+
+
-
-
-
+
+
-
-
-
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
Critical Design Review (CDR)
-GigaBIT M1 Primary Mirror
-Optique Fullum · Atomaste ·
- -Agenda
--
-
- Executive summary (decision + numbers) -
- Design evolution (PDR → CDR) -
- Selected design baseline (Option B) -
- Performance validation (WFE + margins) -
- Support system (whiffletree + lateral) -
- Reference frame & boundary condition strategy -
- Risks, schedule, next steps -
Agenda
+
+
+-
+
- CDR Objectives & Scope +
- M1 Design Overview +
- Support System Architecture +
- Optimization & Cost Reduction Campaign +
- Selected Design — Option B Performance +
- Recent Development: Refined Contact Model +
- Boundary Condition Strategy +
- Reference Frame — Scope & Requirements +
- Risk Assessment +
- Path Forward & Recommendation +
Executive Summary
--
-
- Status: design maturity sufficient to authorize blank procurement -
- Baseline for procurement: Option B (Conical V14) -
- Performance: WFE compliant with 36–71% margin -
- Mass: ~95 kg (allocation 103.5 kg) -
- Cost: $525k quote (0.4% above $523k target) -
- Schedule driver: 18‑week Schott lead time -
Key Numbers (Option B)
--
-
- WFE 40°–20°: 6.59 nm RMS (req ≤ 22 nm) -
- WFE 60°–20°: 14.79 nm RMS (req ≤ 22 nm) -
- Req interpretation: 22 nm RMS ≈ λ/25 @ 550 nm -
- Mass: ~95 kg (Δ = +8% margin to allocation) -
- Quote: $525,000 (received) -
-
- Section
- Design Evolution (PDR → CDR)
- Method improvements + scale of validation.
- Transition to Atomizer Framework
--
-
- Moved from HEEDS MDO → custom Atomizer framework -
- Full control of algorithms, tuning, and traceability -
- Automation: NX Nastran (SOL 101) + post-processing -
- Reproducible studies (version-controlled) -
OPD‑Based Zernike Method (Upgrade)
--
-
- Upgraded from Z‑displacement only → OPD‑based extraction -
- Captures lateral displacement (X,Y), not only axial (Z) -
- Directly supports the system WFE metric -
Validation Scale
--
-
- Total: 3,770+ FEA simulations -
- 14 design variables (support + ribs + blank geometry) -
- Algorithms: TPE, GNN, SAT v3, NSGA‑II, L‑BFGS -
- Convergence confirmed: multiple algorithms agree -
-
- Section
- Cost Reduction Campaign
- Manufacturing simplifications without sacrificing performance.
- Cost Target & Outcome
--
-
- Baseline quote: $625k -
- Budget target: $523k -
- Option B quote: $525k (0.4% above target) -
- Option C explored for manufacturability context (not procurement baseline) -
Key Simplifications (Implemented in Option B)
--
-
- Support interface taper simplified to 0° (cylindrical) -
- Center mini ribs removed (validated low sensitivity) -
- Guided by sensitivity + campaign data (not one-off changes) -
-
- Section
- Selected Design Baseline
- Option B (Conical V14) for procurement.
- Option B (Baseline): Conical V14
--
-
- Backface angle: 4.3° (optimized) -
- Center thickness: 85 mm -
- Mass: ~95 kg -
- Quote: $525k received -
Figure placeholder: blank cross‑section export (CAD)
- -Why Option B (vs Flat‑Back Option C)
--
-
- Option C has excellent polishing metric (MFG 90 ~28 nm) and slightly better WFE -
- Option B selected for maturity + procurement readiness (quote in hand, heritage) -
- Option C remains documented as a credible alternative for future trades -
-
- Section
- Performance Validation
- WFE compliance, dominant modes, uncertainty.
- WFE Compliance (Operational)
--
-
- Requirement: ≤ 22 nm RMS (relative to 20° reference) -
- 40°: 6.59 nm (≈71% margin) -
- 60°: 14.79 nm (≈36% margin) -
WFE Breakdown (40° Case, Filtered RMS)
--
-
- Dominant: Coma (J7–J8) ~60% -
- Astigmatism (J5–J6) ~33% -
- Higher order contribution is low -
Uncertainty (RSS)
--
-
- Combined WFE uncertainty estimate: ±1.2 nm -
- Worst-case 40°: ~7.5 nm (still far below 22 nm) -
- Support compliance target: reference frame deflection < 1 μm -
-
- Section
- Support System
- Architecture is defined; detailed design proceeds to FDR.
