error versus field of view. The field of view in Figure 4.1-1 is
6×20 arcmin; wavefront error is 3.5 to 57nm. The primary is F/1.1 for the TMA. If this were re-
turned to f/1.67, the tolerances on the secondary position would be about the same as the two-
mirror system or slightly better. It is unlikely that we can loosen the secondary tolerances in the
TMA design without some negative effect on the coronagraph, such as an increase in the secondary
mirror size, perhaps with a partial obscuration. The prescription for the proposed TMA is defined in
Table 4.1-2.

Figure 4.1-1 A TMA Design that has Adequate Performance to Support the Wide-Field Camera

6'

20'

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Figure 4.1-2. RMS Wavefront Error versus Field of View

(Top) for the TMA Shown in Figure 4.1-1; with Color Legend (Bottom)

4-3
TPF-C STDT REPORT

This particular design example was tailored purely for the WFC, and needs some modification to
accommodate the coronagraph system well. This unusually fast primary (f/1.14) is not necessary,
and probably can be restored to the f/# in the coronagraph FB1 design, without sacrificing the field
of view of the WFC. Ideally we would like to match the TMA output beam to the input of the exist-
ing coronagraph design with few if any additional mirrors in the coronagraph beam path. It appears
feasible to add one mirror and adjust mirror curvatures and positions to prepare the beam this way.

The WFC pickoff mirror is located very near an internal image; naturally, it should be exactly at the
image plane. The WFC pickoff mirror is then curved, to correct some of the field curvature and
control the pupil location in the WFC. The WFC detectors would be positioned to minimize any
remaining field curvature.

Table 4.1-2. Prescription of the TMA shown in Figure 4.1-1

Off-Axis
ROC (mm) Thicknessa Conic
Distance
Primary -18217.930 8481.5317 -0.9987 -2150.0
Secondary -1342.823 9500 -1.2808 -0.0332
Fold flat infinity 4000 – –
Tertiary 4195.874 4300 -0.5955 265.379
WFC pickoff -1858.880 50 –
Image -5533.0609 – –
a
distance to the next optical surface

Figure 4.1-1 [FB1] is a point design that serves as the existence proof of a successful design that is
traceable to the science requirements. While Figure 4.1-1[FB1] has not been tested against all the
science requirements, it does appear to have the sensitivity, stability, and throughput required to
carry out a significant science program. It can detect Earth-like planets in other solar systems.

4.1.1.1.3 Comparison to the Baseline Two-Mirror Design

Mirror dimensions are also shown in Table 4.1-3. The total glass area did not increase significantly
for the TMA, but this is mainly because the addition of the tertiary mirror was offset by the smaller
secondary and fold mirror needed for the faster primary. With an f/1.67 primary, the TMA would
need about the same size secondary and fold as for the two-mirror, but the TMA’s additional tertiary
would still be about 1 m as shown here.

4-4
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 4.1-3. Comparison of Two-Mirror and Three-Mirror System Parameters

Two-Mirror TMA
Effective focal length 140.0 m 138.6 m
System F/# 17.5 17.3
Primary F/# 1.67 1.14
Distance from primary to secondary 12 m 8.48 m
Secondary decenter to reach 100 nm of on- 0.25 mm 0.1 mm
axis wavefront error
Total glass area 22.7 m2 22.9 m2
Primary size 8 × 3.5 m 8 × 3.5 m
Secondary size 0.88 × 0.38 m 0.6 × 0.3 m
Fold mirror size 0.77 × 0.61 m 0.56 × 0.4 m
Tertiary size (N.A.) 0.96 × 0.52 m

4.1.1.1.4 Conclusions and Future Work

We hope to continue development of a three-mirror design that would satisfy all the requirements in
Table 4.1-1. The TMA design above shows that requirements for the WFCs can be met with a three-
mirror system. A solution that can satisfy all the requirements seems possible.

Future Work:
ƒ Continue development of a TMA design.
ƒ Design Offner-style reflective relays for the proposed WFCs.
ƒ Further assess the impacts on the coronagraph instrument design.
ƒ Outline packaging, alignment, and manufacturing strategies.

4.1.1.2 Existing Coronagraph Designs and Potential Alternatives to the Baseline

Coronagraph
Table 4.1-4 lists all coronagraphs known to us to theoretically achieve a 1010 PSF contrast within 5
λ/D of the central source. Although several of these designs are clearly unsuitable for TPF, this ta-
ble shows that 5 new coronagraph designs were proposed in 2005 alone. In the last few years there
has been a strong interest in the scientific community to directly image exoplanets and therefore to
develop efficient coronagraphs.

The coronagraph adopted for TPF-C baseline is shown in Table 4.1-4 in yellow. Many of the coro-
nagraphs listed in this table are unable to maintain high contrast on a partially resolved star, which is
typically 0.01 λ/D in radius for TPF-C observations. At least three coronagraphs however appear to
be theoretically superior to the TPF-C baseline coronagraph, in terms of their ability to achieve
smaller inner working angle:

4-5
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 4.1-4. Existing Coronagraph Designs as of April 2006

Coronagraph Reference
“Interferometric” coronagraphs
Achromatic Interferometric Coronagraph (AIC) Baudoz et al. (2000)
Common-Path Achromatic Interferometer-Coronagraph Tavrov et al. (2005)
Visible Nulling Interferometer (VNI) Mennesson et al. (2003)
Pupil Swapping Coronagraph (PSC) Guyon & Shao (2006)
Pupil apodization
Amplitude Pupil Apodization (CPA) Kasdin et al. (2003)
Achromatic Pupil Phase Apodization Yang & Jostinski (2004)
Phase Induced Amplitude Apodization Coronagraph Guyon (2003)
(PIAA)
Phase Induced Zonal Zernike Apodization Martinache (2004)
Improvement on the Lyot concept with amplitude masks
Apodized Pupil Lyot Coronagraph (APLC) Soummer et al. (2003)
Multistep Apodized Pupil Lyot Coronagraph, n steps Aime & Soummer (2004)
(APLCn)
Band limited, 4th order (BL4) Kuchner & Traub (2002)
Band limited, 8th order (BL8) Kuchner et al. (2005)
Improvement on the Lyot concept with phase masks
Phase Mask (PM) Roddier & Roddier (1997)
4 quadrants (4QPM) Rouan et al. (2000)
Achromatic Phase Knife Coronagraph Abe et al. (2001)
Optical Vortex Coronagraph, topological charge m Palacios (2005)
(OVCm)
Angular Groove Phase Mask Coronagraph Mawet et al. (2005)
Optical Differentiation (ODC) Oti et al. (2005)

ƒ The 4th order Band-limited Lyot coronagraph (BL4), the Visible Nulling Interferometer (de-
scribed in Section 4.1.3.5), and its “cousin” the Pupil Swapping Coronagraph, all offer ~2
λ/D IWA. The BL4 and VNI coronagraphs are two implementations of the same 4rth order
pupil shear null, and are therefore equivalent. Their average throughput is similar to the
baseline TPF-C, but the peak throughput (reached if the telescope is properly oriented to
place the planet in a transmission peak) is significantly better: exposure time for spectros-
copy can be reduced. For these coronagraphs, there is a trade-off between IWA and
throughput. Two versions of these coronagraphs are shown in Figure 4.1-3: a small IWA
version noted VNI/BL4(1), and a larger IWA version noted VNI/BL4(2). These corona-

4-6
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

graphs are highly sensitive to low order aberrations and therefore require exquisite control of
tip-tilt and focus (see discussion in below).
ƒ The Phase-Induced Amplitude Apodization Coronagraph (PIAA, also referred to as pupil
remapping) offers a ~2 λ/D IWA and a nearly 100% throughput (function of the corona-
graph spectral bandwidth – see Section 4.1.2.2). This technique is described is section 4.1.3.3.
ƒ The Optical Vortex Coronagraph (OVC) can be designed to offer ~2 λ/D IWA and a nearly
100% throughput.

In what follows, we analyze preliminary models of ideal coronagraph systems operating in the pres-
ence of finite-size stars. Final results are pending review and publication. The ability to probe the 2
to 4λ/D region is primarily measured by the amount of planet light available for detection in the
focal plane. This excludes planet light which is mixed with much brighter starlight on a pixel of the
detector. This amount, when normalized to the amount of planet light entering the coronagraph, is
the useful throughput of the coronagraph. It is plotted in Figure 4.1-3 as a function of angular sepa-
ration for many of the coronagraphs in Table 4.1-4, for a 1e-10 contrast level. The stellar angular di-
ameter is taken into account in this figure, which explains the poor performance of several corona-
graphs (AIC, PM, 4QPM, ODC) for which the useful throughput curves stay close to zero.

Figure 4.1-3. Useful Throughput of Several Existing Coronagraph Designs

In Figure 4.1-3, the TPF-C baseline coronagraph is BL8 (grey) in this plot. The useful throughput
shown here is radially averaged, and is for some coronagraphs significantly higher if the telescope is
properly oriented. The theoretical limit shown in red is explained below. The x-axis scale is in λ/D.

4-7
TPF-C STDT REPORT

The PIAA and OVC6 coronagraphs appear to be the most powerful alternatives to the TPF-C base-
line, as they combine small IWA (half of the TPF-C baseline) and a nearly 100% throughput (func-
tion of the coronagraph spectral bandwidth – see Section 4.1.2.2). The BL4/VNI (and PSC) also
offers a small IWA, but its radially averaged throughput is lower because many rotations are needed
to sample the full image plane.

What is the Theoretical Limit of Coronagraphic Performance?

Optical systems are (usually) linear in complex amplitude: the complex amplitude anywhere in the
system can be written as a linear combination of complex amplitudes in the entrance pupil. This
property can be used to derive the theoretical performance limits of coronagraphy, utilizing linear
algebra to place limits on the coronagraph throughput as a function of angular separation. This
theoretical limit, shown in Figure 4.1-3, is highly dependent upon the stellar angular diameter, and
has been computed here for a 0.01 λ/D stellar radius (typical for TPF-C observations).

This “basic physics” tells us that a coronagraph with ~1.5 λ/D IWA and a nearly 100% throughput
(function of the coronagraph spectral bandwidth – see Section 4.1.2.2) is theoretically possible. This
coronagraph can theoretically be built with a large number of beam splitters and phase shifters (all
achromatic): this solution not realistically feasible, and it remains unknown if such a coronagraph
can be practically built.

Our preliminary modeling shows that out of the many high contrast coronagraph designs which
have recently been proposed, several appear in theory to approach this fundamental limit, offering
~2 λ/D IWA and a nearly 100% throughput (function of the coronagraph spectral bandwidth – see
Section 4.1.2.2).

Number of Stars Sampled as a Function of Coronagraph Design and Telescope Diameter

In the previous sections, coronagraph performance has been quantified by the useful throughput.
This single metric is not sufficient to accurately quantify coronagraph performance. A probabilistic
approach is needed to take into account the planet's orbit and phase angle (Brown 2004, Brown
2005):

ƒ Exozodiacal and zodiacal backgrounds are an important contribution to the noise. Broader
PSFs tend to mix more background with the planet's image
ƒ Exozodiacal light is not a smooth background (it is significantly brighter closer to the star
and in a high inclination system, the exozodi disk can be a narrow linear feature): its effect
cannot be accurately modeled by the background amplification factor. Planets are brighter
when in nearly full phase, but are then closer to the star and therefore over brighter portions
of the exozodi cloud.
ƒ In the presence of background light (zodiacal + exozodiacal light), faint parts of the PSFs
that contribute to the useful throughput can have a negligible contribution to the detection
SNR: the spatial distribution of the planet light affects the SNR.

In this section, the performance of five representative coronagraphs is quantified for the direct de-
tection of Earth-type planets: CPA, PIAAC, BL8, OVC6, and BL4, plus the “theoretically ideal” co-
ronagraph named here ICC6. The simulation model used explicitly computes coronagraphic images
and only takes into account fundamental effects such as stellar angular diameter, zodi and exo-zodi,
and photon noise. Chromaticity, wavefront errors and calibration errors are not included. Exposure

4-8
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

times given in this section are therefore highly optimistic, but can still serve the purpose of quantify-
ing the relative efficiencies of several coronagraph design/telescope diameter combinations. Key
parameters adopted for the simulation are given in Table 4.1-5.

Examples of frames obtained with this simulation tool are shown in Figure 4.1-4. These images
nicely illustrate coronagraphic characteristics quantified in the previous section:

Useful throughput at large separation: The CPA, BL8, and to a lesser extent BL4 suffer from low
coronagraphic throughput. As a result, the planet's image, even if well outside the coronagraph
mask's influence, appears noisy (few photons detected). The PIAAC, OVC6 and ICC6, on the other
hand, enjoy nearly 100% throughput (function of the coronagraph spectral bandwidth – see Section
4.1.2.2): the planet image is brighter and less noisy.

Angular resolution: The CPA, BL8, and to a lesser extent BL4 have poorer angular resolution: the
planet image is larger and more zodi/exozodi light is mixed with it.

Ability to work at small angular separation: None of the coronagraph tested can detect the planet on
a 2m telescope with the exposure time, wavelength, and throughput used in Figure 4.1-3. Detection
appears feasible on a 4m telescope with the BL4, PIAAC, OVC6 and ICC6, but requires a 6m tele-
scope with the BL8. Finally, an 8m telescope is needed for detection with the selected CPA.

Table 4.1-5. Key Simulation Parameters

Value Unit Notes
Optics throughput 0.25
Wavefront quality perfect
Detector perfect No readout noise or dark current
Wavelength 0.5 – 0.6 micron 0.1 micron bandwidth
Zodiacal background 23.28–22.24 mV Function of target ecliptic latitude
1 zodi brightness 22.53 mV At the habitable zone, for a face-on system
Exozodi inner edge 0.02 sqrt(L) AU L = star bolometric luminosity
Exozodi inner edge 5.0 sqrt(L) AU L = star bolometric luminosity
Exozodi thickness 0 Cloud thickness unresolved by telescope
Exozodi optical depth Cst*r^-0.34
Planet radius 6400 km
Planet albedo 0.33
Semi-major axis sqrt(L) AU L = star bolometric luminosity
Eccentricity 0
Orbit inclination pi/3 rad Statistical median for random orientation

Sensitivity to stellar angular size: The CPA and BL8 are extremely robust to stellar angular size: star-
light leaks are virtually nonexistent even on the 12m telescope. With the BL4, PIAAC, OVC6 and

4-9
TPF-C STDT REPORT

ICC6, starlight is visible on the 12m telescope (equivalent to a 6m telescope observing the same sys-
tem at 5pc), although it is still fainter that the exozodiacal contribution.

Images similar to the ones shown in Figure 4.1-4 have been generated for each possible position of
the planet along its orbit, and for all nearby (<100 pc) main sequence stars of spectral types F, G
and K. For the BL4 and BL8 coronagraph, it was assumed that the coronagraph was properly orien-
tated along the planet's orbit major axis. Figure 4.1-5 compiles the results obtained for a 3 zodi exo-
zodiacal cloud.

Figure 4.1-4. Simulated 4-hour Exposures of HIP 56997 and a Hypothetical Earth-Type Planet at
Maximum Elongation for Telescope Sizes Ranging from 2m to 12m

In Figure 4.1-4, HIP 56997 is a G8 type main sequence star at 9.54 pc. Each image assumes a perfect
detector, minimum zodiacal background (mV = 22.95 zodiacal background for this 29 deg ecliptic
latitude source), a 1 zodi exozodi cloud, a 25% telescope + camera throughput, and a 0.1 micron
bandpass centered at 0.55 micron. The system inclination for this particular simulation was arbitrar-
ily set at i = 59 deg. Each image is 20 × 20 lambda/d, and the planet-star separation is 80 mas.

In Figure 4.1-5 for all simulations, a 25% throughput in the 0.5–0.6 micron band is adopted, and
targets are ordered with increasing exposure time. Each curve terminates when the required expo-
sure time per target reaches 1 day. Results are shown for a 4 m telescope (left) and an 8 m telescope

4-10
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

(right). The number of accessible targets for which the required exposure times are less than 1 hour,
10 hour and 1 day are listed for each case in the grey boxes. In the 8 m telescope plots, the horizon-
tal line corresponds to a 2 month “shutter open” cumulative exposure time, and may be considered
as a practical limit on the number of targets that can be visited.

Figure 4.1-5. Total Cumulative Exposure Times Required to Reach a 50% Planet Detection
(SNR = 7) Probability for a Single Observation as a Function of Number of Targets

Figure 4.1-5 accurately quantifies the gain offered by a coronagraph more efficient than the TPF-C
baseline:

ƒ Adopting an efficient coronagraph (PIAA or OVC6) multiplies by approximately 10 the

number of accessible targets for a given telescope diameter and a fixed exposure time per
target. For a fixed mission duration, this gain is smaller, and approximately equal to a factor
5.
ƒ The performances of a 4m telescope equipped with an efficient coronagraph and an 8 m
telescope with a conventional coronagraph (similar to the TPF-C baseline) are equivalent.
More efficient coronagraphs therefore have the potential of allowing a TPF-C mission with a
4m diameter telescope.

Wavefront Control Requirements with High Performance Coronagraphs

Coronagraphs with smaller IWAs are more sensitive to low order aberrations (tip, tilt, focus, etc)
which also tend to diffract light in the 2 to 4 lambda/D region (Shaklan & Green 2005). Require-
ments for the control of these low order aberrations are much tighter than for the TPF-C baseline.
Among low-IWA coronagraphs, the BL4 and VNI coronagraphs are the most sensitive to low order
aberrations; the PIAA and OVC are somewhat less sensitive (but still significantly more than CPA
and BL8 used for FB1).

Adopting a high performance coronagraph therefore requires exquisite control of low-order aberra-
tions, to a level much below what is envisioned for FB1. Low order aberrations need to be actively
controlled. While this may require some modification of the optical design (e.g. a low-order wave
front sensor such as the one employed by the ground-based LYOT adaptive optics coronagraph
project), there appears to be no fundamental obstacle to doing so:

4-11
TPF-C STDT REPORT

(1) PIAA and OVC coronagraphs transmit more photons than FB1, leading to shorter sampling
time for measuring low order aberrations.
(2) In a small-IWA coronagraph, the edges of the pupil, where the light most valuable for sensing of
low order modes is, are not blocked by coronagraphic masks, resulting in increased sensing effi-
ciency.
(3) The strong starlight rejected by the coronagraph can be used to accurately measure low-order
aberrations.

Field of View / Number of Actuators

When a high efficiency and small IWA coronagraph is used, most planet detections are expected to
occur at separations below 4 λ/D. These coronagraphs can therefore operate with a reduced field of
view and therefore a smaller number of DM actuators.

In summary, our preliminary modeling of specific coronagraph mask configurations shows the po-
tential advantages of PIAA and OVC over the baseline and other approaches. Our models are not
comprehensive and do not, for example, include aberrations, details of the optical train, or band-
width limitations associated with wave front control.

REFERENCES

Abe, L., Vakili, F., Boccaletti, A. 2001, A&A, 374, 1161

Aime, C., Soummer, R. 2004 Proc. SPIE, 5490, 456
Baudoz, P., Rabbia, Y., & Gay, J. 2000, A&A Suppl., 141, 319
Brown, R.A. 2004, ApJ, 607, 1003
Brown, R.A. 2005, ApJ, 624, 1010
Guyon, O. 2003, A&A, 404, 379
Guyon, O., Shao, M. 2006, submitted to PASP
Kasdin, N.J., Vanderbei, R.J., Spergel, D.N., & Littman, M.G. 2003, ApJ, 582, 1147
Kuchner, M.J., Traub, W.A. 2002, ApJ, 570, 900
Kuchner, M.J., Crepp, J., Ge, J. 2005, ApJ, 628, 466
Martinache, F. 2004, J. of Opt. A, 6, 809
Mawet, D., Riaud, P., Absil, O., Surdej, J. 2005, ApJ, 633, 1191
Mennesson, B.P., Shao, M., Levine, B.M., Wallace, J.K., Liu, D.T., Serabyn, E., Unwin, S.C.,
Beichman, C.A. 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4860, 32
Oti, J.E., Canales, V.F., & Cagigal, M.P. 2005, ApJ, 630, 631
Palacios, D.M. 2005, Proc SPIE, 5905, 196
Roddier, F., & Roddier, C. 1997, PASP, 109, 815
Rouan, D., Riaud, P., Boccaletti, A., Clenet, Y., & Labeyrie, A. 2000, PASP, 112, 1479
Shaklan, S.B., & Green, J.J. 2005, ApJ, 628, 474
Soummer, R., Aime, C., & Falloon, P.E. 2003, A&A, 397, 1161
Tavrov, A.V., Kobayashi, Y., Tanaka, Y., Shioda, T., Otani, Y., & Kurokawa, T. 2005, Optics let-
ters, 30, 2224
Yang, W., & Kostinski, A.B. 2004, ApJ, 605, 892

4-12
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

4.1.1.3 Actuated Primary Mirror Alternative

4.1.1.3.1 Justification and Motivation

The viability of TPF-C on the scale currently envisaged by will depend to a large extent on the af-
fordability and performance of its 3.5 × 8 m primary mirror which must be monolithic. The optical
system must yield star images of a completely unprecedented quality. Issues for any primary mirror
concept are:

1) Can it be figured to the required accuracy?

