According to this Sky & Telescope article.
Fortunately it is not a real problem.NASA's Spitzer infrared telescope produces triangular star images at short wavelengths.
According to this Sky & Telescope article.
Fortunately it is not a real problem.NASA's Spitzer infrared telescope produces triangular star images at short wavelengths.
Cripes, I've known this since shortly after launch. The first image released had triangular stars; I even emailed some friends at Spitzer and made fun of them about it. 8)
I also figured that this was before they had finished focusing the mirror, though, and it would eventually be fixed (or at least minimized). I don't think this is hurting them much, though.
Just wait 'til Hoagland gets a hold of this one. Next thing ya know he'll claim that it's evidence of either hyperdimensional energy or a dyson pyramid.
BA, do you have any idea what would cause that sort of distortion? That sounds odd.
I would guess a three point mount during figuring.
From the article at Kullat Nanu's link: "trefoil aberration caused by a slight distortion of the 30-centimeter secondary mirror in its mounting," and in one of the captions: "This trefoil aberration arises in the telescope's secondary mirror, which is pinched at the edge by its three-blade support structure."
Hi all,
This sounds like the problem that any observer can see by overtightening the mirror mounting clamps on their telescope.
I have found it to be a very common problem of people trying to use their first telescope.
Cheers
It was an artifact of the figuring process. As they sayThe trefoil aberration from the secondary was evident in prelaunch testing but left uncorrected since it didn't render the telescope out of specification.
Wouldn't the figuring process just involve the grinding/shaping/polishing of a mirror, and not the effects of the mount that holds it? I just found a link that says you can avoid some of the figuring process by adjusting the mirror with the mount.Originally Posted by Evan
PS: Glossary at the ATM faq webpage
Based upon their description I expect the figuring had to be done with the mirror in the mount. In order to test the figure the entire assembly had to be cooled to the cryogenic temperature that it would operate at. Difficult, time consuming and expensive. Trying to figure it out of the mount and then remounting it each time would introduce additional variables.
I doubt it. It's the secondary.Originally Posted by Evan
In reading the S&T article, it sounded like the scope is performing within specifications. True, it could be better, but it sounds like they made tradeoffs to limit costs which is true for all equipment. Comments?
The secondary has a mount too.