- Axial Support: 54‑Point Whiffletree
--
-
- Self‑equalizing hierarchical linkage (18 pads × 3 assemblies) -
- Load path: Mirror → pads → arms → 3 interface points → reference frame -
- RDOF joints provide thermal decoupling (insensitive in 100–200 Nmm range) -
Figure placeholder: whiffletree schematic
-Lateral Support (3‑Point)
--
-
- 3 assemblies at 120°; determinate restraint -
- Includes spherical bearing (moment isolation) + radial slide (thermal) + Z stage (collimation) -
- At 20° elevation, each point carries ~35 kg lateral load (order of magnitude) -
Figure placeholder: lateral support concept
-
-
- Section
- Reference Frame & Boundary Conditions
- Procure now; develop frame in parallel.
- Reference Frame (Scope Boundary)
--
-
- Purpose: replicate fixed BCs used in optimization (stiff interface) -
- Status at CDR: conceptual; detailed design at FDR -
- Integration risk handled via ICD with StarSpec -
Figure placeholder: reference frame concept topology
-Why Ordering the Blank Now Is Safe
--
-
- Diminishing returns: 3,770+ trials; improvements are flat -
- Separate problems: mirror optimization vs frame stiffness engineering -
- Parallel path: order blank now, design/validate frame while Schott fabricates -
-
- Section
- Risks, Schedule, Next Steps
- Residual risks are known and manageable.
- Risk Snapshot (CDR)
--
-
- Closed: design convergence (R1), mass allocation (R5), major methodology risks -
- Reduced: cost (R2), polishing difficulty (R6) -
- Open: Schott delivery delay (R3), interfaces (R7), material defect (R8) -
- New: reference frame stiffness (R4) — mitigated via parallel development -
Path to FDR (High Level)
--
-
- Schott PO: target Jan 20 -
- Blank delivery: ~May 26 (18 weeks) -
- Reference frame concept review: Feb 28 -
- Polishing start: Jun 2 → FDR: Sep -
Decision Request
--
-
- Approve CDR baseline: Option B (Conical V14) -
- Authorize Schott blank order (protect schedule) -
- Align on next steps: ICD + reference frame concept + support detailed design -
-
- Backup
- Appendix
- Detailed tables, parameters, and trades.
- Backup: Option B Optimized Parameters (excerpt)
--
-
- lateral_inner_angle 27.88° -
- lateral_outer_angle 13.19° -
- lateral_inner_pivot 7.41 mm -
- lateral_outer_pivot 11.53 mm -
- whiffle_min 58.90 mm -
- blank_backface_angle 4.30° -
Backup: Requirement Matrix (excerpt)
--
-
- REQ‑01 WFE 40°: 6.59 nm ≤ 22 nm ✓ -
- REQ‑01 WFE 60°: 14.79 nm ≤ 22 nm ✓ -
- REQ‑06 Mass: ~95 kg ≤ 103.5 kg ✓ -
- REQ‑09 Thermal/STOP: pending (FDR) -
CDR Objectives
+
+
+ Goal: Establish design maturity sufficient to authorize blank procurement from Schott.
++
+
+ -
+
- Validate M1 design meets optical & mechanical requirements +
- Document cost reduction campaign & trade-off analysis +
- Present final design selection with supporting data +
- Define support system architecture & reference frame concept +
- Establish procurement path & timeline +
+
Scope: M1 blank design + support system architecture.
+ Reference frame detailed design & STOP analysis → FDR phase.
M1 Mirror Blank — Design Overview
+
+
+
+ 
+
+
+ M1 blank — lightweighted back face with honeycomb rib structure
+
+
+
+
+
Optical Prescription
+| Surface | Near-parabolic (k = −0.9886) |
| Radius of curvature | 2893.6 mm ± 3 mm |
| Clear aperture | 1202 mm |
| Material | ZERODUR Class 0 |
Option B Geometry
+| Back face angle | 4.01° |
| Center thickness | 85 mm |
| Mass | 95.81 kg |
| Support bosses | 54 (30 mm Ø) |
-
+
+
+
diff --git a/decks/gigabit-optique-fullum-cdr/theme-atomaste.css b/decks/gigabit-optique-fullum-cdr/theme-atomaste.css
index e0547e81..4870ef74 100644
--- a/decks/gigabit-optique-fullum-cdr/theme-atomaste.css
+++ b/decks/gigabit-optique-fullum-cdr/theme-atomaste.css
@@ -1,31 +1,38 @@
-/* Atomaste Reveal.js theme (v1)
- Keep it minimal: reuse existing site look.