2) What optical metrology method will be used to measure wavefront from the mirror to the
required accuracy?

The above two issues are serious, but are largely independent from the structural and control con-
cept. However, the next three are concept dependent:

3) How can we be sure from lab metrology that the primary will take on a good enough fig-
ure in the zero g and thermal environment of space?
4) If an additional optical relay with deformable optics is required to correct primary mirror
errors, what will be its cost and reliability, and what will be the performance penalty in
terms of chromatic amplitude variations?
5) Is the primary mirror compatible with a full closed-loop system test in zero g before
launch?

The baseline design calls for the primary to be constructed as a single honeycomb sandwich of 3.5 ×
8 m, supported in flight on three points. Its passive design means it is likely to be by far the largest
source of wavefront phase and amplitude errors in the optical system. This is because the difficul-
ties of figuring, metrology, uniformly coating and predicting the gravity free shape from lab meas-
urements all increase strongly with size.

With regard to the above issues, (3) its shape in space will have to be computed, based on analysis
and indirect measurements of thermal and mechanical response. (4) The FB1 uses the additional ac-
tive relay with a small conjugated dm with small stroke and likely still more active correction for lar-
ger amplitude gravitational sag. The performance penalty must be quantified. (5) For the passive
monolith, there will be no opportunity for a full system test prior to launch, unless a flotation system
independent of the space requirements is included in the full system test.

4.1.1.3.2 Description of Alternative

The alternative to the passive primary of FB1 is an active one. An important consideration is the
number of modes to be controlled and the requirement for extreme mechanical and thermal stabil-
ity. Gravity release will involve mostly low order modes, though higher modes that were imprinted
by the distributed supports of the flotation system will also be apparent at lower amplitude. The ac-
tuator system will be used to control to exquisite accuracy those Fourier components that diffract
light into the search zone. If a search is to be made to 10 λ/D, then Fourier components up to 10
waves across the aperture will be controlled to an amplitude of a few picometers, requiring at least
30 actuators across the diameter. These actuators will be chosen to add no additional thermal sensi-
tivity of their own.

4-13
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Active mirrors of around 1 m dimension are now being used or developed for astronomical systems,
and fall into two types. In type 1, the reflecting surface is deposited on a thin deformable substrate
referenced by many position actuators to a much more rigid substrate. The 1-m class deformable
secondary mirrors for the MMT and LBT mirrors built by Steward and Arcetri Observatories are of
this type, with 336 or 672 actuators. These are similar in principle to the small deformable mirrors
envisaged for FB1. However, because of their larger scale, they are able to incorporate additional
features such as internal metrology with capacitive sensors between the reference body and face-
sheet, and more reliable actuators which cannot fail in a stuck position because there is no physical
contact. In type 2, the mirror remains a single structure, but actuators are incorporated into the
structure to cause localized strains that induce shape changes. Meter scale mirrors of silicon with
integrated PMN actuators are being developed for defense space optics. These can be considered as
a scaled up version of bimorph adaptive mirrors in which strain is introduced by making the small
mirror as a piezo bimorph.

A type 1 active mirror for TPF-C would use highly stable, zero-expansion material for both the rigid
lightweight reference structure and the faceplate. The actuators should have the stroke to compen-
sate for gravity release and stability to picometer level of the timescale of minutes between updates
from the focal plane sensor, either intrinsically or by operation in closed loop about sensors which
have the required resolution and stability. An example would be a ~ 1 cm thick meniscus connected
via ~ 104 position actuators to a lightweight welded ULE structural support. Suitable piezo actua-
tors could be developed from the current DM concepts or from existing commercial actuators
which with internal capacitive sensors achieve 50 pm resolution and 10 micron stroke. Further study
is required to understand and develop solutions for athermalizing and reducing the mass of the ac-
tuators, and for the transition from the launch to operational environment. In addition, concepts are
needed to control the mass of the cables across the 8 m aperture.

A type 2 system might be built with thermal actuators. The mirror would be a figured lightweight
honeycomb mirror of glass with small but finite expansion coefficients, so that shape changes could
be introduced by introducing thermal gradients. It will likely be necessary already for the passive
FB1 solution to use active thermal control to millikelvin level. The active thermal control system
would work on a balance between radiative cooling to a sink slightly below the operating tempera-
ture (e.g., with a cold finger into each honeycomb cell) and resistive heaters on the ribs and face-
sheets. The expansion coefficient of the gas used to make the ribs and facesheets would be chosen
separately for optimum control. For example, if 30 cm deep ribs were made with fused silica of
thermal expansion coefficient of 5 × 10−7, 100mK heating would cause local expansion of 15 nm.
At the same time, if the facesheets were made with lower coefficient glass, for example titania doped
silica like ULE but with coefficient 5 × 10−8, a 10 mK difference on average induced between the
front a back facesheet temperatures would cause curvature of 40 nm sagittal depth across the 8 m
dimension, and ~ 1 nm across 1 m. Thus by active thermal controls to tens of microkelvins, the
figure could be both controlled and stabilized (Angel, 2006).

4-14
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

4.1.1.3.3 Improvement/Impact
The potential for improvement for an active primary is in several areas:

ƒ Improved performance on orbit. Direct correction of the primary removes the limits set to star-
light nulling set by chromatic amplitude errors arising in the propagation from the primary
or from relay mirrors.

ƒ Improved reliability. Whether thermal or piezo/PMN, actuators built on the large scale of the
primary can incorporate redundancy. This is not possible for a small scale deformable mir-
ror conjugated to the primary, where a non-redundant stuck actuator could become a single
point failure.

ƒ Improved testing. With the active primary, system test to final performance level becomes pos-
sible. The primary actuators would be given enough stroke to compensate for residual bend-
ing under 1 g load, allowing for full system test in a 1 g environment. The FB1 baseline con-
jugated mirror does not allow for this.

ƒ Cost impact. The system with either alternative type is not likely to cost more that the FB1
concept, which already involves thermal controls, and has the additional costs of a relay of
extremely high quality and a second actuated mirror.

4.1.1.3.4 Alternative I&T test

It is highly desirable to have a ground test of the fully configured TPF that accurately reproduces the
operation in space. Not just the optics but the control systems and the control software should ide-
ally all be operated together just as they will in space. The ultimate proof would be to recover the
image of a star and faint planet from a full aperture collimator input, using all the internal wavefront
control and star suppression systems working as on orbit (Angel, Burge and Worden, 2005). While
there will be a significant initial cost of building the test facility, ultimately the overall costs may be
lowered, and the system reliability and confidence will be greatly increased. However, such a test will
not be possible or optimal if it is not allowed for from the start in the telescope design. Thus we ex-
amine first the constraints of a valid test.

To test the TPF-C spacecraft system prior to launch, an off-axis collimator must be used to illumi-
nate the full aperture with a scene of a star and planet at 10-10 contrast.

4-15
TPF-C STDT REPORT

4.1.1.3.5 Low Authority Actuated Primary Mirror

The baseline concept has no actuators on the PM. The SM is actuated to align to the PM, and PM
stability is enhanced through a near-kinematic mount. As has been discussed, this mirror has large
gravity sag in the ground testing environment, complicating telescope and system end to end verifi-
cation. A strong desire in the next design phase is to examine the two likely alternative technologies,
which are high authority control on the primary (discussed above in 4.1.1.3.2) and low authority.

A low authority mirror actuation scheme could obviate the need for the type of coarse deformable
mirror included in the baseline. The idea would be to engineer a few (6-20) high-load, high stability
actuators into the PM assembly. The requirements would be to remove uncertainties in ground test-
ing to within a budget based on the range of the fine deformable mirror and to control actual figure
error in operation to the same range. This scheme is more consistent with actuator densities used for
JWST and large ground based telescopes than are either the passive PM baseline or the high author-
ity meniscus alternate. The key would be demonstrating mechanical and thermal stability at the re-
quired levels for this application.

TDM is planned to be tested on an air bag after polishing and before mounting. This test is consis-
tent with the baseline concept for the PM; however, final TDM testing will include actuation to off-
load gravity in a manner consistent with the low authority concept for the flight PM.

Recent work has allowed us to optimize mount locations for the baseline PM design as the begin-
nings of exploring this concept. Sigmadyne has developed a genetic algorithm approach for optimi-
zation of mount and actuator locations. Figure 4.1-6 shows the baseline and μm to μm optimized
mount locations; the peak gravity deflection is reduced from 483 to 82 μm.

Figure 4.1-6. Optimization of the Mount Point Locations Reduces the Peak Gravity Self Deflection
of the PM from 483 μm to 82 μm; the Optimized Mounting Points were then Studied for Optimal
Actuator Location and Gravity Offloading Performance vs. Actuator Count.

Two levels of actuator correction were studied; one would be enough actuators to remove the need
for a coarse PM error correction even during ground testing. We assumed that this would require <
0.5 μm total error in order to fit within the stroke range of current high density deformable mirrors.
The second level would aim to get the 1g gravity load uncertainty less than this range; if one could
engineer a static 1g correction into the ground testing environment, then the coarse DM again
would be unnecessary. Both alternatives allow removal of the coarse DM in flight, which reduces

4-16
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

overall errors (particularly beam walk) and simplifies the optical train. While absolute uncertainties in
1g models can be difficult to quantify, we use an estimate of 5% of the peak gravity deflection. Krim
reported a 2% value for the HST PM after calibration of its mounting and actuation system. This
would require correction to < 10 μm total error. Figure 4.1-7 shows the results for these two re-
quirements, while Figure 4.1-18 shows example actuator layouts for the limiting cases of the lower
count, i.e. 6 and 20 actuators. Mounts are the large red shaded areas and mounting points are the
smaller locations. In practice, the mirror segmentation and the mounting locations would be opti-
mized together; for this exercise the mirror segmentation was held fixed.

Figure 4.1-7. Left: Low Authority can Easily Achieve Correction of Self Gravity Deflection to the 10
μm level with a low actuator count; Right: In order to correct to within the stroke of the fine DM a
significant number of actuators is required.

4-17
TPF-C STDT REPORT

6 Actuators 20 Actuators
1.8 μm RMS 0.6 μm RMS
9.5 μm P-V 3.3 μm P-V

Figure 4.1-8. Actuator Locations as Optimized for 6 (left) and 20 (right) Actuators. Mounts are the
large red shaded areas and mounting points are the smaller locations. In practice, the mirror seg-
mentation and the mounting locations would be optimized together; for this exercise the mirror
segmentation was held fixed. With 6 actuators, 1g deflection is reduced to 1.8 µm RMS, 9.5 um P-
V; with 20 Actuators Deflection is reduced to 0.6 µm RMS, 3.3 um P-V.

4-18
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

4.1.1.4 Coatings: Aluminum vs. Silver for the Coronagraph PM, SM, and M3
The basic differences between the two mirror materials are in their reflectivity and polarization be-
havior at oblique incidence besides protection requirements for environmental stability and han-
dling. Both materials have been applied to astronomical telescope optics in the past. While silver
mirrors, without any special enhancements, give >98% reflectance over much of the visible spec-
trum, the sharp cut off around 400nm makes them unsuitable for UV applications, though some
recent laboratory techniques have demonstrated application of UV enhancing coatings for silver
mirrors. For TPF, the very large mirror sizes present major challenges for adopting such techniques
readily. On the other hand, Aluminum mirrors have better UV performance though with lower re-
flectance (typically ~ 92% with a dip to ~ 86% around 800nm) than silver in the visible spectrum.
Hence, choice of aluminum for TPF-C primary (PM), secondary (SM) and tertiary (M3) mirrors
alone will result in a throughput reduction of about 25 to 30% as seen in
Figure 4.1-9 and Figure 4.1-10. While enhancement of Al reflectance may be achieved by employing
more complex protective coatings, manufacturing will be more challenging due to the large size and
consequent uniformity issues. Note that the calculations behind Figure 4.1-9 and Figure 4.1-10 are
based on known optical constants of materials from the literature while the actual optical constants
of these materials depend critically on the process conditions. Therefore, these estimates have to be
taken as a guide only.

The Hubble telescope primary mirror employs aluminum protected by a thin (25nm) layer of MgF2.
This ensures >70% reflectance over the UV spectrum particularly at the Lyman Alpha wavelength
(121.6nm). A similar coating may be chosen for the TPF-C primary mirror. Such a thin layer pro-
vides less reflectance variation over the spectrum while a thicker layer of about 140nm provides less
phase difference between p and s polarizations at oblique incidence. Therefore, the Al mirror per-
formance for TPF-C in the visible spectrum needs to be evaluated with a full system Fresnel propa-
gation analysis including the mask and Lyot stop to assess the effects of polarization splitting, par-
ticularly if two independent polarization paths are not chosen.

In summary, to make the final choice of Al vs. Ag, the following considerations are necessary:

1. Bandwidth and Throughput comparison: Theoretical models based on optical properties

of materials from the literature and employing simple single layer dielectric protective coat-
ings show a throughput loss of about 25 to 30% in the visible spectrum if aluminum is em-
ployed for the PM, SM and M3 mirrors only, leaving the rest of the mirrors as silver based.
However, UV coverage becomes feasible with Aluminum.

2. Polarization splitting, cross polarization leakage and consequent contrast degrada-

tion, if any: The throughput loss depends on the protective layer/s and their thicknesses
which also affect polarization splitting and leakage. Optimizing the protective coatings con-
sidering the polarization behavior (both amplitude and phase) is a necessary study yet to be
done for Aluminum when propagation past all mirrors is considered. Fortunately, the 8th
order occulting mask provides more margins than the 4th order mask and hence the polari-
zation leakage errors introduced by Al mirrors may not be issue. A detailed study with Fres-
nel propagation and final contrast estimate is needed for Al as has been done for Ag.

4-19
TPF-C STDT REPORT

3. Uniformity, durability, cleaning and handling requirements: TPF-C error budgets re-
quire stringent wavefront quality beyond those of other instruments in the past. Coating uni-
formity has to be assured to better than 0.1% in thickness and reflectance, which is a chal-
lenge for either material. While the experience gained with the Hubble mirrors on the coat-
ing, and the care and handling, may be extended to TPF mirrors, scaling up to the 8 × 3.5m
TPF primary mirror will require significant experiments and process technology develop-
ment because conventional thermal evaporation processes are unlikely to guarantee the uni-
formity and durability over such a large area; measurement techniques to the required accu-
racy must also be developed. Durability, handling and cleaning requirements have yet to be
compared for the two materials taking into consideration the manufacturing constraints and
size.

4. Manufacturing constraints / needed technology development in comparison to cur-

rent state of the art: Typically mirror coatings have been done with thermal evaporation
processes; TPF-C mirrors will require more advanced techniques such as ion assisted e-beam
evaporation or sputtering with carefully designed masks appropriate to the particular cham-
ber geometries to ensure uniformity and process controls. Similarly, new measurement tech-
niques and instruments have to be developed to the accuracy levels demanded of TPF-C
mirrors. Technology developments have to happen in both these areas, independent of the
material choice, i.e. Al or Ag.

Unprotected Aluminum vs. Silver

100
Ag
95
Ag x3
Reflectance or Throughput (%)

90 Al 0 deg
Al
Ag 0 deg
85 Al 3 mirrors 0 deg
Al 3 mirrors 12 deg p-pol
80
Al 3 mirrors 12 deg s-pol
Ag 3 mirrors 0 deg
75
Al x3 Ag 3 mirrors 12 deg p-pol

70 Ag 3 mirrors 12 deg s-pol

65

60
200 400 600 800 1000
Wavelength (nm)

Figure 4.1-9. Unprotected Al vs. Ag: Reflectivity and Throughput after 3 Mirrors.
TPF-C primary mirror presents up to 12 deg angle of incidence for the incident rays causing po-
larization splitting in both amplitude and phase.

4-20
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Protected Aluminum vs. protected Silver

100
Ag
95 25nm MgF2 on Al 1 m irror 0
Reflectance or Throughput (%)

deg
Ag x3 25nm MgF2 on Al 3 m irrors 0
90 deg
25nm MgF2 on Al 3 m irrors 12
Al
85 deg p-pol
25nm MgF2 on Al 3 m irrors 12
deg s-pol
80 124nm SiO2 on Ag 3 m irrors 12
deg p-pol
75 124nm SiO2 on Ag 3 m irrors 12
deg s-pol
124nm SiO2 on Ag 3 m irrors 0
70 deg
Al x3 124nm SiO2 on Ag 1 m irror 0
deg
65

60
200 400 600 800 1000
Wavelength (nm)

Figure 4.1-10. Protected Aluminum vs. Silver with Typical Single Layer Overcoats

4.1.1.5 Racetrack/Bandaid Mirror Configurations

After FB1 was frozen significant analyses were performed to increase the performance of the TPF-C
observatory. One analysis consisted of examining different mirror shapes (see Figure 4.1-11). Two
shapes in particular were explored: the racetrack mirror (rectangle with rounded corners) and the
bandaid mirror (rectangle bounded by a circle) (Figure 4.1-11 b and c, respectively). The analysis
investigated the aberration sensitivity, throughput, integration time, and completeness permitted by
the new shape. Variations on mirror length and width were also investigated to maximize perform-
ance and minimize system impacts.

a) b) c)

Figure 4.1-11. Mirror Shapes Corresponding to a) Current FB-1, b) Racetrack, and c) Bandaid. (The
grey area represents the actual shape of the mirror and the white area corresponds
to the Lyot spot size.)

4-21
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Changing the shape of the mirror necessitates decreasing the minor dimension of the mirror to de-
crease mass and shift the center of mass of the telescope. However, with this decrease, the major
dimension may be increased. Several mirror shape cases are outlined in Table 4.1-6.

Table 4.1-6. Comparison of Several Different Mirror Shapes

PM Area Lyot Net Area FWHM PSF 4 λ/D IWA
Primary Mirror Shape 2 2
(m ) Efficiency (m ) Core Area (mas)
8x3.5 Ellptical 21.991 0.340 7.479 1118.6 56.7
8x3.0 Racetrack (r c =0.5m) 23.837 0.449 10.696 741.5 56.7
8x3.0 Bandaid (D=8.0) 23.410 0.440 10.307 766.7 56.7
8x3.0 Bandaid (D=8.1) 23.703 0.440 10.436 757.2 56.0
8x3.0 Bandaid (D=8.2) 23.995 0.440 10.565 748.0 55.3
8x3.0 Bandaid (D=8.3) 24.288 0.440 10.694 739.0 54.7
8x3.0 Rectangle 24.000 0.453 10.875 741.5 56.7

Even with the minor axis decrease, both bandaid and racetrack mirror shapes allow for a larger
physical aperture and larger Lyot stop size than the baseline elliptical primary shape. These features
allow greater throughput with a smaller PSF, thereby reducing the integration time necessary to ob-
serve to the limiting Δmag. Figure 4.1-12 depicts the integration time benefit obtained by using a
band-aid mirror shape.

Figure 4.1-12. Comparison of Integration Times for Different Mirror Configurations (The Integration
Time Values are depicted as a Ratio to that of the Baseline Values. Stars are Sorted by Angle to
the Habitable Zone.)

By also increasing the major dimension of the mirror, we may decrease the IWA. This permits view-
ing of the habitable zone (HZ) closer to the star and greater scientific benefit. Figure 4.1-13 shows
the increase in completeness for different choices of mirror shape.