-*/
+/* ══════════════════════════════════════════════
+ Atomaste Reveal.js Dark Theme (v2)
+ CDR Deck — GigaBIT M1 Primary Mirror
+ ══════════════════════════════════════════════ */
:root {
- --atomaste-bg: #0b0f14;
- --atomaste-fg: #e8eef7;
- --atomaste-muted: #a8b3c2;
- --atomaste-accent: #7dd3fc; /* light cyan */
- --atomaste-accent-2: #a78bfa; /* violet */
+ --atomaste-bg: #0b0f14;
+ --atomaste-fg: #e8eef7;
+ --atomaste-muted: #a8b3c2;
+ --atomaste-accent: #7dd3fc; /* cyan */
+ --atomaste-accent-2: #a78bfa; /* violet */
+ --atomaste-green: #4ade80;
+ --atomaste-amber: #fbbf24;
+ --atomaste-red: #f87171;
+ --atomaste-surface: rgba(255,255,255,0.04);
+ --atomaste-border: rgba(232,238,247,0.10);
}
+/* ── Base ── */
.reveal {
- font-family: ui-sans-serif, system-ui, -apple-system, Segoe UI, Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji";
+ font-family: ui-sans-serif, system-ui, -apple-system, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Helvetica, Arial, "Apple Color Emoji", "Segoe UI Emoji", sans-serif;
color: var(--atomaste-fg);
}
-.reveal .slides {
- text-align: left;
-}
+.reveal .slides { text-align: left; }
+/* ── Background ── */
.reveal-viewport {
- background: radial-gradient(1200px 800px at 15% 10%, rgba(125,211,252,0.14), transparent 55%),
- radial-gradient(900px 600px at 85% 30%, rgba(167,139,250,0.12), transparent 60%),
- linear-gradient(180deg, #070a0f 0%, #0b0f14 100%);
+ background:
+ radial-gradient(1200px 800px at 15% 10%, rgba(125,211,252,0.14), transparent 55%),
+ radial-gradient(900px 600px at 85% 30%, rgba(167,139,250,0.12), transparent 60%),
+ linear-gradient(180deg, #070a0f 0%, #0b0f14 100%);
}
-/* subtle moving sheen (keep it classy) */
+/* subtle floating glow */
.reveal-viewport::before {
content: "";
position: fixed;
@@ -35,7 +42,6 @@
radial-gradient(500px 320px at 10% 20%, rgba(125,211,252,0.10), transparent 60%),
radial-gradient(420px 280px at 90% 40%, rgba(167,139,250,0.08), transparent 62%),
radial-gradient(520px 360px at 40% 95%, rgba(125,211,252,0.06), transparent 65%);
- filter: blur(0px);
opacity: 0.9;
transform: translate3d(0,0,0);
animation: atomasteFloat 18s ease-in-out infinite;
@@ -47,28 +53,43 @@
100% { transform: translate3d(0,0,0); }
}
+/* ── Typography ── */
.reveal h1, .reveal h2, .reveal h3 {
- letter-spacing: -0.02em;
+ font-weight: 700;
+ letter-spacing: -0.025em;
+ color: var(--atomaste-fg);
margin-bottom: 0.35em;
}
.reveal h1 { font-size: 2.25em; }
.reveal h2 { font-size: 1.65em; }
-.reveal h3 { font-size: 1.15em; color: var(--atomaste-muted); font-weight: 600; }
+.reveal h3 { font-size: 1.15em; color: var(--atomaste-accent); font-weight: 600; }
.reveal p, .reveal li {
- font-size: 0.95em;
- line-height: 1.35;
+ font-size: 0.76em;
+ line-height: 1.55;
+ color: var(--atomaste-fg);
}
-.reveal a { color: var(--atomaste-accent); }
+.reveal a { color: var(--atomaste-accent); text-decoration: none; }
+.reveal a:hover { text-decoration: underline; }
-/* footer */
+/* ── Lists ── */
+.reveal ul { margin-left: 1.1em; }
+.reveal ol { margin-left: 1.1em; }
+.reveal li { margin: 0.35em 0; }
+
+/* ── Images ── */
+.reveal img {
+ max-height: 62vh;
+ border-radius: 10px;
+ border: 1px solid var(--atomaste-border);
+}
+
+/* ── Footer ── */
.atomaste-footer {
position: absolute;
- left: 36px;
- right: 36px;
- bottom: 22px;
+ left: 36px; right: 36px; bottom: 22px;
display: flex;
align-items: center;
justify-content: space-between;
@@ -78,54 +99,30 @@
pointer-events: none;
}
-.atomaste-footer img {
- height: 22px;
- opacity: 0.9;
-}
+.atomaste-footer img { height: 22px; opacity: 0.9; }
.atomaste-chip {
display: inline-flex;
align-items: center;
gap: 8px;
padding: 6px 10px;
- border: 1px solid rgba(232,238,247,0.14);
+ border: 1px solid var(--atomaste-border);
border-radius: 999px;
background: rgba(255,255,255,0.03);
}
-/* nicer lists */
-.reveal ul { margin-left: 1.1em; }
-.reveal li { margin: 0.35em 0; }
-
-/* images */