4-22
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 4.1-13. Comparison of Completeness for Different Band-Aid Shape Mirrors (The Complete-
ness Values are depicted as a Ratio to that of the Baseline Values. Stars are Sorted by Angle to
the Habitable Zone.)

Although the efficiency of the mirror increases dramatically, changing the mirror shape has a nega-
tive impact on the aberration sensitivity. Figure 4.1-14 depicts the increase in aberration sensitivity
for one case of the mirror shape change.

a) b)

Figure 4.1-14. Comparison of Aberration Sensitivity of the Baseline Mirror and the 8 x 3.0m
Bandaid Mirror (The Horizontal Line Represents the Contrast Limit for FB1.)

4-23
TPF-C STDT REPORT

The 8 × 3 m bandaid is 2–4 times (for different aberrations) more sensitive to aberrations than the
baseline design. This sensitivity would increase slightly for mirrors with a larger major dimension.
However, the sensitivity increase can be accommodated via error budged reallocations. Because of
the significant positive impact on scientific gain, new mirror shapes, in combination with other
beneficial alternative designs, should be employed for future design iterations.

4.1.2 Starlight Suppression System Alternatives

The telescope diameter required to reach the TPF-C science goals is largely driven by the corona-
graph performance, especially its throughput and IWA. The coronagraph design adopted for the
TPF-C baseline has a 4 λ/D IWA and ~20% throughput.

In the last years, many new high contrast coronagraph designs have emerged, and several appear to
theoretically offer ~2 λ/D IWA and a nearly 100% throughput (function of the coronagraph spec-
tral bandwidth – see Section 4.1.2.2). If adopted for TPF-C, such coronagraphs could halve the tele-
scope diameter or, for the same telescope diameter, greatly increase scientific return. Although these
coronagraphs have lower TRL than the TPF-C baseline coronagraph, the huge potential gain in per-
formance/cost they could bring justifies further investigation, as they could enable a significantly
simpler/smaller TPF-C.

4.1.2.1 FB1 Simplification

Analyses performed during and subsequent to the FB1 study have led to several simplifications of
the SSS that will improve throughput and bandwidth, relax fabrication tolerances, improve redun-
dancy, and simplify design. These improvements, discussed below, are:

ƒ Eliminate polarizers, controlling all the light in one optical train.

ƒ Eliminate the Michelson dual-DM configuration and replace it with a 3-DM sequential ar-
rangement.
ƒ Use superior (but within the existing state-of-the-art) optics in critical parts of the beam
train.

4.1.2.1.1 Elimination of Polarizing Beam Splitters and Second Polarization Chan-

nel
The present SSS design has two orthogonal polarization channels, each with it own coronagraph,
wave front control system, and detectors. The system was designed this way because the band-
limited 4th-order coronagraph masks in the Lyot coronagraph do not sufficiently filter the low-order
aberrations resulting from non-normal angles of incidence across the primary, secondary, M3, and
M4. Other optics are used at low-angles of incidence or in collimated beam space and do not sig-
nificantly affect polarization performance. If the two polarizations are not separated, the wave front
control system can only control one, or the mean of the two, but not both simultaneously to the re-
quired levels (Balasubramanian et al, 2005).

4-24
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

The polarizations are split before the wave front control system using two sequential polarizing
beamsplitters (PBS). The PBS’s are challenging optics for several reasons, including optical coating
bandwidth, multiple-reflection control, and strict birefringence requirements.

In FB1, the 4th order masks have been replaced by 8th-order masks (Kuchner, Crepp & Ge 2005,
Shaklan & Green, 2005a). The 8th-order masks have greatly reduced sensitivity to low-order aberra-
tions (at the expense of throughput in the Lyot aperture). With 8th-order masks, the polarization-
induced tilt, focus, astigmatism, coma, trefoil, and spherical aberrations are filtered to better than 10-
12 contrast. This is sufficient to warrant eliminating the polarizing beamsplitters and the du-
plicate optical train that follows.

One drawback of this approach is that the coronagraph mask must be polarization-insensitive. Our
analysis and experimental work on HCIT have shown that binary mask forms (e.g. so called ‘notch-
filter’ masks (Kuchner 2003)) won’t work; they limit image plane contrast to ~ 1e-8 when one po-
larization is controlled to 1e-10.

4.1.2.1.2 Alternative to Michelson DM configuration

Deformable mirrors control the shape of the wave front surface. When they are arranged in a
Michelson interferometer configuration, the surfaces interfere and can control both the amplitude
and phase of the wave front (Littman et al 2002). The amplitude control is wavelength-dependent
(the field amplitude varies as the square of the wavelength). This limits the useful optical bandwidth
and places tight requirements on any reflectivity non-uniformity across the aperture that does not
have quadratic wavelength dependence.

Shaklan & Green (2005b) have shown that a sequential DM configuration presents wavelength-
independent amplitude control. This relaxes both the amplitude uniformity requirement and
the surface uniformity requirement for optics located at non-pupil plane locations. In the latter
case, the propagation of the wave front to the pupil introduces a wavelength-dependent amplitude
term that is perfectly cancelled by propagation from the non-pupil DM.

Figure 4.1-15 shows a proposed configuration (from Shaklan & Green 2005b). The system has 3
DMs in series. Two of them are in non-pupil locations, while the third is at a pupil. In this arrange-
ment, broad-band amplitude and phase control is achieved with any two of the three DMs. Thus the
system is robust against DM failure.

The arrangement also has the advantage of eliminating the Michelson beamsplitter and associated
compensation wedges. The beamsplitters, like the PBS, has limited optical bandwidth and tight bire-
fringence specifications.

4-25
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Collim. CDM M1 M2 DMnp,1 DMp DMnp,2

Cass.
Focus
1 f1=2.5 f2=2.5 1 zDM=3 zDM=3

Figure 4.1-15. 3-DM Sequential Arrangement. The DMs are the 3 surfaces on the right side of the
figure. DMp is at a pupil image.

4.1.2.1.3 Use of State-of-the-Art Optics at Critical Locations in the Optical Train

Throughout the FB1 study, the optical train from M3 (the first fold after the secondary mirror) to
the coronagraph mask were assumed to have 2–6 nm rms. wavefront quality. The best performance
was reserved for the M3 and M4 where the lateral beam walk is most severe. These are also the loca-
tions where the largest phase-to-amplitude coupling via wave front propagation occurs.

We have shown that through the use of SoA optics of quality comparable to those manufactured for
extreme-ultraviolet applications, the phase-to-amplitude coupling is reduced to tolerable levels (as-
suming the sequential DM configuration) (Shaklan & Green, 2005b). This change also reduces
beam-walk effects and may allow the rigid-body pointing and structural stiffness requirements to
relax by a factor of a few. The optics have RMS wave fronts of ~ 0.3 nm and are ~10 cm in diame-
ter. For TPF-C, there is performance margin for low spatial frequencies up to about 20 cycles per
aperture. For larger spatial frequencies, it is desirable to improve the PSD compared to the state-of-
the-art.

REFERENCES

K. Balasubramanian, D. Hoppe, P. Z. Mouroulis, L. Marchen, and S. Shaklan. “Polarization com-

pensating protective coatings for TPF-Coronagraph optics to control contrast degrading cross po-
larization leakage.” to appear in Proc. SPIE 5905 (2005)

Kuchner, M.J., Crepp, J., & Ge, J., 2005, ApJ 628, 266

Kuchner, M.J. & Spergel, D.N., 2003, ApJ 594, 617

M.G. Littman, M. Carr, J. Leighton, E. Burke, D. N. Spergel, and N. J. Kasdin, “Phase and ampli-
tude control ability using spatial light modulation and zero path length difference Michelson inter-
ferometer,” in Future EUV/UV and Visible Space Missions and Instrumentation, J. C. Blades and O. H.
W. Siegmund, eds., Proc. SPIE 4854, 405-412 (2003).

Shaklan, S.B. & Green, J.J. 2005a ApJ 628, 474

Shaklan & Green 2005b. “Reflectivity and Optical Surface Height Requirements in a Broad-band
Coronagraph I: Contrast Floor Due to Controllable Spatial Frequencies.” To be published in Applied
Optics July 20, 2006.

4-26
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

4.1.2.2 Pupil Remapping

In pupil re-mapping (also referred to as Phase-Induced Amplitude Apodization, PIAA), an apodized
beam suitable for high contrast imaging is produced by geometrical redistribution of light in the pu-
pil plane rather than selective absorption (Guyon 2003, Traub & Vanderbei 2003, Guyon et al. 2005,
Vanderbei & Traub 2005). The apodization is performed by reflection on two aspheric mirrors, as
shown in Figure 4.1-16. The system is designed to deliver a beam with a prolate radial surface
brightness profile, therefore allowing high contrast (better than 10-10) in the focal plane. In Figure
4.1-16, the two-pupil remapping mirrors are shown in red, and the gray scale corresponds to light
intensity. Light from the telescope's unapodized beam enters the system in the top left. After reflec-
tion on the two mirrors, a collimated apodized beam is produced and shown here exiting the figure
in the lower right.

Figure 4.1-16. Cut Through a Pupil Remapping System

A coronagraph utilizing pupil re-mapping offers the following advantages:

ƒ Achieves high contrast (10-11) at small IWA (50% max throughput at 1.88 λ/D). Allowing for
the fact that the planet image needs to be unaffected by the coronagraphic mask for a sig-
nificant fraction of its orbit and for the finite stellar size as described in Section 4.1.1.2, we
therefore expect to be able to detect planets on orbits as small as 2 λ /d. The ability to
search for planet at this angular separation (0.1” in the visible) is key to accessing the habit-
able zone of nearby stars.

ƒ High throughput (~90%) and 360 degree search area. The low intrinsic luminosity of
planets within the HZ imposes strong requirements on the throughput and efficiency of the
coronagraph. The PIAA system throughput is a function of the "instantaneous" bandpass,
and ranges from 60% for a system designed to perform 1e-10 contrast across the whole visi-
ble band in one shot to ~90% for a system with independent wavefront correction in

4-27
TPF-C STDT REPORT

smaller (~0.1 micron wide) bands.

ƒ Preserves the telescope's angular resolution. Thanks to the absence of an undersized

Lyot pupil plane stop, the planet light is confined into a single λ /d – wide diffraction core.
This is critical to minimize the amount of zodiacal and exozodiacal light mixed with the
planet light, and provides additional robustness against confusion with exozodiacal features,
coronagraphic leaks, background sources and other planets.

ƒ Can be designed with high level of achromaticity. Pupil apodization is performed by

geometric reflection of mirrors, which is a very achromatic process. When diffraction propa-
gation effects are taken into account, the aspheric shape of the mirrors is a source of chro-
matic diffraction effects (Vanderbei 2006). The recently developed “hybrid” PIAA design
(Pluzhnik et al. 2006), which relies on both PIAA apodization and classical apodization and
can be designed to maintain high contrast simultaneously in a broad spectral band, at the
cost of a mild loss of light in the classical apodizer(s).

ƒ Provides appropriate level of robustness to stellar angular size.

Thanks to the combined effect of small IWA, high throughput and full search area, a pupil re-
mapping-based coronagraph can theoretically perform as well as a classical apodization-based coro-
nagraph on a telescope ~3 times smaller in diameter (Martinache 2006). Compared with a Band-
limited Lyot type coronagraph, the gain offered is equivalent to a factor ~2 in telescope diameter.

A preliminary laboratory experiment with lenses has demonstrated the principle of lossless apodiza-
tion of a collimated beam (Galicher et al. 2005). A high contrast imaging coronagraph utilizing pupil
re-mapping and wavefront control is currently being assembled at Subaru Telescope (project co-
funded by JPL and Japan/Subaru Telescope).

Current theoretical work on this coronagraph include algorithms for wavefront control in a close
loop correction and sensitivity to low order aberrations.

REFERENCES

Galicher, R., Guyon, O., Otsubo, M., Suto, H., Ridgway, S.T., 2005, PASP, 117, 411
Guyon, 2003 A&A, 404, 379
Guyon, O., Pluzhnik, E.A., Galicher, R., Martinache, F., Ridgway, S.T., & Woodruff, R.A., 2005,
ApJ, 622, 744
Martinache, Guyon, Pluzhnik & Galicher, 2006, ApJ, 639, 1129
Pluzhnik, E.A., Guyon, O., Ridgway, S.T., Martinache, F., Woodruff, R.A., Blain, C., Galicher, R.
2006, accepted to ApJ
Traub & Vanderbei, 2003, ApJ, 599, 695
Vanderbei & Traub, 2005, ApJ, 626, 1079
Vanderbei, 2005, ApJ, 636, 528

4-28
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

4.1.2.3 Optical Vortex Coronagraph

Conventional coronagraphs utilize an opaque amplitude mask to obstruct starlight, allowing imaging
of faint, nearby objects. Unfortunately, the performance of a conventional coronagraph rapidly de-
grades with increased spectral bandwidth and increased wave-front aberrations. The optical vortex
coronagraph (OVC) is a unique and innovative solution to these problems.

Unlike the conventional coronagraph, an OVC makes use of a transparent optical vortex mask
(OVM). The layout is similar to a conventional Lyot coronagraph (Figure 4.1-17). The OVM is cre-
ated by etching a helical relief pattern into an optical surface as depicted in Figure 4.1-18(a). The
azimuthally varying surface of the mask transforms the impinging wavefront into a helix. Total de-
structive interference occurs along the axis of the helix attenuating an on-axis source without signifi-
cantly affecting the images of other nearby objects (i.e. planets or dust disks). An OVC may be de-
signed to null over a significant portion of the exit pupil, increasing the planet light throughput and
decreasing the inner working angle of the coronagraph [Foo et al. (2005) and Mawet et al. (2005)].
Previous work illustrated that compared to an 8th-order Lyot coronagraph, an OVC exhibits less
sensitivity to aberrations, obtains higher planet light throughput, and yields a higher planet/star con-
trast than a conventional coronagraph (Palacios (2005)). Additionally, simulations demonstrate than
an achromatic OVM may be designed for broadband operation (Swartzlander (2005)).

Figure 4.1-17 An Unfolded Model of an Optical Vortex Coronagraph. Lens (L1) Represents the
Telescope Optics, which Focus the Light from the Entrance Pupil onto an Optical Vortex Mask
(OVM). Lens (L2) Collimates the Light forming an Exit Pupil where we Place a Lyot Stop. A Third
Lens (L3) Re-Images the Light to the Final Focal Plane at (FP).

A key performance criterion used to compare various coronagraph architectures is the sensitivity of
the system to low-order aberrations (Green and Shaklan (2005)). The OVC demonstrates an aberra-
tion sensitivity that is proportional to the OVM’s topological charge (m), which is equal to the phase
increase in a single revolution about the axis of its helical surface divided by 2π radians (Figure
4.1-18). Previous work quantified this proportionality, giving a 2mth order sensitivity to tip/tilt aber-
rations (Foo et al. (2005)). Therefore, an m=4 OVM will obtain an 8th order sensitivity to tip/tilt
aberrations, rivaling that of the 8th order amplitude occulting masks presently under investigation for
high contrast imaging. The contrast obtained from an m=5 OVC (Lyot stop = 0.52 x pupil diame-
ter) at 4 λ/D is plotted in Figure 4.1-19 for several low-order Zernike polynomials. In this configu-
ration, the throughput at 4 λ/D is equal to that of an 8th-order mask but the OVC aberration sensi-

4-29
TPF-C STDT REPORT

tivity is substantially relaxed. The OVC allows one to trade throughput with aberration sensitivity by
applying a smaller or larger topological charge.

Figure 4.1-18 A Comparison of the Relief Patterns of Two Types of m=4 Vortex Phase Masks. a.)
The Helical Relief Pattern of an m=4 Single Spiral Vortex Mask. b.) The Multi-Ramp Relief Pattern
of an m=4 Propeller Vortex Mask. The Topological Charge of the Mask is the Total Phase Change
around the Center of the Spiral/Propeller Divided by 2p.

Since the aberration sensitivity decreases with increasing values of m, OVMs with higher topological
charge are desirable. However, construction of a single-spiral OVM with a topological charge m>4
is difficult with current technologies. One way to alleviate this concern is by clustering several heli-
cal phase ramps in a propeller shape, creating a propeller OVM. This configuration produces the
same effect as a single spiral OVM (Figure 4.1-17) while decreasing the etching difficulties. It is also
possible to combine several vortex masks of low topological charge to obtain the same result as a
single spiral OVM. For example, placing two m=2 vortex masks together will have the same effect
on starlight as a single m=4 vortex mask. Alternative architectures that make use of this characteris-
tic include stacked masks, re-imaged vortex masks, and multiple vortex beam recombination.

z=2
z=4
z=5
10-12 z=7
z=9
z=11
z=12

10-13

C
10-14

10-15

10-16
0.1 1
Aberration Level (waves peak-to-valley)
Figure 4.1-19 Plots of Contrast vs. Aberration Level (Waves Peak-to-Valley) Depicting the Aberra-
tion Sensitivity of an M=5 Vortex Coronagraph to Low-Order Zernike Modes (Z=2-12). Only one of
each of Tip/Tilt, Astigmatism, Coma, and Trefoil, are Shown Since their
Curves were Nearly Identical.

4-30
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Additionally, the operating spectral bandwidth of an OVM may be significantly increased by deposit-
ing a glass layer on top of the spiral substrate layer (Swartzlander (2005)). By choosing glasses with
complimentary dispersion properties, the induced helical phase shift of the mask may be equalized
over a wide spectral bandwidth (Δλ ~100nm). This allows for a vortex of equal topological charge
(i.e. equal nulling) to form for each wavelength within the spectral range of interest. Simulations of
an OVM composed of an F5 Schott glass spiral substrate and a deposited layer of N-SK15 Schott
glass demonstrate less than ± 2.5% change in the topological charge over an operating bandwidth of
~140nm (central wavelength = 550nm). This small variation in topological charge doesn’t degrade
the on-axis nulling of the OVM.

REFERENCES

G. Foo, D.M. Palacios, G.A. Swartzlander Jr. 30, 3308 (2005).

D. Mawet, P. Riaud, O.Absil, and J. Surdej, APJ 633, 1191 (2005).
D.M. Palacios, Proc. SPIE 5905, Article # 5905-25 (2005).
G.A. Swartzlander Jr., Opt.Lett. 30, 2876 (2005).
J.J. Green and S.B. Shaklan, Proc. SPIE 5170, 25 (2003).
P.G. Halverson, M.Z. Ftaclas, K. Balasubramanian, Proc. SPIE 5905, Article # 59051I (2005).
G.A. Swartzlander Jr., Opt. Lett. 26, 497 (2001).

4.1.3 Instrument Concept Studies

4.1.3.1 CorSpec Instrument Description
The coronagraphic spectrograph (CorSpec) team explored an instrument concept that would fulfill
all four scientific objectives of TPF-C by:
ƒ Spectrally characterizing the atmospheres of detected planets;
ƒ Directly detecting terrestrial planets in the habitable zone around nearby stars;
ƒ Studying all constituents of a planetary system including terrestrial and giant planets, gas and
dust around sun-like stars of different ages and metallicities;
ƒ Enabling simultaneous, high-spatial-resolution, coronagraphic spectroscopy of AGNs, su-
pernovae, and other objects requiring high-contrast spectroscopy.

The instrument concept consists of a set of four integral field spectrographs (IFS), each covering a
spectral band Δλ/λ~22% wide, and together covering the full spectral range of TPF-C. Each IFS has
a 134 × 134 microlens array to obtain an R~70 spectrum of each Nyquist-sampled image element in
the coronagraphic field, and each uses a photon-counting charge-multiplication CCD to record the
~18,000 spectra. Figure 4.1-20 shows the layout of one of the four spectrographs including calibra-
tion hardware. Figure 4.1-21 shows a simulated spectrogram of the 18,000 spectra.

4-31
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Integrating Sphere Integrating Sphere Camera Mirror One of four

Mirror/mechanism instruments
Entrance TPF-C Focal Plane
Port
Prism/grating Wheel

Fold Mirror Magnifier

Collimator Mirror
Detector Box
Fold Mirrors
Field Flattener
Focal Plane

Lenslet Arrays (see next chart)

Figure 4.1-20. Layout of One of Four IFS Units

Figure 4.1-21. Simulation of a CorSpec Observation of a Fanciful Source

Each of the 18,000 spectra will be extracted and inserted into a data-cube like the one shown in
Figure 4.1-22 . The dimensions of the data-cube are 134 × 134 × 45. The data-cube can then be
sliced and/or collapsed to form:

ƒ Monochromatic images at a selected wavelength;

ƒ Spectra of planets or unresolved disk structures;
ƒ Pictures of wavefront sensing performance.

4-32
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

.
Figure 4.1-22. IFS Data Cube

While the CorSpec concept is compatible with all types of masks in TPF-C’s starlight suppression
system (SSS), it assumes that the facility SSS is composed of four independent units, each optimized
for a given spectral band, and that each unit is capable of suppressing the starlight to an acceptable
level over a passband 22% wide. Members of the CorSpec team have developed a preliminary con-
cept design of the starlight suppression system.

4.1.3.2 CorECam
The CorECam instrument concept study addressed the requirements and science program for TPF-
C’s primary camera. The CorECam concept has been evaluated on the basis of the TPF-C and Star-
light Suppression System (SSS) architecture presented in the PIP and FB1 documents.

CorECam provides a simple interface to the Starlight Suppression System (SSS) provided by the
TPF-C Project, and comprises two camera modules (one per SSS polarization channel), each provid-
ing a visible, and near-infrared (NIR) camera focal plane camera (Figure 4.1-23). In its primary op-
erating mode, CorECam will conduct the core science program of TPF-C, detecting terrestrial plan-
ets at visible wavelengths. CorECam additionally provides the imaging capabilities to characterize
terrestrial planets, and con-duct an extended science program focused on investigating the nature of
the exosolar systems in which terrestrial planets are detected. An alternative to this architecture
would be three visible and one infrared channel, fed by a dichroic chain.

The CorECam science program focuses on detecting terrestrial planets, with an extended program
to characterize these terrestrial planets and the exosolar systems in which they are found. One addi-
tional goal, however, has further motivated the design of our instrument. We believe that under-
standing how these exosolar systems are populated by planets and dust is fundamental in addressing
the larger question regarding the origins or life. Indeed, addressing this question may actually help
focus the search for systems with terrestrial planets. The CorECam strawman filters (Figure 4.1-24)
have been chosen to optimize the detection and characterization of terrestrial planets, while provid-
ing flexibility to photometrically characterize planets with un-expected spectral characteristics, as
well as gas giant planets.

4-33
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 4.1-23. Schematic of the Baseline CorECam Design

Figure 4.1-24. CorECam Filter Complement, Shown with Spectra of Earth, Jupiter, and Uranus

CorECam provides additional capabilities to TPF-C beyond the core science requirement by going
to longer wave-lengths. The CorECam’s near-infrared capabilities can be used to characterize a sub-
set of terrestrial planets detected at wider angular separations. CorECam’s expanded wavelength
coverage allows more flexibility to study all types of terrestrial planets, including those not known in
the Solar system. CorECam’s images of terrestrial planets in the habitable zone of nearby stars could
simultaneously reveal extrasolar giant planets (EGPs) and super-Earth planets (SEPs), i.e. predomi-
nantly rocky planets substantially more massive than Earth. CorECam will also observe the interplay
between planets and planetesimal reservoirs, observed as disks, and trace their planetary system ar-
chitectures.

4-34
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

In order to evaluate the performance of CorECam we have developed a comprehensive, end to end
model using OSCAR (Figure 4.1-25). Design parameters from the TPF-C flight baseline-1 (FB1)
were collected and input to OSCAR along with the set of defined science filters for CorECam. The
output of the OSCAR consisted of star/planet images as “seen” through TPF-C with wave-
front/amplitude control and with residual speckle and detector effects. For each planet to star an-
gular separation, an ensemble of images were generated and averaged to obtain the contrast and er-
ror bars. Image post-processing was also incorporated via rotation and averaging and by matched
filtering (sharpness), the contrast was calculated and the results parameterized. The CorECam model
provides an independent assessment of focal plane contrast as a function of wavefront error. A
number of key conclusions can be made based on our model results:

ƒ Contrast is not uniform as a function of IWA, as shown in Figure 4.1-26.

ƒ Broadband imaging will degrade the inner working angle.

ƒ Image processing is required to detect extrasolar terrestrial planets, as shown in Figure

4.1-27. Any relaxation of TPF-C’s wavefront error requirements results, due to sub-
allocation of requirements, could result in more demanding raw data processing require-
ments

ƒ A significant fraction of targets can be imaged in the near-infrared providing improved

photometric characterization.

Figure 4.1-25. Propagation through Starlight Suppression System

OSCAR modeling of TPF-C and CorECam is also being employed to address issues related to
Wavefront sensing and control. In particular we propose several alternative approaches for CorE-
Cam which might significantly enhance the performance of TPF-C by relaxation of stability re-
quirements.

Phase retrieval is performed simultaneously from the occulter bright image and coronagraphic im-
age. One way to mitigate the low photon counts is to deliberately introduce a known error into the
system, such as focus, or partially mispointing, or wave-length changes a technique we call Speckle
Straddling. We also recommend the study of speckle nulling in combination with phase retrieval to
increase focal plane coverage. The use of parallel versus serial DMs also provides possible benefits

4-35
TPF-C STDT REPORT

in the form of chromatic correction of both amplitude and wavefront errors that occur at both pupil
and focal planes.

Figure 4.1-26. Planet-to-Star Mean Contrast with Error Bars

Figure 4.1-27. Raw and Processed Focal Plane Image

4-36
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

4.1.3.3 Broadband Camera/Spectrometer for Terrestrial Planets

Angel and Guyon have led development of an instrument with integrated star suppression system
for imaging and spectroscopy of terrestrial exoplanets with 0.5-1.5 μm cover. It combines the sup-
pression methods of pupil mapping or ‘phase induced aperture apodization method’ (PIAA) and
anti-halo apodization (AHA). The two methods in conjunction promise not only close inner work-
ing distance, but high sensitivity over a full 360° field without the losses in resolution and flux inher-
ent in the baseline Lyot system. The instrument incorporates dichroic mirrors to allow simultaneous
full spectral cover from 0.5–1.5 µm. The combination of increased throughput, resolution, field
cover and bandwidth yields more than an order of magnitude reduction in integration time com-
pared to the baseline design. This combined with closer inner working angle allows for a much
richer observing program.

In the PIAA method apodization is made with two mirrors figured so that uniform-amplitude light
incident at the first mirror is reshaped to illuminate the second mirror with higher density in the
middle and a tapered (apodized) profile toward the edge. The second mirror is shaped to compen-
sate the wave front and form diffraction limited images with a sharp core and low wings at the image
plane. Because there is no Lyot stop, no pupil shear, and no masking of the pupil, this approach has
very high throughput and also avoids the image broadening of the other methods. It focuses the
starlight into a sharp spot enabling detection of planets perhaps as close as 2 λ/D radius from the
star. Since these apodizers only do a small part of the beam shaping work, they do not have the
same challenging requirements or light losses as a classic pupil apodizer.

AHA is a new interferometric technique to sense and suppress the weak residual starlight halo that
becomes apparent after the diffraction halo is removed by PIAA and the stellar core blocked by fo-
cal plane field stop. The suppression is accomplished by destructive interference with an explicitly
created anti-halo which has the same amplitude but opposite phase to that measured for the residual
halo. Like PIAA, AHA loses almost no light from the planet and works over the full angular field.
The anti-halo is created explicitly from the coherent core starlight removed at the focal plane, with
the aid of two deformable mirrors in the Michelson configuration conjugated to the final image
plane. The two opposing halos are combined at a semitransparent beamsplitters where only the
starlight halo is cancelled. The planet light itself is incoherent and cannot be suppressed by interfer-
ence. The measurement of the complex amplitude of the halo is made within the same interferome-
ter. Halo images are recorded to show the effects of interference with starlight reference beams of
uniform amplitude and different phases, and from these the phase and amplitude of the halo speck-
les is derived by standard phase shifting metrology method. The photon noise of the zodiacal back-
ground does not interfere with this measurement provided the reference beam intensity is made
brighter. In operation the interferometer will cycle between these measurement and nulling modes,
with the same photon counting detector array serving to both measure the halo complex amplitude
and as the science detector. In this way common path errors are completely eliminated.

Both the PIAA and AHA methods work best over a limited bandwidth, and so our implementation
calls for division of the incoming light into multiple wavelength channels by cascaded dichroic mir-
rors, before the focal plane stops. In this way the planet can be observed over spectral channels cov-
ering simultaneously 0.5–1.5 microns. Photon counting detectors with negligible dark count will be
used, so signals from the different spectral bands can be co-added with no noise penalty. Spectro-

4-37
TPF-C STDT REPORT

scopic measurements at resolution higher than the channel bandwidth will be made within the indi-
vidual channels.

We note that if this instrument were adopted for TPF-C, the HST-JWST paradigm in which instru-
ment teams are selected independent of the telescope would break down. This is because the sci-
ence imaging and spectroscopy and the star suppression and wavefront correction systems are of
necessity completely integrated, with the same imaging arrays providing the science data as well as
the wavefront and speckle nulling data. At the start of this award, TPF-C was working on the prem-
ise that there would not be time to develop revolutionary technologies such as PIAA and AHA to
the TRL needed for a Phase A in 2006. Now that TPF is delayed, there is time.

The funding provided by this award has allowed us to complete more extensive analysis of PIAA
and AHA. At the same time advances have been made under separate funding toward lab tests to
be made during the coming year. The key activities are Guyon’s lab test of PIAA, funded by the
TPF project, and Codona’s test of AHA funded by NASA HQ. Optics to test PIAA at the diffrac-
tion limit are now nearing completion, and the components for the first AHA system have been or-
dered.

Figure 4.1-28. On-axis PSFs for an Advanced Hybrid PIAA Design optimized for robustness
against chromatic diffraction propagation effects at 633nm. This particular design can maintain
better than 1e-10 contrast in a 60% bandwidth with a 76% throughput. The PSFs are shown here in
the intermediate focal plane of the PIAA, where a focal plane occulter is placed to block starlight.
Plate scale in this intermediate focal plane is difficult to define, as off-axis sources exhibit strong
aberrations due to the remapping effect. Two plate scale units are therefore shown: the "chief ray"
plate scale, a well-defined unit obtained geometrically by the central ray of the PIAA system, and
the more approximate "effective" plate scale. The "effective" plate scale indicates approximately
where most of the light of an off-axis source falls in this highly distorted intermediate focal plane.
Plate scale is easier to measure in the final focal plane of the PIAA, which is free of such distor-

4-38
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

tions. For a full PIAA system designed as shown in this figure, the IWA (where the planet light
throughput is 76% x 0.5 = 38%) is approximately 1.9 λ/d.

Assuming these first demonstrations are very successful, it will be highly desirable to prove the
PIAA-AHA concept with a smaller space mission. Indeed, because PIAA achieves closer inner
working distance for given aperture, even the smaller apertures that might now be affordable could
have a valuable science program, including exploration of the nearest stars for Earthlike planets.

The progress made during this study in developing the concept and different optical elements of the
system is summarized in Table 4.1-7.

Table 4.1-7. Design Progress

Element Purpose Progress By
1. PIAA Remove diffrac- Improved performance by a hybrid design in Guyon,
tion rings from which the extreme edge shading is obtained by Pluzhnik,
star classical intensity apodization of 5–25% of the Vanderbei
total flux (Figure 4.1-28). Sensitivity to point-
ing errors studied.
2. Dichroic Wavelength Preliminary design and tolerance analysis shows Macleod
mirror channel separa- that many bands separable while maintaining
tree tion high throughput and good wavefront quality.
3. AHA Suppression Specific optical design developed for the AHA Codona,
boost interferometer, incorporating relatively low Angel, Peng
precision segmented MEMS mirrors to create
the anti-halo
4. 0.5–2 Tip/tilt and low New concept introduced for phase diversity Guyon
λ/D order sensor < sensor fed by reflecting annulus, provides pi-
guider 2λ/D cometer level measurement of tip/tilt and low
order errors
5. Photon Sense exoplanets Single photon imaging array detectors covering Woodgate,
counting and complex 0.5–1.5 µm range studies (CCDs with gain, im- Angel
imagers amplitude of age tubes with IR photocathodes and transi-
star halo in tion edge superconductor sensor arrays (TES)
search field

4.1.3.4 Wide-Field Camera

One Instrument Concept Study (ICS) focused on a program of general astronomy for TPF-C and
found a promising fit for imaging with a wide-field camera (WFC). Within the guideline that general
astronomy should not affect the number or nature of planetary observations, the WFC has unique
and truly astonishing scientific potential. It would be an instrument unrivaled by any other currently
planned, on the ground or in space.

4-39
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Operating in parallel mode, taking no time from the coronagraph, the WFC would obtain the deep-
est and widest survey of the cosmos ever (Figure 4.1-29). The survey would address multiple prob-
lems in the high-redshift universe, notably galaxy evolution, which is poorly understood at the cur-
rent time and will not be resolved by Webb’s small sample size. In order to understand which early
galaxies evolve into which modern ones, we need excellent resolution, broad wavelength coverage,
high sensitivity—and a huge sample. Good statistics are required to key galaxies to their clustering
properties, in order to follow populations of galaxies in time. No currently envisioned observing
program besides TPF-C’s deep parallel survey can perform this epochal research.

In a five-year mission, parallel observations with the WFC could produce a survey of 10 deg2 of sky
to beyond 30th magnitude. Such a survey would comprise 1000 times more cosmic volume than the
various Hubble deep fields and greater sensitivity than any of them.

Figure 4.1-29. The Deep Parallel Survey of the TPF-C Wide-Field Camera (WFC) will surpass cur-
rent and future space-based surveys by order of magnitude in both depth and area. (Shown for
800 nm.)

The powerful features of TPF-C for general astronomy are its great aperture for collecting light, and
its sharp and stable point-spread function, useful for precision photometry, astrometry, and mor-
phology. The limiting magnitudes for the coronagraph and WFC will be similar: the typical corona-
graphic exposure time of 50 hours (to detect a 32nd magnitude terrestrial planet located 0.1 arcsec
from a 6th magnitude target star) will permit the WFC to record starbursts in an L* galaxy at z = 4,
reach a 12 Gyr main-sequence turnoff for stellar populations in galaxies at 2 Mpc, and measure the
proper motion of any solar-type star in our galaxy (except for extinction).

4-40
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

In pointed mode, the WFC could extend Hubble-type imaging to 10× greater sensitivity and 3× bet-
ter resolution for physical studies of faint and distant galaxies and clusters of galaxies, records of
star-formation in nearby galaxies, and star-forming regions in our own galaxy (see Figure 4.1-30).
Only the WFC can fully investigate objects and phenomena found by Spitzer, Chandra, or Webb. In
the next decade, no other instrument but the WFC is planned to replace Hubble’s sharp and stable
point-spread function over a wide field of view, which have proven invaluable across the frontiers of
modern astrophysics.

Figure 4.1-30. The Improved Resolution and Sensitivity of TPF-C’s WFC Compared with Webb and
Hubble. The Simulated Object is an L* galaxy at z = 4 Observed in a Broadband Filter Centered at
~900 nm.

Such powers would not be surprising for so large telescope optimized for general astronomy. How-
ever, it is unexpected and remarkable that these powers may be available at the same time the coro-
nagraph is searching for planets around bright stars.

Figure 4.1-31. The Parallel-Mode Limiting Magnitudes—Approaching or Exceeding 30th Magni-

tude—For the two fields of View (FOVs) in the ICS. The Exposure Time is Dictated by the Corona-
graph Searching A V = 4, I = 3.31 Target Star to its Sensitivity Limit (Δmag0 = 25). The Degradation
Of WFC Limiting Magnitudes is Greater than One Magnitude only within about 20” of the Corona-
graphic Aperture.

4-41
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 4.1-32. The Limiting Magnitude for Point Sources will be fainter than 30th magnitude for
WFC observations in parallel with planet searches of target stars fainter then 4th magnitude,
which includes 86 of the 100 top-ranked TPF-C target stars. Letters refer to positions in Figure
4.1-31. Red for I band, blue for V band.

For purposes of its investigation, the ICS considered the parallel and pointed modes of the WFC to
be instrumentally and operationally distinct. The nominal 16 arcmin2 square FOV for pointed obser-
vations is located on-axis. Outside this, the wedge-shaped FOV for parallel observations extends
nominally to 10 arcmin off axis. The focal-plane design for the on-axis/square/pointed FOV offers
six pass-band filters covering 400–900 nm and detectors with half-critical sampling compensated
operationally by half-pixel dithering. The design uses a dichroic beam-splitter to divide the off-
axis/wedge/parallel FOV into two focal planes, covering 425–850 nm and 850–1700 nm. Each focal
plane has three filters and a grism, and the detectors offer third-critical sampling compensated by
third-pixel dithering. These two octaves of wavelength will permit the parallel survey to fully charac-
terize the spectral energy distributions of objects in the parallel survey at a single epoch.

The genius of the off-axis FOV is the advantage of the roll maneuvers for the coronagraphic obser-
vations. As the telescope rolls around a coronagraphic target star, the cumulative survey area in par-
allel mode increases as the square of the off-axis extent. The ICS team feels that an off-axis extent
three times smaller than nominal, or 3 arcmin (equivalent to the on-axis FOV), would result in an
inadequate survey, of only 1 deg2. An extent three times larger than nominal, or 30 arcmin, would
produce a survey of 100 deg2, which would, for example, put the instrument in the range of the su-
pernova projects for the Joint Dark Energy Mission.

While NASA included space for the on-axis FOV in the call for ICS proposals, it did not foresee the
strong interest in an off-axis FOV, which was consequently not accommodated in the guidelines.

4-42
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Therefore, the compatibility of the off-axis FOV with the baseline telescope and spacecraft designs
is a top issue. To address it, the ICS team developed new tools and metrics.

To address the question of acceptable off-axis performance, the WFC ICS team developed and op-
timized an instrument design, from which the optical designer generated aberrations for each filter
and selected wavelengths as a function of field position. The degradation in signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR), expressed as a delta limiting magnitude for point sources, was evaluated for sampling and
aberrations separately—a new approach to camera design. The ICS team adopted as a working crite-
rion that the delta magnitude in SNR due to aberrations alone should not exceed that due to the
choice of sampling alone. It is possible that alternative telescope designs could improve off-axis ab-
errations without compromising the quality or stability of the wavefront in the coronagraph.

Packaging constraints led the ICS team to a camera design with all refractive optics. CCD and
HgCdTe technology were selected for the short and long wavelengths, respectively. Problems from
cosmic rays seem acceptable.

The ICS team addressed scattered light due to dust and micro-roughness on the TPF-C telescope
mirrors. Their performance model for the WFC is valid if dust contamination is less than 4% cover-
age for 10 micron equivalent dust particles, and if scattering due to micro-roughness is ≤ 10% of the
Hubble level. These are reasonable specifications.

The ICS team studied the question whether the WFC observing program could rely on the pointing
control system developed for the coronagraphic observations. For pointed observations, this means
being able to guide the telescope accurately with ~20th magnitude field stars. The project affirmed
that this performance is available, assuming the option to pick off the star image in the corona-
graphic FOV with a mirror, to feed light to the guidance sensor.

After investigating the opportunity of a WFC for six months, the ICS team is excited about the sci-
entific and technical possibilities. The WFC—instrument and operations—appears technically feasi-
ble, with low or no impact on the coronagraphic program. The team believes that community re-
viewers will rank the scientific program of the WFC on TPF-C highly. They recommend that NASA
include a WFC in the plans for this mission, including awarding it some fraction of mission time for
pointed observations.

A WFC is a low-risk option for TPF-C. It would add greatly to the science return by effectively dou-
bling the mission at only a marginal increase in cost and with a loss in mission time for exoplanets
that could be as low as zero if NASA assigned no pointed time to the WFC. The ICS team for this
study strongly endorses the WFC as beneficial and feasible, and recommends that it be accorded the
stature of a full scientific partner in the TPF-C program and project.

4-43
TPF-C STDT REPORT

4.1.3.5 Visible and Infrared Nulling Coronagraph Spectrometer

4.1.3.5.1 Executive Summary

This report outlines a concept study for a high contrast instrument for the Terrestrial Planet Finder
Coronagraph (TPF-C) mission. The objectives are to develop a nulling coronagraph based imager
and spectrometer concept that will increase the number of planets TPF-C detects, and will expand
the wavelength range of the spectrometer into the near-IR to enable detection of additional unique
visible biomarkers. This instrument utilizes an alternative starlight suppression system (SSS) based
on the principles of nulling interferometry, which allows inner working angles (IWA) within 2–3
λ/D to be obtained, and also to measure low resolution (R = 80) spectra. Equally important, this
concept contains a post starlight suppression wavefront sensor (or calibration wavefront sensor) to
increase the achievable contrast level, and to substantially decrease stability requirements during in-
tegration.

Like band-limited Lyot Coronagraphs, the nulling coronagraph can, in theory, achieve the required
10-10 suppression of starlight within an IWD of 2 λ/D. Coverage of the 0.5 ~1.7 µm wavelength
range is done in intervals of 25% bandwidth. The search for planets will be conducted at short
wavelengths, where the IWA is smaller. Extending spectroscopy to 1.7 µm, the visible and near in-
fra-red signatures of likely atmospheric constituents include oxygen, ozone, water, methane, and
carbon dioxide, some combinations of which are considered to be bio-signatures.

Figure 4.1-33. Simulated Image from TPF-C of an Earth-Like Planet Orbiting Around a G2V-Type
Star at 10 pc.

4.1.3.5.2 Science Drivers: How Many Stars Can Be Surveyed by the Nuller?
Like 4th-order Lyot coronagraphs, the nulling coronagraph, or simply the nuller, has a couple of ad-
vantages over the baseline 8th order mask Lyot coronagraph. One is higher photon throughput, and

4-44
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

the second (more important) is the ability to work at 2 λ/D rather than 4λ/D. This comes at the
expense of greatly increased sensitivity to low-order instabilities in the system (e.g., thermal warping
of the primary mirror). Starting with TPF-C project code, using comparable detection sensitivities,
we have found that on an equal signal to noise basis, that if TPF-C were to repeatedly visit a moder-
ate number of stars, 30~50, the 4th-order nuller would be able to visit those objects between 2~3
times as often for a fixed integration time, increasing the geometric completeness (and the number
planets found) by roughly a factor of ~2.5. (Figure 4.1-34). On the other hand, the nuller has sub-
stantially more optical surfaces than the coronagraph, which is not accounted for in Figure 4.1-34.

Figure 4.1-34. Throughput Advantage of Nulling Coronagraph to See More Targets in a Fixed Ob-
servation Period

In assessing the number of potential targets for the nulling coronagraph, we search through the list
of Hipparcos stars < 30 pc from the Sun brighter than 7 mag. We can calculate the number potential
targets at 2 λ/D and 4 λ/D for several scenarios. The scenarios are 1) discovery at 0.5 ~ 0.6 µm, 2)
detection of oxygen at 0.78 µm, and 3) detection of near IR molecular signatures at 1.6 µm. Table
4.1-8 below lists the number of potential target stars around which an Earth can be detected at vari-
ous wavelengths for a nuller (2 λ/D) and the baseline coronagraph (4 λ/D).

4-45
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 4.1-8. Number of Potential Targets vs. Wavelength

Detect Earth Det Oxygen NIR
Wavelength
(0.5~0.6 µm) 0.78 µm 1.6um
2 λ/D 276 131 20
4 λD 59 19 3

4.1.3.5.3 Nulling Architecture Concept for TPF-C

Our conceptual instrument for TPF-C is called the ‘Boomerang’ configuration and is shown in
Figure 4.1-35. It chief benefit is that the shear which controls the IWD and the control for phase
can be adjusted independently: And at the same time the deformable mirror is only tilted slightly (15
degrees) so that it can be sharply imaged to an intermediate pupil. The candidate TPF configuration
uses 2 of these ‘Boomerangs’ stacked atop the other. The nulled output of the first interferometer is
directed to a second identical nuller via a vertical rooftop mirror. The second nuller works in re-
verse, consequently the output of the second interferometer is located near the input position at the
first beamsplitter.

Figure 4.1-35. Three Dimensional View of Double

‘Boomerang’ Nulling Coronagraph SSS for TPF-C

The top down view shown in the next figure (Figure 4.1-36) shows the optics from the top and bot-
tom layers showing the science leg and the leg to the calibration camera which is on the lower level
interferometer. Light from the science leg is split and directed to the lower nuller by a turning mir-
ror and a vertical roof mirror (needed to maintain the same spatial orientation as the bright output)
to a pair of off axis parabolic (OAP) mirrors. This OAP mirror pair is identical to the one (just be-
low) that focuses the bright output of the interferometer, spatially filters the light through a pinhole,

4-46
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

and then recollimates the reference light. Both beams are then recombined at a beam splitter which
lies below the fiber array. Both outputs are redirected through a triangular mirror to a calibration
camera which simultaneously images both interference patterns. By modulating the phase delay in
these beams, one needs two images to capture 4 phases (0 π/2, π, 3π /2) in the calibration camera
from which the amplitude and phase of the stellar leakage is computed.

The wave front control system configuration is not yet defined. It will likely consist of a pair of
segmented deformable mirrors (DMs) located in the first nuller. The configuration shown includes
one DM.

Input beam
Fiber array

Lyot stop

To science Output beam

camera/spectrometer
Deformable
mirror

Figure 4.1-36. Two Top-Down Views of a Boomerang-Configuration Double-Nulling Interferometer

(Our Configuration for the TPF-C Starlight Suppression System): Left–Overall View and Right–
View Revealing Lower Calibration Leg.

4.1.4 Spacecraft
4.1.4.1 An Alternate Sunshield Configuration
While thermal modeling showed that the baseline conical V-groove sunshield is adequate to its re-
quired shielding task, as the team considered more deeply the practical ramifications of the conical
shield, a number of difficulties surfaced having to do primarily with deployment of the shield as-
sembly in the area of the electronics and detector cooling radiators.

4-47
TPF-C STDT REPORT

It is preferable that the heat pipes feeding these radiators are of the rigid type, and that the radiators
be in a fixed position relative to their heat sources from assembly on. The alternative involves de-
ploying the radiators and using flexible heat transport sections to make this possible, and this was
felt to be unwise from a reliability point of view.

A continuous conical Sun shield would occlude the view from the detector and electronics radiators
to cold space; therefore, it would be necessary to leave a 6-layer “window” in the Sun shield and
somehow “miss the radiators” during shield deployment. This seemed risky at best, and disastrous at
worst. Northrop Grumman Astro Aerospace, specialists in space deployable structures, agreed that
the problem was a sticky one, and the entered into a consideration of alternatives.

The primary alternative Sun shield design that came from Northrup Grumman Astro Aerospace’s
deliberations, aptly dubbed the “sugar scoop” by reason of its shape, is depicted in Figure 4.1-37.

‘sugarscoop’ shields flare

circumferentially as well as
axially, implying better rejection
of perturbing solar energy
radiator location
(under baffle base)

Figure 4.1-37. Sugar-Scoop Sunshield Concept

Since the sugar scoop is wide open in an area where the electronics and detector cooling radiators
might reside, there is no interference to shield deployment.

The sugar scoop Sun shield effectively eliminated the deployment conflict with the fixed radiators.
An intuitive thermal examination of the concept by the team concluded that the new design could
represent improved shielding efficiency in comparison with the conical shield, because the sugar
scoop has two ways to reject potentially disturbing radiant heat: axially and circumferentially.

Therefore, a thermal model of the sugar scoop configuration was built and subjected to the post-
dither distortion test.

Preliminary analytical results suggest that the sugar scoop is as good as, if not better than the conical
design. Further study is needed to reach a firm conclusion.

4-48
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

4.2 Alternative I&T Test

It is highly desirable to have a ground test of the fully configured TPF that accurately reproduces the
operation in space. Not just the optics but the control systems and the control software should ide-
ally all be operated together just as they will in space. The ultimate proof would be to recover the
image of a star and faint planet from a full aperture collimator input, using all the internal wavefront
control and star suppression systems working as on orbit (Angel, Burge and Worden, 2005). While
there will be a significant initial cost of building the test facility, ultimately the overall costs may be
lowered, and the system reliability and confidence will be greatly increased. However, such a test
will not be possible or optimal if it is not allowed for from the start in the telescope design. Thus we
examine first the constraints of a valid test.

To test the TPF-C spacecraft system prior to launch, an off-axis collimator must be used to illumi-
nate the full aperture with a scene of a star and planet at 10-10 contrast.

The general layout of a full system test is shown in Figure 4.2-1. The off-axis collimator at the top of
the vacuum chamber produces an 8-m beam pointing directly down. This orientation is chosen so
that the beam quality can be verified by retro-reflection against a liquid flat, removing the need for
any other metrology elements. For test purpose the liquid does not have to be highly reflective, the
few percent reflection of a transparent liquid surface is adequate. The liquid should be chosen to
have very low vapor pressure and optimum viscosity. Diffusion pump oil is a good candidate. The
collimator could be made following the prototype 8.4 m off-axis mirror at this size now fully funded
and in optical fabrication at the Steward Observatory Mirror Lab for the Giant Magellan Telescope.
The Lab is currently completing the current largest vacuum collimator, an on-axis 6.5 m system for
Lockheed Martin.

The important requirement set by such a liquid-validated collimator system is that the spacecraft un-
der test must be oriented zenith-pointing. The spacecraft optical system should therefore be able to
accommodate operation with or without an axial load of 1g.

A test like this of the FB1 design would not be possible, because of uncorrectable gravity bending of
the primary in the spacecraft configuration. But it would in principle be possible for the alternative
actuated primary described above, given actuators of sufficient authority. The stroke of the actua-
tors would be matched to the bending of the integrated reference structure, so the primary figure
could be corrected under 1 g load as well as in space. The residual local quilting of the facesheet
would be moved to high enough frequency ≥10 cycles across the aperture, so it would not spoil a
test of the critical search region near the star. The optical quality of the collimator need not be sig-
nificantly better than that of the primary. The spacecraft star suppression system would take care of
the residual collimator wavefront errors along with those of the primary.

4-49
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 4.2-1. Test Configuration

(The test beam is produced by an off-axis collimator. By moving the spacecraft to one side, the
beam is validated against a liquid flat.)

The test would be successful only if the vibration and thermal environment were adequately con-
trolled. The test facility would have to be designed from the ground up with these requirements in
mind. We recommend that a feasibility study for the complete test facility be included when TPF
funding again becomes available.

4-50
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

5.0 Key Technologies, TRL Assessment, Development Plans

& Progress to Date
The TPF-C telescope represents a large step between current or near-future heritage and what is re-
quired for a successful mission. This step spans spatial scales from sub-atomic (the wave front sta-
bility scale is sub-Angstrom) to building-size (the deployed dimension including the sun shield is 16
× 37 m).

Driven by mission scale, a central theme in the TPF-C technology plan is that of verification. It will
likely be impossible to test the entire observatory under flight-like conditions prior to launch. Pre-
dictability of success and minimization of risk are therefore paramount. Verification of TPF-C flight
hardware will be accomplished by subsystem and component testing at the most detailed level. The
results of these tests will be used to confirm analytic models, and these models will then be linked
together to estimate the overall performance of TPF-C. By comparing the interaction of individually
tested elements (represented by verified independent models), confidence in the overall systems
model will be obtained. The fidelity of the models and their analytic interfaces will be verified.
Proof that the required tolerances can be achieved in a repeatable and robust manner will be com-
pleted prior to the start of Phase C/D. Such proof will be obtained by measurements of appropri-
ately scaled testbeds and components and correlating these results with models whose scalability and
linearity can be verified. The approach to verification will be an integral part of the architecting and
design process to ensure that what is ultimately designed will be testable.

The overall TPF-C technology plan is introduced in Section 5.1.4 and described in detail in “TPF-C
Technology Plan,” JPL Publication 05-8 available through JPL The following sections address the
current status of TPF-C technology development activities, the technology drivers identified by the
recently-completed Instrument Concept Studies, and the modeling verification and validation ap-
proach.

The TPF-C technology plan identified 4 major technology milestones required to demonstrate suffi-
cient technology maturation to move forward into Phase-A. These milestones are not intended to be
all inclusive but serve only as benchmarks of progress. The first of these technology milestones is
the achievement of better than 1e-9 contrast in laser light over a dark hole spanning the 4th–10th
Airy rings. This was achieved in the JPL High Contrast Imaging Testbed. This exciting result was
achieved using a Xinetics deformable mirror to control the wave front incident on a continuous-
tone band-limited image plane mask in a Lyot coronagraph configuration. The ultimate goal of 1e-
10 contrast in broad-band light is still several years away, but many of the major hurdles to the TPF-
C requirement have been identified, modeled, and overcome in the last year.

5-1
TPF-C STDT REPORT

5.1 TPF-C Mission Risks

This section addresses the key risks of the TPF-C mission, as currently defined. We first describe
our approach to identifying and mitigating TPF-C risks, then list our current identification of key
TPF-C risks, and then put forth a TPF-C team consensus view of priority near-term investments
needed for further mitigation of key TPF-C risks. We conclude by summarizing existing plans that
have been mitigating TPF-C risks.

5.1.1 Approach to TPF-C Mission Risk Mitigation

The TPF-C team adopts an approach to risk mitigation that enables NASA management to identify
early potential risks, including cost, technical and schedule problems, as well as to determine how to
best allocate resources to balance and mitigate those risks. Plans that manage risks early in the TPF-
C development cycle are key to maintaining estimated program schedule and budget. Managing a
crisis late in a program is extremely expensive – a gram of prevention is worth a kilo of cure.

Our risk mitigation approach on TPF-C generally consists of:

ƒ Generating, constantly revisiting and maintaining a list of program risks
ƒ Determining the relative ranking of risks based on estimated probability of occurrence and
potential severity of the consequence should that risk be realized
ƒ Developing and implementing means for balancing and mitigating the highest ranked risks
by means of design changes, technology investments, and programmatic means.

The technical risk mitigation approach had previously been reviewed by the TPF-Technology Advi-
sory Committee (TPF-TAC), the TPF-Science and Technology Definition Team (TPF-STDT), and
NASA HQ. Heretofore it will be reviewed by internal and external stakeholders. A work plan that
outlines this risk mitigation approach and includes measurable quantitative technical targets for func-
tionality and performance was developed and implemented by the project. The risk mitigation strat-
egy and priorities are informed by technology heritage from JWST, SIM, HST, LBTI, Starlight and
Keck-I for individual technologies as well as for integration and test approaches which include vali-
dation through analytical modeling. We recognize that the transfer of technology to the system im-
plementers is a critical component of a successful development program, and we plan for doing
such, as part of NASA's acquisition strategy plans.

5.1.2 Current List of TPF-C Mission Risks

The TPF-C team has continually identified, assessed, and revisited TPF-C risks, guided primarily by
impacts to the system error budget. Table 5.1-1 lists our current key TPF-C mission risks. Addi-
tional risks are expected to be identified as the design and the corresponding error budget continue
to evolve. The error budget is continuously updated to reflect the current estimated system per-
formance. This allows the TPF-C development team, led by the system architect, to balance risks by
relaxing derived performance requirements in one area while more tightly constraining those in an-
other area.

The TPF-C team recognizes that the scientific observing modes imposing the most stringent per-
formance requirements go hand-in-hand with the prioritized technology development plans. As an
example, stability of the system is likely to be driven by the planet detection objective, while the

5-2
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

planet characterization objective is likely to drive the bandwidth requirements. Because science re-
quirements and estimated design performance evolve, the operational modes and their derived im-
plementation requirements are expected to continuously be evaluated and updated.

Table 5.1-1. Current List of TPF-C Mission Risks

Risk Concern
Optical Design and Fabrication
Risks
Wavefront amplitude & phase control DM performance and optical bandwidth
Large primary mirror fabrication CTE uniformity, handling risk, long-lead schedule, etc.
Broadband mask physics May need restricted bandpass & longer integration times
Mirror coating performance Uniformity, reflectivity, polarization, stability, wavelength
Mask and coating characterization Facilities not available at this spatial resolution
Dynamics and Thermal Stability
Risks
Primary surface figure stability Behavior not understood at pico-m level
Secondary tower deployment precision Behavior of hinges, latches, joints not understood down to sub-
and stability nano-m level
Secondary position control Requires laser metrology and hexapod to 25 nm level
Extreme isolation from sun, including roll maneuvers, packaging
V-groove sun-shade & large deployment, and thermal / mechanical stability affect on
stray light
Primary/secondary thermal control Thermal control to sub-milli-K level; isothermal cavity
Verification and Validation Risks
Best mix of integrated observatory performance test and analysis
required & flow, limited by ground test capability (chamber size,
Verification and validation approach
environment, metrology, cost, schedule), at the highest level of
assembly (functional vs. performance).
Test facility environment disturbances and cleanliness preclude
System level mission performance
flight level contrast or wavefront stability tests
Complexity of illuminated full aperture test compared to short-
OTA optical testing
comings of subaperture interferogram stitching.
Removing ground testing condition artifacts (gravity, jitter, drift,
Ground testing not representative of thermal, etc) from results used to accurately predict flight envi-
flight environment ronment system performance margins. Overdriving tests as a
means for validating performance models in flight regime.
Test facility Existence and availability when needed
Primary mirror actuation Impact on performance (ground & on-orbit), if needed
Shipping environment, container height restrictions. Post-
shipment optical verification test versus only testing at the manu-
Transportation
facturing and integration sites. Optimize the number of "pack &
ship" cycles which drive the cost and risk.
Instrument Risks
Integral Field Spectrometer New mask designs for high throughput in multiple channels
Visible Nuller/Spectrometer Overall complexity, throughput, number and type of DMs
Broadband Camera/Spectrometer Optical fabrication, number of DMs, number of detectors
Planet Detection Camera Yet to be identified
Requires diffraction limited telescope, may be driving requirement
General Astrophysics Instrument
on Primary Mirror

5-3
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Risk Concern
Other Risks
Ability to completely characterize planets with current state of
Planet characterization completeness
development of the design
Contamination Partial coherence issues. Current specs are tight.
Launch mass margin May not achieve desired margins
Challenging pointing requirements not yet demonstrated. FGS
Pointing control
not designed yet. I&T, modeling, and RWA minimum impulse.
Stray light May not be able to design and/or test at low levels required
Detectors Photon counting for spectroscopy & planet detection
On-orbit check-out & calibration On-orbit capability to determine performance and adjustability
Analytical modeling fidelity & uncer- Methodology for validating model results at all levels. Includes
tainty methods to bound model predictions for unknown unknowns.
On-orbit deployment Reliable deployment sequence & damage vulnerability
Variability of bio-signatures over orbit may require many repeat
Spectral characterization requirements
visits and/or better spectral resolution than specified

5.1.3 Near-Term Priorities for Key TPF-C Risk Mitigation

The set of highest priority TPF-C near-term mission risk reduction activities, as guidance to
NASA/HQ in their deliberations and planning of near term technology maturation investments re-
lated to the TPF-C science payload, are listed below in no particular order of priority amongst them-
selves. Relevant existing technology development plans are cited where appropriate.

ƒ Demonstration of broadband starlight suppression and model validation (Tech Plan Sect 3.1,
3.2 & 7.4)
ƒ Demonstrations of large mirror fabrication techniques and coating methods (Tech Plan
3.1.2, 3.1.6, 7.4.3, 7.4.7)
ƒ Updated design and performance margins for latest updated SRD
ƒ Formulation of a baseline verification and validation strategy
ƒ Maturation of key technologies in instrument concept designs

5.1.4 Existing Plans for Mitigating Key TPF-C Risks

In 2002, a comprehensive technology plan for TPF was developed by JPL (Technology Plan for the Ter-
restrial Planet Finder, JPL Publication 03-007, March 2003). It put forth the strategies and initial plans
for NASA's investments in TPF risk reductions, as summarized by its roadmap. The driving need
for these planned efforts was to support the TPF architecture decision (coronagraph or interferome-
ter) needed to programmatically focus and establish priorities for mission development. Over the
ensuing four years, much progress has been made in advancing technologies and mitigating driving
risks for TPF.

The TPF-C Technology Plan (JPL Publication 05-8) was then developed and updated, most recently in
March 2005, to refine the TPF Coronagraph team's assessment of risks and plan detailed mitigation
plans addressing TPF-C technology and engineering risks. A summary of the risk mitigation plans
copied here from this TPF-C Technology Plan is included as Table 5.1-2. These plans include clear
paths to mitigate each risk, with corresponding technology roadmaps with milestones, options and

5-4
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

off-ramps. Although cut short by NASA's FY06 and FY07 budget decisions, much progress has
been made towards accomplishing the established 2005 TPF-C Technology Plan as reported later in
this Section.

Table 5.1-2. Technology and Engineering Risks Addressed by the TPF-C Technology Plan
Development Task Where Ad-
Subject Area Error Budget Allocations
dressed
Optics and Starlight
Suppression Technology
Technology Risks
Broadband mask physics Masks consistent with 10-10 con- Apodizing Masks and Stops
trast requirement High Contrast Imaging Testbed
Amplitude and phase wave- Demonstrate sensing and control High Contrast Imaging Testbed
front control to 10-5 wave in mid-spatial fre- Wavefront Sensing and Control
quencies in a flight-like system Deformable Mirror
Planet Detection Simulator
Optical coating performance 10-3 reflectivity uniformity Coatings
and characterization Technology Demonstration Mirror
Straylight 10-11 background Scatterometer
Transmissive Optics Sub-Angstrom wavelength trans- Transmissive Optics Characterization
mission uniformity
Engineering Risks
Large primary mirror fabrica- <25 kg/m2, <7 nm rms surface Technology Demonstration Mirror
tion error at 4–100 cycles\aperture, 8
m class
Contamination Small optics better than class 100 Scatterometer
High Contrast Imaging Testbed
Structural, Thermal and
Spacecraft Technology
Technology Risks
Primary mirror surface figure Sub-nm for up to 24 hours Technology Demonstration Mirror
stability Sub-scale EM Primary Assembly
Testbed
Stability of structures 10–30 nm stability* Precision Structural Stability Testbed
Secondary Mirror Tower Partial Struc-
ture Testbed
Vibration Isolation Testbed
Secondary mirror position con- 25 nm multi-axis control Metrology Components,
trol system Precision Hexapod
Closed-loop Secondary Mirror Posi-
tion Control
Material property characteriza- Precision Structural Stability Testbed
tion
Engineering Risks
Thermal control system mK-class thermal control of pri- Sub-scale EM Primary Assembly
mary mirror and instrument Testbed
Sub-scale EM Sunshield and Isother-
mal Enclosure
Sunshade deployment Sunshade deployment testing
Pointing control 5 mas rigid body pointing Pointing Control Testbed

5-5
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Development Task Where Ad-

Subject Area Error Budget Allocations
dressed
Integrated Modeling and
Model Validation
Technology Risks
Thermo-mechanical analytical Validation of the tools at a con- Sub-scale EM Primary Assembly
modeling fidelity trast level of 10-10 Testbed
Sub-scale Em Sunshield and Isother-
mal Enclosure
Integrated Modeling Tools
End-to-end system testbed Contrast better than 10-10 at <4 High Contrast Imaging Testbed,
modeling and simulation λ/D; 0.5–0.8 microns Planet Detection simulator,
Sub-scale EM Primary Assembly
Testbed
Sub-scale EM Sunshield and Isother-
mal Enclosure
Closed-loop Secondary Mirror Posi-
tion Control

For purposes of guiding TPF-C Technology Plan implementation, risks are considered primarily
technology maturation risks if they represent performance requirements and goals that are beyond
those readily achieved within NASA's state-of-the-art, or are considered as primarily engineering
risks if they represent engineering design implementation challenges. To date, more emphasis has
been placed on technology maturation risks compared to engineering risks, consistent with the early
phase of TPF-C design development.

As the project moves into formulation, the technology development must be balanced within the
funding and programmatic constraints. As the technical risks are better understood, and the details
of the formulation phase technology plan evolve, some risks may have to be accepted without com-
plete mitigation. Technology risks will need to be retired on the schedule described above, while
certain engineering (or design) risks may be accepted. The project will engage the internal and exter-
nal stakeholders to gain agreement on the risk assessment and the details of the mitigation approach.
In parallel, the TPF-C Integration & Test plan will be evolving along with the baseline system tech-
nical design. By the end of pre-Phase A, a preliminary description of essential tasks and tests will be
developed based on the project technical risk mitigation strategy, consistent with the project acquisi-
tion strategy. By the end of formulation, the integration and test plan will be fully defined describing
a risk mitigation driven technical approach.

In pre-Phase A, the TPF-C Technology Plan defines 4 high level technology milestones as technol-
ogy maturation gates to proceed into Phase-A. These technology milestones are not meant to be all
inclusive, but serve only as benchmarks of progress. These 4 high level Technology Milestones are
defined as follows:

Milestone #1: Starlight Suppression

Demonstrate that the High Contrast Imaging Testbed (HCIT) is capable of achieving a base-
line contrast of 1x10-9 (goal 1x10-10) at a 4 λ/D inner working angle, at λ=785 nm and stable for at
least one hour.

5-6
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Milestone #2: Broadband Starlight Suppression

Demonstrate that the HCIT is capable of achieving a baseline contrast of 1x10-9 (goal
1x10-10) at a 4 λ/D inner working angle over a 60 nm bandpass (goal 100 nm) with the center wave-
length in the range of 0.5 µm to 0.8 µm.

Milestone #3: Model Validation and Performance Feasibility

3A: Demonstrate that starlight suppression performance predictions from high-fidelity opti-
cal models of the HCIT, utilizing measured data on specific testbed components, are consistent with
actual measured results on the testbed. Correlation of model predictions with experimental testbed
results validates models at a baseline contrast ratio of better than 1x10-9 (goal 1x10-10) over a 60 nm
bandwidth.

3B: Demonstrate, using the modeling approach validated against the HCIT performance
combined with appropriate telescope models and the current mission error budget, that TPF-C
could achieve a baseline contrast of 1x10-10 over the required optical bandwidth necessary for detect-
ing Earth-like planets, characterizing their properties and assessing habitability.

Milestone Development
To date Milestone 1 is complete and work is proceeding towards demonstrating Milestone 2. Sched-
ules for Milestone completion are not available at this time due to mission deferrement. The intent is
to update the Technology Plan in regular intervals to document progress and to define further tech-
nology milestones in later Project phases. Quantitative milestones for entry into Phase B and C will
be developed by the project based on the design, the error budget and the technical risk mitigation
strategy; reviewed by the TPF-TAC, TPF-STDT, and HQ; and approved by HQ. Approval of the
milestones from HQ is required before the project enters Phase A.

5.2 Telescope Technology

5.2.1 Overview
Many aspects of the TPF-C telescope will require some technology investment before they will be
mature enough to proceed into a flight phase. As is clear from the discussion of requirements
(§3.2.) and the telescope baseline design (§3.3), both the size and stability are significantly more chal-
lenging than prior space observatories. Aspects of technology development we have begun are cov-
ered in subsequent sections.

The technology path towards an 8m × ~3m monolithic, lightweight, off-axis, ultrastable primary
mirror was considered early in the TPF-C program. The result was a set of four studies and a subse-
quent contract award to Kodak Commercial & Government systems division (now ITT Space Sys-
tems) for the Technology Demonstration Mirror [Cohen and Hull]. Most of the technology aspects
for the primary mirror were specifically part of the charter for this mirror and its role in the technol-
ogy development is included as appropriate.

5-7
TPF-C STDT REPORT

5.2.2 PM Blank Technology

While many 8m-class mirrors have been built and are in operation around the world, none have
within a decade of the lightweighting necessary for launch and deployment in deep space. Hence
there is a need to demonstrate a clear path to an 8m lightweight blank that is consistent with all of
the requirements. The TDM study contracts made it clear that glass (including glass ceramics such as
Zerodur) is the only material with a clear path to the required size.

5.2.2.1 Mirror material

Thermal stability studies also showed that with this degree of lightweighting, the usual thermal sta-
bility parameters do not apply and thermal stability directly requires very low coefficient of thermal
expansion; thus there are only two candidate materials (for operation at room temperature); ULE
fused silica (Corning) and Zerodur (Schott).

We performed a trade study between these two materials (Content, Ohl, Cafferty, et al.) which con-
cluded that while both are likely to be viable candidates, current work would be based only on a
ULE fused silica mirror. A summary of the conclusions from this trade study appears in Table 5.2-1.

One drawback to ULE is the size limit of a single boule (~1.3m diameter by ~0.15m thick before
any flowing out).

Table 5.2-1. Factors Considered in the Primary Mirror Material Trade Study
note - # of + or - relates to importance in overall preference
Zerodur
factor VLT ULE comments
Zerodur needs dilatometer testing;
CTE predictability - + VLT blank samples gone
ULE may improve over historical
CTE uniformity across 8m + - variability
Young's modulus + - Zerodur slightly higher
Nonlinear effects -- - Zerodur testing harder
risk of LTB on central hole - 1m diameter hole to fill in
ability to create 2nd or spare
blank -- + 8m furnace disassembled
maturity of lightweighting to
~47kg/m2 -- ++

thermal stability + + differences directly related to CTE

traceability to TDM - +
risk of woodgrain enhanced
roughness + -

5.2.2.2 Blank fabrication

To achieve the maximum stiffness per weight, it is well established that the closed-back sandwich
design is preferred. The baseline design and the TDM are both sandwich mirror blanks with hex
cores comprising ~2% of the overall weight. Both are meniscus mirrors with the back taking (to
mechanical accuracy) the same shape as the front surface.

5-8
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

TDM uses single piece faceplates because they can still be fabricated from single boules of ULE;
however for the baseline design, more than one boule (even if flowed out to the final thickness of
7.3mm) is required. Also a working assumption is that the flight PM must be made from many
boules as handling a 8m by 7mm facesheet would be too risky.

Therefore some technique for building up a monolithic mirror from sections is required. The TDM
intentionally was planned to demonstrate build up of core segments. However, additional demon-
strations would be necessary to show a complete manufacturing compatability so as to include join-
ing of faceplate sections.

The TDM uses established technologies of water-jet cutting, and low temperature fusion, to fabri-
cate the lightweight ULE cores, and fuse them along with the faceplate into a complete plano mirror
blank. The next step, low temperature slumping, has been done only for smaller and on-axis mirror
shapes and so requires demonstration for TPF-C. TDM is a circular aperture, off-axis parabola to
achieve this goal.

ITT and Corning are fabricating this mirror. Figure 5.2-1 shows the mirror concept with the front
face sheet removed. Figure 5.2-2 shows some core segments during fabrication. Currently all seg-
ments are complete, substantial review work is complete, but hardware work has been deferred
pending resumption of program funding.
Mounts, Bipods, Glass with front facesheet re-
moved

Figure 5.2-1. Technology Demonstration Mirror Design Concept (ITT)

5-9
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Template - inner and outer segment Outer core segments

placed on boule prior to cutting 1 complete and 1 partially complete

Figure 5.2-2. Technology Demonstration Mirror Core Is Made from Six Outer and One Inner Seg-
ment (Cohen, ITT)

5.2.3 PM Polishing and Metrology Technology

Polishing an off-axis 8-m class mirror is a recent goal. For ground based work, R. Angel has worked
to demonstrate this for the Giant Magellan telescope [Johns, Angel et al.]. For TPF-C the polishing
process must also be compatible with the lightweighting and very tight surface requirements, par-
ticularly in the critical spatial frequency range down to ~2cm error periods that map to the edge of
the coronagraph high contrast field of view. In addition, trade studies have shown that an excellent
polish (e.g., 0.5nm microroughness) is strongly recommended to enable the wide field instrument to
surpass HST performance in spite of the scatter off of the primary from the very bright coronagraph
target.

TDM uses an actively controlled aspheric lap [Strafford and Charles] to achieve good smoothness
with small edge rolloff on aspheres. Zero pressure fine tools (ion milling) are well established for
figure control. Conventional small tool polishing is also available if necessary.

5.2.4 PM Coating Technology

In addition to the coating design (cf. §3.3.3.1.3. and §4.1.1.4), the coating must be highly uniform in
reflectance and must conform to the figure requirements. The TDM contract tasked ITT to examine
feasibility of protected silver coatings for high uniformity in reflectance with encouraging results.
Over a 2.5 m aperture, measured reflectance uniformity in the TPF-C passband varied from ~ 0.2 to
0.4 % and was dominated by reflectometer measurement scatter [Cohen and Hull]. This compares
well to the 0.3 % RMS reflectance uniformity requirement. In addition, if a high stress coating such
as protected Ag is used, the stress should be minimized and kept uniform. Kodak reported reduc-
tions in coating strain as well.

5.2.5 SM Polishing and Metrology Technology

The baseline secondary mirror is a 0.9 × 0.4 m convex hyperboloid. Experience from JWST and
other programs has demonstrated that the difficulty in testing large convex aspheres is often under-
estimated. A program plan to alleviate this risk was formulated, including multiple new technologies

5-10
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

for convex aspheric testing. We planned to complete the baseline approach for JWST (which would
require an improvement in precision by a factor of several) with the QED subaperture stitching in-
terferometry approach [Murphy, Flieg et al.].

The polishing of this optic is expected to be similar to previous space flight precision optics and
does not require substantial new technologies beyond the metrology development.

5.2.6 Laser Truss and Secondary Mirror Rigid Body Actuation

The laser truss uses retroreflectors at the periphery of the PM and SM to register changes in their
relative position. Eight beams in total are used; the differential path lengths are processed into con-
trols for a hexapod controlling the SM. Overall this sensing and positioning system must have a
(very low bandwidth, primary used on deployment) long stroke capability as well as a ~1 Hz band-
width, ~10 nm resolution actuation system.

Flight actuators combining the relevant load limits, long stroke, high resolution, and very good sta-
bility require significant development and testing. Examining the types of actuators in use for vari-
ous applications, it is clear that new technologies may not be needed, rather combining existing de-
signs and materials with a robust test program is likely sufficient to demonstrate the required capa-
bilities. We have funded a SBIR contract with NightSky Systems to being this examination as well as
a compilation of requirements for this application.

The laser sensing portion of this has been funded in the context of SIM and LISA. The primary
technology extension here is the long time between rephasings of the system, implying small drift
requirements. This flows down to a frequency stability requirement on the laser system compatible
with existing demonstrations of stability over shorter time periods. Demonstration of stability over
the full range of relevant timescales may require some extensions to current technology.

5.2.7 Mechanical Configuration

The telescope mechanical structure must be compatible with the very high stability needed for long
term observation of very dim targets. Some technology development in the area of hinge and latch
stability and stable structural materials (e.g., very low mass-loss composites, and super-low structural
material CTE verification) will be needed to ensure the requisite stability during observations.

Static requirements on the structure are not dramatically different from other large telescope struc-
tures such as JWST or SIM.

5.2.8 Thermal Stabilization

Very high thermal stability is essential for the OTA operation, as discussed in §3.3.4.3. The
developments in this area require careful engineering but not new technologies.

5-11
TPF-C STDT REPORT

REFERENCES

Eri Cohen and Tony Hull, “Selection of a mirror technology for the 1.8m Terrestrial Planet Finder
Demonstrator Mission,” SPIE 5494 350-365 (2004).

D. Content, R. Ohl, T. Cafferty, E. Cohen, R. Egerman, et al., “Engineering Trade Studies for the
TFPc 8x3.5m primary mirror,” Proc. SPIE 5867-33 (2005).

Matt Johns, J. Roger P. Angel, Stephen Shectman, Rebecca Bernstein, Daniel G. Fabricant, et al.,
“Status of the Giant Magellan Telescope (GMT) project,” Proc. SPIE 5489 441-453 (2004).

D. Strafford and B. Charles, “Advances in rapid fabrication of aspheric optics – post AMSD,” pres-
entation #05 to 2004 “NASA MSFC mirror technology days” conference, available at
http://optics.nasa.gov/tech_days/tech_days_2004/index.html

Stuart B. Shaklan, Luis F. Marchen, Feng Zhao, Robert D. Peters, Timothy Ho, and Buck Holmes,
“Metrology system for the Terrestrial Planet Finder Coronagraph,” Proc. SPIE 5528, 22 (2004)

Paul E. Murphy, Jon Fleig, Greg Forbes, and Marc Tricard, “High precision metrology of domes
and aspheric optics, Proc. SPIE 5786, 112 (2005)

5-12
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

5.3 Starlight Suppression System Technology

As a program matures, technology groupings grow to increasingly higher levels of integration.
What began as individually identifiable component technologies naturally lead to subsystems and
with them, testbeds that are used to validate them. The development of TPF-C critical technologies
can be understood in this framework. The bulk of the technology development effort has taken
place at JPL. Unless otherwise noted, the component technologies and testbeds described below are
JPL products.

5.3.1 Apodizing Masks and Stops

Objective: The TPF coronagraph must suppress on-axis starlight, while passing light from off-axis
planets that are many orders of magnitude dimmer. In order to meet the required contrast over the
full bandwidth, the masks must be fabricated with extremely high optical density and controlled dif-
fraction characteristics. This activity is aimed at developing the technology necessary to produce and
test several types of high precision masks.

Approach: Several candidate technologies are being explored to demonstrate the feasibility of manu-
facturing various kinds of masks that would achieve the end goals for star light suppression. The
two basic classes of masks are focal plane and pupil plane.

Focal plane masks: Apodizing occulting masks to be placed at a focal plane require a very high dy-
namic range in optical density (OD from 0 to 8) and smooth variations within that range. There are
two fundamental approaches to designing such masks: analog (i.e., gray scale) and binary (opaque
and transparent). We have shown that binary focal plane masks have large polarization and wave-
length-dependent phase effects that make the problematic to employ in a broad band coronagraph.
Several manufacturing techniques will be examined for the apodizing approach. JPL is leading the
effort in developing the technology for occulting masks in association with industry resources for
materials development, fabrication and characterization. Final performance of the masks will be
evaluated in the High Contrast Imaging Testbed (HCIT) at JPL. This activity will demonstrate that
hardware can be manufactured to meet optical requirements of the coronagraph in space environ-
ment.

Pupil plane masks: A second approach for coronagraphy is to employ masks at a pupil plane that
apodize the pupil in such a way to suppress and diffract away unwanted star light thereby providing
the required contrast between star and planet lights at the image. Several theoretical designs have
been proposed for such masks with varying throughput efficiencies and system complexities, pri-
marily at universities under JPL subcontract. Experimental demonstrations are aimed at discriminat-
ing between technologies to allow selection of those with best system performance. To support and
complement experimental work, teams at JPL (Hoppe et al.), Princeton (Kasdin et al.), UC Berkeley
(Neureuther et al.) Ball Aerospace (Lieber et al.) and GSFC (Lyon) focus on incorporation of ex-
perimental results into the optical system model and validation of those models. The goal is to de-
velop an understanding of the limits of the scalar diffraction theory for this application and deter-
mine whether any design modifications are necessary to achieve the desired coronagraph perform-
ance.

5-13
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Significant progress has been made in the past two years in fabricating and testing focal plane masks
at JPL. The first approach uses a high energy electron beam sensitive glass (HEBS). HEBS glass is
manufactured by Canyon Materials, Inc., San Diego, CA, and further modified for JPL to meet TPF-
C requirements. HEBS glass will darken to different levels of absorption of visible light when ex-
posed to different electron beam levels. This makes it possible to create controlled optical density
profiles in the glass with each mask design. Masks with linear 1-sinc2 patterns and eighth-order at-
tenuation profiles have been written in such glass with a state-of-the-art electron beam exposure sys-
tem at the Micro Devices Laboratory (MDL) at JPL. Tests with such masks during the past year in
the HCIT have shown average contrast of 0.9 x10-9 in the dark field with 784 nm laser light[4] and
more recently in the 5x10-9 level with about 40 nm bandwidth around 785 nm.

Figure 5.3-1 shows a mask and a picture showing the dark region in the image plane when such a
mask is employed. Further experiments are in progress with continuous improvements in the mask
material, fabrication progress, algorithms and testbed optics. Initial radiation tests show minimal
HEBS mask performance degradation for the expected environmental exposure over mission life-
time.

Figure 5.3-1. Mask (Left) and Picture (Right) Showing Dark Region When Mask Is Employed.
(The mask is included in the optical train of the High Contrast Imaging Testbed (HCIT) where the
corresponding image is recorded.)

In addition to the HCIT implemented for evaluating mask performance and perfecting methodolo-
gies for star light suppression, an interferometer system has been developed at JPL to characterize
HEBS mask material. This system, shown in Figure 5.3-2 [5.3-2] incorporates 830, 785, 635 and 532
nm wavelength laser sources and a cooled CCD camera to capture interference fringe images. Algo-
rithms have been developed to extract phase retardation/advance from such fringes from the vari-
ous regions of different optical densities in the HEBS mask. This information is fed into models to
validate experimental results. Reduction of error bars in measurement is an ongoing activity. Addi-
tionally, precision spectrophotometry and spectroscopic ellipsometry are employed to measure opti-
cal density and optical constants of the material as a function of wavelength.

4Trauger et al., Coronagraph contrast demonstrations with the High Contrast Imaging Testbed, Proc. SPIE V.2 5487-
65, 2004

5-14
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 5.3-2. Interferometric Characterization of Mask Phase Retardance

Pupil plane masks: Pupil masks of various designs are being studied theoretically and experimentally
primarily at Princeton University by a group headed by Professor Jeremy Kasdin under JPL subcon-
tract. A parallel effort is also undertaken for accurate vector diffraction modeling of the system by a
group headed by Professor Andy Neureuther at UC Berkeley [5] and in association with Ball Aero-
space. A few examples of such pupil plane masks are shown in Figure 5.3-3.

Initial experiments using Princeton-designed, JPL-manufactured silicon masks in HCIT have yielded
contrast of 4x10-8 in the near IR. Further experiments with improved masks are expected to provide
pathways to reach the final goals.

Figure 5.3-3 Bar Code Masks and Shaped Elliptical Masks.

From left to right: 1-D bar code mask; 2-D bar code mask; four-aperture mask elliptical mask;
multi-aperture elliptical mask.

5D. Ceperley et al, Vector Scattering Analysis of TPF Coronagraph Pupil Masks, Proc. SPIE 5526B pp. 228-239, SPIE
Denver Annual Meeting 2004.

5-15
TPF-C STDT REPORT

5.3.2 Wave Front Sensing and Control

Objective: Imperfections in the optical surfaces and coatings create starlight speckles over the field
of view. To enable the planet detection and characterization objectives of TPF, these speckles must
be sensed and controlled to the 10-10 level as compared to the brightness of the parent star. For the
planet detection objective this speckle suppression must be achieved over the entire controllable
field of view as defined by the actuator geometry of the deformable mirrors and this suppression
must be achieved over an optical bandwidth of up to 25%. For planet characterization, the speckle
suppression need only be achieved over a smaller range of field angles about the planet but maintain
a suppression that enables the planet spectral reflectivity to be measured over a substantial portion
of the overall TPF sensitivity range.

Approach: Deformable mirrors are an integral part of the speckle control methodology. The density
and geometry of the DM actuators define the ultimate extent and shape of the “dark hole” where
the speckles are suppressed and planets can be detected and characterized. The resolution at which
the actuators are controllable (and remain stable) together with the actuator density define the ulti-
mate suppression level that can be achieved. In fact there is an inverse relationship to the actuator
density and actuation resolution that can be traded-off to specify the level of achievable speckle
suppression. A higher density of actuator reduces the level of actuator command resolution re-
quired as well as reduces the surface figure requirements of the optical elements in the telescope.

The optimal arrangement of multiple DMs is a major consideration for wavefront control system
architecture. A single DM at pupil (such as on the High Contrast Imaging Testbed) is capable of
controlling conventional phase errors over the entire controllable field of view, however amplitude
errors are only controllable over half the FOV and the wavelength dependence of the amplitude
terms is a limiting factor. More complex schemes that involve interferometric [6,7] or multi-
conjugate [8] DM arrangements are currently being evaluated for their ability to enable full control
of speckles over the entire FOV in the presence of broadband illumination. Having a full-field dis-
covery space is vital for the overall survey completeness required for TPF-C.

In addition to the deformable mirror technologies described previously, wavefront sensing and con-
trol algorithm development is key to achieving the required contrast. The primary function of wave-
front sensing on TPF-C is to establish optimal settings for the DM surfaces such that the intensity
level of the stellar speckles is reduced to the 10-10 contrast level over a suitable field of view and op-
tical bandwidth. This process of determining beneficial updates to the optical degrees of freedom
must take place in short time spans as compared to the stability of the system and in general it must
enable a substantial portion of the operation time for science observations. The time it takes to
sense and null the speckles must take no longer than the time it takes to detect a planet.

Typically a sequence of images is taken with a camera to observe residual light from the on-axis
source in the presence of a known induced diversity. For example, on HCIT the DM actuators are

6 M. G. Littman, M. Carr, J. Leighton, E. Burke, D. N. Spergel, and N. J. Kasdin, “Phase and Amplitude Control Ability
using Spatial Light Modulators and Zero Path Length Difference Michelson Interferometer,” Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt.
Eng. 4854, 405 (2003).
7 C. W. Bowers, B. E. Woodgate, and R. G. Lyon, “Novel method of high-accuracy wavefront-phase and amplitude cor-

rection for coronagraphy.” Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 5170, 292 (2003).
8 S. B. Shaklan and J. J. Green, “Reflectivity and Optical Surface Height Requirements in a Broad Band Coronagraph I:

Contrast Floor Due to Controllable Spatial Frequencies,” accepted for publication in Applied Optics, 2006.

5-16
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

moved in a predetermined way while a series of images is collected at either the post-coronagraph
pupil [9] or post-coronagraph focal plane. [10] Other approaches have considered using phase-
retrieval using imagery collected about the occulter focal plane, [11,12] by inducing diversity through
the optical element alignments or by the introduction of a coherent reference beam to conduct di-
rect interferometry on the speckles.[13]

Ultimately the wavefront sensing schemes must be well matched to the wavefront control and coro-
nagraph architectures in a way that enables efficient and reliable high contrast imaging.

Progress to Date: Experiments on the HCIT have to date demonstrated a single-DM-based wave-
front sensing and control architecture. Aside from having a single DM at a pupil, the HCIT em-
ploys a Lyot coronagraph that has a HEBS glass occulting spot. The camera at the final focal plane
represents the science camera. Using a phase-retrieval approach at the HCIT occulter focus, it has
been demonstrated that the testbed is stable to the l/10000 level. [12] Using a focal-plane speckle
nulling approach [10] the residual light from the on-axis source has been suppressed to levels ap-
proaching 10-9 over a portion of the controllable field of view.

5.3.3 Deformable Mirrors

Objective: Unlike adaptive optics systems designed for correction of atmospheric seeing in ground
based observatories, the active optical system for a space telescope needs only to correct for wave-
front errors created in the telescope itself. The magnitude of wavefront errors is reduced to the
magnitude of errors expected in a diffraction-limited optical system, and the bandwidth required to
follow significant wavefront drift is reduced from kHz rates to the time scales associated with me-
chanical and thermal stability of spacecraft systems. The accuracy with which the wavefront can be
corrected is fundamentally limited to the accuracy of wavefront error information that can be col-
lected on time scales short compared to the stability of the optical system. The stability of a space
environment provides the opportunity for extremely high-order wavefront correction.

Deformable mirrors are a critical component of speckle control methodologies for all wavefront
control architectures under consideration. The deformable mirror must have sufficient control au-
thority to correct the wavefront phase as commanded to ~1 Angstrom accuracy. The objective is to
develop deformable mirrors (DMs) that are reliable and robust to support the TPF-C/High Contrast
Imaging Testbed with the goal of demonstrating contrast performance of 1x10-10 or better at angular
separations of 4 λ/D or greater from the central point source.

9 S. B. Shaklan, D. Moody, and J. J. Green, “Residual wave front phase estimation in the reimaged Lyot plane for the
Eclipse coronagraphic telescope,” Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 4860, 229 (2003).
10 J. T. Trauger, C. Burrows, B. Gordon, J. J. Green, A. E. Lowman, D. Moody, A. F. Niessner, F. Shi, and D. Wilson,

“Coronagraph contrast demonstrations with the high-contrast imaging testbed,” Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 5487,
1330 (2004).
11 J. J. Green, D. C. Redding, S. B. Shaklan, and S. A. Basinger, “Extreme wave front sensing accuracy for the Eclipse

coronagraphic space telescope,” Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 4860, 266 (2003).
12 J. J. Green, S. A. Basinger, D. Cohen, A. F. Niessner, D. C. Redding, S. B. Shaklan, and J. T. Trauger, “Demonstration

of extreme wavefront sensing performance on the TPF high-contrast imaging testbed,” Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng.
5170, 38 (2003)
13 R. Angel, “Imaging Extrasolar Planet From the Ground”, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 294, (2003).

5-17
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Approach: Two current technologies are viable for the DM, one made by Xinetics the other a
MEMs device by Boston Micromachines. The MEMs device capabilities are a lower TRL than Xi-
netics as seen in Table 5.3-1. The Xinetics mirrors are being developed for use in the HCIT and
they compose the bulk of this discussion.

Ongoing development at Xinetics will provide the next generation modular mirror technology, in-
cluding refinements in material processing, larger module dimensions, larger actuator count per
module, and more efficient and compact low-power actuator driver systems. The procured compo-
nents from Xinetics will be integrated on the testbed in order to continue an establishing path of
technology advancement for TPF-C High Contrast Imaging Testbed.

The DMs are built up from 32x32 mm electroceramic blocks, each delineated with 1024 actuators
arrayed on a 1 mm pitch. Single-module 1024-actuator mirrors, and a four-module assembly with
4096 actuators driving a single 64x64 mm mirror facesheet, as shown in Figure 5.3-4, are currently
available for HCIT experiments. These are an outgrowth of seven years of development of modular
PMN actuator technology at Xinetics Inc., a research effort initiated in 1997 within NASA’s small
business innovative research (SBIR) program. The DM actuators are driven by a multiplexed voltage
supply with 100 volt range and 16-bit voltage resolution. A vacuum-compatible, low-power 64-
channel multiplex switch ASIC has been developed at JPL to distribute the voltage settings while
minimizing the number of control wires that must pass through the vacuum chamber wall.

Figure 5.3-4. Xinetics Deformable Mirrors, 32x32 and 64x64

5-18
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

Table 5.3-1. Deformable Mirror Specifications

Deformable State of the Art - State of the Art - Xinetics TPF-C Flight
Mirror Property MEMS* Baseline
Actuators across 32 actuators/pupil 64 actuators/pupil 96 actuators/pupil
aperture
Actuator spacing 3.3 actuator/mm 1 actuator/mm ≥ 1 actuator/mm
Command ~5 Å surface/step † < 0.10 Å surface/step < 0.05 Å
resolution surface/step
Actuator stroke ~20000 Å surface ‡ > 2000 Å surface > 2000 Å surface
Actuator position TBD < 0.20 Å surface/hour < 0.02 Å
stability (includes effects of 10 mK surface/hour
thermal stability)
Actuator thermal TBD ~ 3.5 % of stroke / K TBD
stability
Mirror surface ~10 nm surface § < 10 Å surface TBD
quality at
uncontrollable
spatial scales
* Based on Boston MicroMachines Devices
† Command resolution is currently limited by the precision of the high voltage drivers with
an average step size of ~10 nm/V; with custom 16-bit electronics, an average 0.3 Å/step is
expected. Current devices on order are expected to achieve up to 12-13 bit resolution or 4.9-
2.4 Å/step.
‡ Nominal actuator stroke is ~20,000 Å (2 ? m), however usable stroke over full aperture is
limited by unpowered, surface curvature to somewhat less than this.
§ Small area, periodic deviations at actuator frequencies (2x outer working angle frequency)
in unpolished devices. Devices on order are being polished to reduce this level.

The products to be developed are 32x32, 48x48, 64x64, and 96x96 deformable mirrors leading to-
ward technical hardware that are reliable, large enough and robust to support flight performance
levels required by Sept. 2008. Module development and combinations will enable best understand-
ing of last path for flight hardware development.

In addition, Boston Micromachines is providing DMs for the GSFC Michaelson testbed, Princeton
pupil plane testbed, and NOAO PIAA testbed with a similar architecture to the DMs required by
HCIT. Boston Micromachines also provides the Visible Nuller (VN) with segmented DMs. The
alternative approach and supplier represented by these MEMS DMs provide risk mitigation.

Progress to Date: Xinetics has delivered five 32x32 actuator DMs and two of four 64x64 actuator
DM. The 32x32 DMs have been used in HCIT to achieve suppression approaching 10-9 with
speckle nulling. Work is currently progressing on the 48 × 48 DM 2,304 channel single module
manufacturing pathfinders, which includes module development, actuator machining and delineation
pathfinder, interconnect evolution pathfinders, and facesheet development.

5-19
TPF-C STDT REPORT

5.3.4 High Contrast Imaging Testbed

The High Contrast Imaging Testbed (HCIT) is an adaptable testbed located at JPL, established to
validate the high-contrast coronagraphic technology fundamental to direct detection of extrasolar
planets from a spaceborne observatory. The optical layout of HCIT is shown in
Figure 5.3-5. This facility is modular, allowing for integration of modules from a variety of sources
and designed for remote observing, so that users from many institutions can be supported. JPL has
begun to support guest users.

Empirical investigation/validation of core coronagraph technology is practical with HCIT. This

testbed represents two essential subsystems of a high contrast instrument: wavefront retrieval and
correction, and coronagraphic control of diffracted light. The testbed will validate that an instrument
can achieve and maintain contrast beyond 10-10 (10-9 in pre-Phase A) at the required inner working
angle of the TPF coronagraph telescope. This constitutes a fundamental confirmation that phase
and amplitude errors can be sensed, corrected, and held for the time period of extrasolar planet de-
tection. Furthermore, it will validate software, diffraction models, and an error budget necessary to
construct and operate a flight instrument.

Corrected “Star” Image Apodized Occulting Mask

Wavefront Phase
Correction

Illumination at Pupil Plane Apodized Pupil Mask High Contrast Coronagraphic Field

Figure 5.3-5. Layout of the HCIT with Insets of Focal and Pupil Planes

The HCIT development will consist of the following hardware thrusts: continued improvement in
the deformable mirror and its performance; continued demonstration of wavefront sensing and con-
trol; and testing of apodizing masks and Lyot stops provided by government, industry, and academic
sources. The testbed has been designed to accommodate a suitable subscale telescope and associated

5-20
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

masks/stops such as are planned to be developed as part of the Industry Coronagraph Technology
thrust. In addition, the HCIT can be used to correlate analyses provided by outside sources and can
accommodate possible additional back-end subsystems. The testbed is in operation and has achieved
contrasts in a half dark hole of better than 10-9.

Progress to Date: The testbed was aligned in a clean tent and became operational in ambient condi-
tions in October 2002. Experiments with a 1764-actuator deformable mirror yielded contrast on the
order of 10-5. Modeling suggested that better contrast was not attainable given the imperfections in
this DM. In April 2003 the testbed was moved to a vacuum chamber. Wavefront sensing experi-
ments commenced in June 2003 using a flat mirror as a surrogate for the DM. The first fully-
functional 1024-actuator DM was installed in October 2003. Initial experiments using phase re-
trieval, a phase-only method, to sense and correct the wavefront, immediately yielded contrast of
2x10-6.

Speckle nulling experiments commenced in December 2003. This technique, which uses science
camera images to calculate the DM control, has the ability to compensate for amplitude errors over
half the field. These experiments quickly drove the contrast to 7 × 10-9. In addition to the speckle
nulling technique, two Lyot plane algorithms have been developed and tested. These algorithms
have limitations in achievable contrast, but they provide useful tools for diagnostic and error model-
ing experiments. Combining speckle nulling with one of these approaches has yielded improved
control of the DM and better contrast. Other algorithms under development in the TPF community
will eventually be tested on the HCIT.

The HCIT has achieved a contrast of 0.9 × 10-9 for laser light ( λ = 785 nm).[14] This contrast is an
average measured in the half dark hole over a range of angles from 4 to 10 λ/D. Experiments in
white light (40 nm bandpass) have yielded an average contrast over the half dark hole of 5 × 10-9.

5.4 Science Instrument Technologies

5.4.1 CorSpec Key Technologies
5.4.1.1 Detectors
CorSpec requires sensitive, photon-counting detectors to fulfill its scientific promise. In consultation
with the CorSpec science team, we have developed a set of baseline detector requirements for Cor-
Spec to inform our evaluation of existing technology candidates, e.g. e2v’s L3 series of charge-
multiplying CCDs (CMCCDs); and our development of new technologies capable of individual pho-
ton-counting in the λ=800-1050 nm wavelength range.

Operation of CMCCDs on-orbit will be very different to a normal CCD. In particular, because
readout noise referred to the pixel is negligible (σread~0 e-), there is no penalty for taking many
short exposures. We therefore envision that each observation will be built up from many very short,
t~1-10 seconds, integrations. A thresholding algorithm will be used to differentiate photon events

14J. T. Trauger, C. Burrows, B. Gordon, J. J. Green, A. E. Lowman, D. Moody, A. F. Niessner, F. Shi, and D. Wilson,
“Coronagraph contrast demonstrations with the high-contrast imaging testbed,” in Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Space
Telescopes, J. C. Mather, ed., Proc SPIE 5487, 1330-1336 (2004).

5-21
TPF-C STDT REPORT

from non-events, and cosmic rays will be discriminated based on the statistics of pulse height and
spatial proximity of “hit” pixels.

The CorSpec team has been evaluating e2v L3 CCDs under flight-representative background in the
DCL since late-summer, 2005. Some authors have reported seeing Clock Induced Charge (CIC) in
e2v’s L3 CCDs. CIC is an effect whereby the act of reading out the CCD induces charges that ap-
pear in the photo-sensitive area. We have also observed CIC, and also some other effects that can
masquerade as CIC and make CIC appear worse than it actually is. We have been able to develop
mitigations that exploit our ability to vary the readout speed and phasing of clocks. At present, and
when these mitigation strategies are used, we have found no show-stoppers with regard to using e2v
L3 CMCCDs for the λ=500-800 nm wavelength range, although there are some areas where the
performance could be improved.

The present generation of L3 CCDs cannot meet our long wavelength requirements, so we are
working with vendors to ensure that detectors will be available that meet all requirements over the
full λ = 400-1050 nm wavelength range. These efforts are comparatively low TRL at the time of
writing, and we estimate that the most promising technologies are at TRL-3 today. With our current
level of development effort, we believe that we will achieve TRL-5 in late 2006. Achieving TRL-6
will require more extensive radiation testing than is in our current plan. However, this could easily
be done as part of the flight program or a separately funded technology development program.

5.4.1.2 Dichroics
Dividing the total CorSpec spectral range (450–1000nm) into multiple bandpasses will allow Cor-
Spec to have much higher observational efficiency provided that the dichroic filters used to separate
the bandpasses have high efficiency, minimal scattering, and a sharp cutoff in wavelength.

5.4.2 CorECam Technology Assessment

CorECam will be required to operate in the radiation environment of an L2 orbit where solar events
over the lifetime of a mission can result in significant degradation of CCD detector performance.
While the TRL level 5 for L3 CCDs is relatively high, we believe that further work is required. Spe-
cifically, p-type CCD architectures are indicated for the L2 environment and this will require signifi-
cant development. The Wavefront sensing and control approaches proposed are currently at low
TRL levels, having been evaluated using OSCAR models. Future investment is required by TPF-C to
evaluate these techniques and mature them to appropriate levels for flight.

5.4.3 Broadband Camera/Spectrometer

Technology development needed for the PIAA/AHA concept includes optical fabrication, detec-
tors, wave front control, apodizing masks, and optical systems integration.

5.4.4 Wide Field Camera

Technology development needed for the Wide Field Camera includes large format detectors.

5-22
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

5.4.5 Visible and Infrared Nulling Coronagraph Spectrometer

5.4.5.1 Technology Summary

This is a broad survey of the state of technology needed to build the components of a visible nulling
coronagraph. Progress toward achieving deep achromatic nulls is addressed as well as progress up-
dates on efforts to fabricate coherent fiber optic array assemblies, to build segmented deformable
mirrors, and to fabricate its associated electronics. Also, the technology of detecting radiation in the
0.5–1.7 µm bandpass by using a substrate removed Mercury Cadmium Telluride (HgCdTe) array
detector is discussed.

5.4.5.2 Status of Deep Nulling

We used laser and filtered white light (broadband) sources. The laser sources was laser diode module
at 638nm terminate with a single mode fiber pigtail. The white light source used was incandescent
(filament) type and installed on a mini bench, equipped with a filter wheel with choice of filters with
central wavelength 650nm, then a lens focused the beam on the core of the single mode fiber lead-
ing to the nuller. For bandpass verification we injected the light into a spectrometer module from
Ocean optics. Note that our 650nm and 638nm laser diodes showed a linewidth of about 1nm (i.e.,
0.15% bandpass). Laser nulling results are shown in Figure 5.4-1.

Figure 5.4-1. A 1.2 Million-to-One Servo Null Using a Laser Source

5-23
TPF-C STDT REPORT

For white light nulling (Figure 5.4-2), the nuller was equipped with tilted glass plates (dispersion
plates) to create varying glass effective thickness between the right and the left arm. We have ex-
perimented with only one glass type per arm, but have plans for 2006 to install two glasses (two
plates) per arm to augment bandwidth.

BP=5% BP=12%
~ 120000:1 null ~ 32000:1 null
after dark correction after dark correction

Figure 5.4-2. Experimental White Light Nulling Results

5.4.6 Spatial Filter Arrays

A single mode spatial filter array consists of a coherent fixed-length fiber array sandwiched by two
lenslet arrays as shown in Figure 5.4-3. Approximately 1000 fibers are needed in the array for im-
plementing nulling imaging of planets.

Figure 5.4-3. Assembly of a Fiber Bundle with Two Lenslet Arrays to Make a Coherent Fiber Array

5-24
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

JPL has developed a visible wavelength single mode fiber array using precision prisms to confine the
fibers in a hexagonal pattern (Figure 5.4-4), and a method to align the fiber array to a custom lenslet
array using a Zygo interferometer and a PI F206 Hexalign 6-axis stage. To reduce the alignment sen-
sitivity in future arrays, we will use a custom large mode field diameter (~9µm) single mode fiber. A
fiber position mapping method is also developed for the lens array design. The RMS fiber position
error for the 496 fiber (331 in a hexagon) fiber array was measured to be < 3 µm (see Figure 5.4-5).
The result is comparable to that of previously produced smaller arrays. In the future, we plan to
build another 496/331 (triangle/hexagon) fiber array using a 300 µm cladding diameter and 12 µm
mode field diameter single mode fiber with a cutoff wavelength of 500 nm. The 300 µm cladding
diameter is chosen to match half of the spacing of the deformable mirror to be used in a future sys-
tem demonstration.

Figure 5.4-4. Polished End of the Large Core 496/331 (Triangle/Hexagon) Fiber Array

Figure 5.4-5. Light Output of the Large Core 496/331 Fiber Array When a Collimated HeNe Laser
Beam Is Coupled into the Array via a Lens Array

The University of Florida uses V-grooves etched in silicon to hold fibers with large mode field di-
ameters (MFD) fibers in precise alignment to one another and stack layers of V-grooves with fibers
to form a 2-D fiber array shown in Figure 5.4-6. The silicon serves as a support to the fibers, not
pressing down on them but merely holding them into position. The bundle is made from a single
silicon wafer, whose thickness matches the dimensions of the existing lenslet array, eliminating any
error due to thickness variations caused by using multiple wafers. The desired sub-micron precision
is maintained by using nanometer accurate E-Beam generated masks to transfer a pattern onto the

5-25
TPF-C STDT REPORT

silicon substrates. A strong base then preferentially etches the pattern along the silicon’s crystal
planes to form precise V-grooves, maintaining the required precision. A 10 x 10 bundle has been
fabricated and is shown in Figure 5.4-7.

Figure 5.4-6. Schematic Drawing for Constructing a Fiber Bundle in the U Florida Approach

Figure 5.4-7. (Left) a newly completed 10x10 fiber bundle (6.8mm width, 2.8mm height, and
63.5mm length). (Right) Part of the fiber end illuminated by a microscope.

After the fiber bundle is developed with either method, it is assembled with two lenslet arrays to
make a complete coherent single mode fiber array (Figure 5.4-3).

5-26
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

5.4.6.1 Deformable Mirrors

A schematic and summary for a Boston University DM design can be seen in Figure 5.4-8 and
Figure 5.4-9. It consists of 331 hexagonal mirror segments, each supported by three independent
electrostatic actuators from two different actuator rows.

600 µm Predicted DM Performance

9.5 mm
Mirror 329 close-packed hexagonal segments
architecture

Actuation Electrostatic tip/tilt/piston control for

architecture each segment

Mirror segment 600µm hexagon, with epitaxial

geometry polysilicon layer for mirror rigidity

Mirror segment Silicon, 1000 Å gold coating, near-IR

material and visible
1 µm max. stroke

Segment motion 1 µm range, 0.1nm resolution

(piston)

3 mrad max. tilt Segment motion 600 arc-second range, 0.06 arc-second
mirror segment (tip/tilt) resolution
electrostatic
actuator Segment flatness Surface roughness < 1 nm RMS
silicon substrate Figure < 1 nm RMS
Radius of curvature > 5 m

Figure 5.4-8. Top and side view of the Boston University MEMS TPF DM architecture for tip/tilt and
piston motion (left). Table summarizing predicted DM performance (right).

The three actuators are connected to the hexagonal mirror segment via posts that resemble vertices
of an equilateral triangle. These actuators are identical to those exhibited in a ‘conventional’ MEMS
deformable mirror, but every other row is now offset by a length equal to half the actuator span.
This actuator geometry provides the mirror with unlimited degrees of tip/tilt motion, and when the
actuators are deflected by equal amounts, the mirror segment can be moved in a piston motion. The
mirror segments are designed to have 1µm of piston stroke when they are tilted to 3mrad. In other
words, if the mirror elements remained flat, the mirror could experience 2µm of piston motion be-
fore reaching the actuator limit. However, 1µm of this motion is reserved for tip/tilt behavior.
Lastly, the mirror segments are 600µm in their longest dimension, creating a DM aperture of 9.5mm
by 12mm. In addition JPL is following technology development efforts from other DM companies,
IrisAO and Umachines.

5-27
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Figure 5.4-9. Early Prototype 61 Hexagonal Segmented BU Eformable Mirror

5.4.6.2 DM Electronics
Working with Analog Devices Inc., JPL has developed a set of electronics for driving deformable
mirrors that will be suitable to many applications. Based on the new AD5535 chip, a modular de-
formable mirror controller board has 128 independent high voltage, 14 bit digital-to-analog convert-
ers, each driving a single deformable mirror pixel. These electronics have been demonstrated with a
MEMS deformable mirror from Boston University and from Boston Micromachines, using auto-
mated procedures for characterizing and calibrating each individual mirror actuator. For a square-law
DM with a range of 2 microns, the high resolution of the AD5535 chip gives a displacement resolu-
tion better than 3A.

Figure 5.4-10. Left, A circuit board with 128 channels of voltage output. Center, An assembly of 4
of 8 boards set up for a laboratory demonstration. Right, ZIF socket for 1000 actuator deformable
mirror (331 segments)

5-28
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

5.4.6.3 Status of Detector Arrays

According to our co-insvestigator, Dr. James Beletic of the Rockwell Science Center (RSC), the fam-
ily of substrate removed HgCdTe Focal Plane Array (FPA) technology for TPF-C is mature. A
single sensor of 64x64 pixels can now cover the entire bandpass (0.5–1.7 μm) with a high QE of
80% or better, low noise: (2-3 e- rms after multiple sampling), and negligible dark count with cool-
ing. These are current capabilities and they will be improved with future development. This tech-
nology is already in hand and is being used for a number of government sponsored programs includ-
ing, HST WFC-3, WISE, JDEM, and JWST. The technology is a developed by depositing HgCdTe
detector layer on a ZnCdTe detector substrate. Since ZnCdTe is opaque to visible light, it is re-
moved in the last processing step, after it has been hybridized to the silicon readout circuits. The
other big advantage of substrate removal is it enhanced quantum efficiency. This process has been
under development at RSC for over 6 years.

Figure 5.4-11. Schematic method for produce a substrate removed HgCdTe array

Figure 5.4-12. Quantum efficiency for a substrate-removed 2.3 μm cutoff array produced for a
government customer. The cutoff and the AR coating for TPF-C will be optimized for 0.5-1.7 μm.

5.4.6.4 Wavefront Sensing

The wave front sensing approach is still in the conceptual stage. Detailed optical propagation mod-
els have shown that a separate DM is likely to be needed in each arm of the first nuller, and the DMs
do not help improve performance of the second nuller. Broad band approaches are still conceptual
in nature.

5-29
TPF-C STDT REPORT

5.5 Integrated Modeling Tool Development

Accurately predicting optical performance for any of the near-term concepts proposed under
NASA's Origins missions is a uniquely challenging task, and one that has served to highlight a num-
ber of areas of necessary advancement in the field of computer-aided engineering analysis. The
unique combination of multidisciplinary thermal and structural analyses, to unprecedented levels of
required optical precision, demand a solution approach that is itself fundamentally integrated if accu-
rate, efficient analyses, capable of pointing the way towards improved designs are to be achieved.
Since it is unlikely that any of the large aperture systems currently envisioned for TPF will be able to
be fully ground-tested, at anything approaching operational conditions, prior to launch, analytical
capabilities that can be used to support what testing is possible, explore performance envelopes, and
suggest ways in which the design robustness may be improved become all the more critical.

Current technology development efforts have laid the foundation for an entirely new finite element-
based analytical capability; one that is open, highly extensible, is Matlab-hosted, and which utilizes
NASTRAN syntax to describe common-model multidisciplinary analysis tasks. It stands in contrast
to other “integrated modeling” efforts in that it does not rely on existing commercial, closed-source
components, but rather implements native finite element-based thermal, structural, and optical aber-
ration computational capabilities in an environment intended to facilitate continuing research and
development efforts. In addition to providing a much-needed independent verification and valida-
tion capability, these new technologies are also intended to address the error accumulation issues
that arise from the sequential use of disparate, closed-source components and meshing (discretiza-
tion) schemas. Although small and perhaps perfectly acceptable under most circumstances, such
errors are simply not acceptable in systems where we seek to characterize nanometer, or even
smaller, deformations due to milli-Kelvin degree temperature changes as functions of time.

5.5.1 Status
Though development efforts have been strongly TPF technology-driven the resulting technologies
are nonetheless entirely general, and have focused on delivering a large problem-capable, common-
mesh approach to coupled nonlinear transient heat transfer and resulting linear structural deforma-
tions. Development of appropriate analytical methods combined with a strong emphasis on nonlin-
ear convergence strategies, adaptive time-stepping schema and accurate integration strategies are in-
tended to result in time-dependent deformations which can then be used as a basis for direct com-
putation of optical aberrations to extremely high accuracy. This section will briefly outline the de-
velopment effort’s status, with discussion of future development plans and other longer-term goals
provided in the following section.

5.5.2 Program Architecture

Starting with the self-imposed requirement that this new code provide a readily extensible platform
for methods development both within JPL and perhaps one day to a wider NASA community, the
program architecture as implemented combines a large-problem capable, object-based design with
core computational modules written in C and high-level hosting in Matlab which, combined, facili-
tate extensibility at virtually all code levels. The approach is a highly modular one, based on indus-
try-standard practices for large code development, and also borrows heavily from the primary devel-

5-30
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

opers’ experience in NASTRAN development. From a user’s perspective, the code can also be en-
tirely data-driven, meaning all discretized model data as well as state (boundary and load condition
selection, time dependency, etc.) information can be specified in a single input file; an improvement
not only over current processes but also a fundamental requirement for future goals such as auto-
mated design sensitivity and optimization. Program interaction is not limited to purely data-driven
formats, however, as hosting within the MATLAB environment allows for an even greater degree of
interaction and the freedom to change solution procedures, interact with intermediately-computed
data, interface with other MATLAB-based solutions, and so on.

Figure 5.5-1 is a highly simplified schematic of this new code framework, many components of
which are still under construction. Though all multidisciplinary input data can be localized within a
single input file, this is not to imply a single analyst will, in practice, be responsible for all attributes.
Rather, such a common-model approach provides a framework within which to capture the contri-
butions of all discipline-specific contributors. NASTRAN syntax has been chosen (though the
front-end data structures are readily extensible to other formats such as STEP), since virtually all
pre- and postprocessors “speak” NASTRAN, providing a fairly robust method of interacting with
geometry-based model building applications. Additional data formats have been invented, where
necessary, to support analysis types not found in any of the commercial NASTRAN-based offerings
(vehicle orbit positioning, optical “element” definition, specular surface behavior to name but a few.)
Automated Redesign

Thermal

Structural
Common, Multistate Analytical Design
Optical Model (NASTRAN Sensitivity, Improved
Modules
syntax) Optimization Designs

Variational

Others... Data Structures, Interface

Matlab-hosted modules, object-based,

open code, data structures

Figure 5.5-1. Code framework schematic

The code’s object-based framework is also a key factor in enabling the solution of extremely large
problems on either local, or remote, parallel architectures (planned future development.) Since the
finite element method of thermal and structural analysis can be about as data- as it is computation-
ally-intensive, especially given the trend towards ever-larger problem sizes, conservation of heap
memory is as critical today as it was in the days of small problems and severely memory-constrained
systems. To accommodate finite element bookkeeping and results data for huge systems (matrix
storage is a separate and well-defined issue), this new code has implemented a generalized DataSet
container class for storage of non-homogeneous arrays of objects. DataSets manage object lists, can
dynamically allocate and de-allocate themselves, can reinstate themselves in memory from disk or
remote locations, and are capable of providing basic object-level polymorphic function capabilities.
Though such operations greatly increase the code sophistication at levels usually not apparent to the
casual user, this heap/disk data duality is absolutely essential in providing solutions which can scale
to very large sizes.

5-31
TPF-C STDT REPORT

5.5.3 Structural and Thermal Finite Element Technologies:

The set of general purpose 2-D (plate and shell) and 1-D (bar and beam) elements that have so far
been developed have both structural and thermal attributes, and modularly interact with the program
architecture just described. In keeping with the project’s larger development goals, providing an en-
vironment into which new elements can easily be added has been as important a consideration as the
end-user functionality itself.

2-D shell elements for both thermal and structural analysis are fully hierarchical, with linear, quad-
ratic and cubic interpolation functions available for both triangular and quadratic element geome-
tries. Linear structural elements include shear corrections to avoid shear locking phenomena (ele-
ment stiffnesses which are excessive), and thermal gradients through the element thicknesses are
available for all element types as well. Point, edge, and face loads may be applied in both structural
and thermal senses. Elements, of course, have both flexible as well as inertial properties (conduc-
tance and capacitance in the case of thermal analysis), thus providing a basis for static as well as mo-
dal analysis types (dynamic analyses are a scheduled future development task), and isotropic, anisot-
ropic and orthotropic material types are all supported.

Figure 5.5-2 is an example of a common-mesh thermal/structural solution for a simple elliptical mir-
ror geometry of the type considered for the TPF Coronagraph. Thermal loads in the form of
through-thickness temperature gradients were applied to, in this case, a flat mirror (for theoretical
validation purposes), and the resulting out-of-plane structural deformations computed. Higher or-
der elements, if used, correlate exactly with the known theoretical solution as do the low-order ele-
ments (used here) with their shear correction terms.

Figure 5.5-2. Simple elliptical mirror deformation due to uniform

Fthrough-thickness temperature gradient.

5.5.4 Nonlinear Transient Thermal Solution Procedures

Though finite element-based methods have gained wide acceptance in structural analysis, thermal
engineering has not been quite so quick to adopt the same solution strategy, remaining entrenched in
resistive network codes of one form or another. These disparate solution methods tend to collide
when high resolution potentially coupled thermal structural analyses are deemed necessary, and fail

5-32
 TPF-C STDT REPORT

miserably when attempting seamless thermal, structural, and optical optimization and control.
Thermal analyses are generally performed using a less refined model, necessitating the use of ad-hoc
mapping schemas when attempting to use resulting temperatures as a basis for computing structural
deformations. It is precisely the use of such disparate models, and the inherent introduction of un-
necessary interpolation errors that development of this code intends to address.

Given that thermal stability due to on-orbit re-pointing maneuvers is a prime consideration for TPF,
analytical capabilities developed to date have focused on general, comprehensive solutions to the
nonlinear transient radiation exchange-dominate heat transfer problem including, of course, conduc-
tion and capacitance effects. Computational modules developed so far include time-dependent rela-
tive vehicle sun/earth positioning, area-weighted view factor calculation, and radiation exchange ma-
trix generation with time-dependent solar flux and earth albedo loading (in progress.) Grey body
diffuse effects are assumed for now, though specular exchange and adaptation of the tools to handle
stray light issues are planned tasks currently in the design phase.

These numerically intensive computational phases, handled at the module level, are scheduled from
the higher-level Matlab-hosted solution sequence which is where other logic such as tangent matrix
update strategies, nonlinear convergence detection, time integration, adaptive time stepping schemas
and so on has been implemented. The benefit to both users and developers is that much of the
code normally locked up in proprietary closed-source codes is available directly, and at a high level,
for verification and, if necessary, customization and extension.

Figure 5.5-3 is a simple example of radiant exchange between two thin foil elements that serves to
illustrate some of the more salient features of this new code. The back side of the first foil is mod-
eled as perfectly insulated, while the back side of the second is exposed to a convection environment
with a heat transfer coefficient of 10.W/sq-cm/deg-K and an ambient boundary condition main-
tained at 300.0deg-K. (Alternatively, either element could have been subjected to thermal fluxes due
to radiation loads, etc.) Radiation heat transfer takes place between the active sides of the foils and
an infinite absolute zero temperature environment. Foil-1 has an emissivity equal to .5 and a total
heat capacitance equal to 1.0E-05J/sec. Foil-2 has an emissivity equal to .2 and a total heat capaci-
tance equal to 1.0J/sec. Surface to surface radiation exchange is assumed to be diffuse.

Figure 5.5-3. Test 2 Temperatures and Time Steps

5-33
TPF-C STDT REPORT

Foil initial conditions were 0.0deg-K and 1000.0deg-K, respectively. For testing purposes fairly
stringent solution control delimiters were specified which resulted in automatic step size bisection
before obtaining an acceptable starting solution, followed by automatic step size increases as a func-
tion of grid point temperature rates of change. A final analysis occurs at the user requested final
time.

5.5.5 Planned Technology Development

Though this new code will include a number of features developed specifically for TPF classes of
problems, it will nonetheless contain quite a bit of functionality that may be found in a number of
other commercial codes. Though at first glance it may seem somewhat redundant to implement
technology available elsewhere, it is absolutely essential in order to provide the fundamentally inte-
grated analytical capabilities already outlined, as well as the design sensitivity and optimization tech-
nologies planned. And, in order to capture TPF-specific multidisciplinary effects, the lower-level
building blocks need to be on hand in such a fashion that they may be accessed directly rather than
being run, in an ad-hoc fasion, and remotely, from other codes offering little to no chance of fun-
damental methods investigation and/or modification.

In the area of heat transfer, for example, TPF Coronagraph will require solutions to radiation ex-
change for surfaces having specular properties, and may also benefit from an analytical stray light
capability that can be run at the high discretization levels likely for heat transfer and structural analy-
sis. Such methods, of course, need to be available in a computational environment that can also
immediately yield accurate optical aberration information in a form required by optical engineers,
placing additional requirements on integrated thermal/structural analytical capabilities and data visi-
bility. In the area of structural analysis the previously-mentioned thermal gradients through the
thickness of shell elements is one such example, and additional enhancements in the area of com-
posite material deformations to applied temperatures are also envisioned.

Finally, and though probably not under focused development until well into FY’05, the overarching
design sensitivity and optimization goals of the project have already heavily influenced all aspects of
code design to date. An automated analytic capability is the first step in any automated redesign
strategy, and the underlying analyses must be efficient and accurate if the optimization procedure is
to be robust. Hundreds, or even thousands of design variables will render conventional approaches
such as Monte Carlo techniques impractical, and will place an added emphasis on advanced numeri-
cal techniques, most likely including exploitation of parallel architectures, and will require efficient
approximate design space construction, with updates, for efficient coupling with numerical optimiz-
ers.

5-34