-.reveal img {
- max-height: 62vh;
- border-radius: 10px;
-}
-
-/* section divider style */
-.section-divider {
- display: grid;
- gap: 18px;
-}
-
+/* ── Section dividers ── */
+.section-divider { display: grid; gap: 18px; }
.section-divider .kicker {
font-size: 0.9em;
color: var(--atomaste-muted);
text-transform: uppercase;
letter-spacing: 0.12em;
}
+.section-divider .title { font-size: 2.1em; line-height: 1.1; }
-.section-divider .title {
- font-size: 2.1em;
- line-height: 1.1;
-}
-
-/* fragments */
+/* ── Fragment animation ── */
.reveal .fragment.fade-up { transform: translateY(6px); }
-/* code blocks (if any) */
-.reveal pre code {
- font-size: 0.8em;
- line-height: 1.3;
-}
+/* ── Code blocks ── */
+.reveal pre code { font-size: 0.8em; line-height: 1.3; }
- 
- CDR · GigaBIT M1 Mirror
+
+
+
-
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
- CDR · GigaBIT M1 Mirror
+
+M1 Assembly
+
+
+
+ 
+
+
+ M1 with 54-point whiffletree support
+
+ 
+
-
+ Full M1 assembly — blank + supports + reference frame
Optimization Campaign — Scale
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ 3,770+
FEA Simulations
14
Design Variables
5
Algorithms Tested
Confirmed
Convergence
+
| Campaign | FEA Trials | Algorithms | Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adaptive Support | ~1,400 | GNN+TuRBO, TPE, NSGA-II | Support position optimization |
| Cost Reduction | ~900 | TPE, CMA-ES | Geometry simplification |
| Flat Back Exploration | 1,470 | TPE, SAT v3, L-BFGS | Manufacturing trade study |
+
+
+✅ Design space thoroughly explored. Multiple algorithms converge to same solution.
+Atomizer — Custom Optimization Framework
+
+
+Evolution since PDR
+-
+
- Transitioned from HEEDS MDO → Atomizer (fully custom) +
- Full control over algorithm selection & tuning +
- OPD-based Zernike extraction — accounts for lateral (X,Y) displacement, not just axial (Z) +
- Complete traceability through version-controlled studies +
Key Algorithms
+-
+
- TPE — Bayesian optimization baseline +
- GNN Surrogate — Graph Neural Network (~0.95 R² on Zernike coefficients) +
- SAT v3 — Self-Aware TuRBO with adaptive exploration schedule +
- L-BFGS — Gradient-based polish for final refinement +
Cost Reduction Campaign
+
+
+ Problem: Schott quote $625K vs. $523K budget → $102K gap to close
++
+
+
+
+
+
+ Strategy 1: Geometry Simplifications
+| Modification | Impact | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Remove structural ribs | +92% WFE | ✗ Rejected |
| Support cone → 0° | +3.3% | ✓ Acceptable |
| Remove center mini ribs | −1.6% | ✓ Recommended |
| Center thickness 85→80 | +8.2% | ✗ Rejected |
+
+ Strategy 2: Flat Back Variant
+-
+
- Eliminates taper machining entirely +
- No jig required +
- 1,470 FEA trials across 10 versions +
- 49% improvement in MFG deformation +
- Mass trade-off: +16 kg +
+
+
+✅ Campaign closed the cost gap. Option B: $525K (+0.4% of budget). Option C: $520K.
+Key Finding — Structural Ribs Are Non-Negotiable
+
+
+
+
+
+The sensitivity analysis revealed a critical design hierarchy:
+| Rank | Parameter | Sensitivity |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Structural Rib Topology | CRITICAL (67–92% degradation) |
| 2 | Center Thickness | CRITICAL (+106% MFG) |
| 3 | Pocket Radii | HIGH (requires re-optimization) |
| 4 | Center Mini Ribs | POSITIVE (7–9% improvement) |
| 5 | Support Cone Angle | Low-Moderate |
| 6 | RDOF Stiffness | Negligible (<0.2%) |
+
+
+ ⚠️ The ribs provide stiffness against asymmetric gravity deflection. Removing them increases high-order aberrations (J4+) by 2.4×. This finding de-risked the design decision.
+Selected Design — Option B (Conical V14)
+
+
+
+
+
+ 7.70 nm
WFE 40° (65% margin)
17.69 nm
WFE 60° (20% margin)
37.06 nm
MFG 90° (acceptable)
+
+
+
+
+ 95.81 kg
Mass (7.4% margin)
$525K
Schott Quote (+0.4%)
22 nm
Requirement (λ/25)
+
| Factor | Option B (Selected) | Option C (Trade Study) |
|---|---|---|
| WFE 40° | 7.70 nm | 8.09 nm |
| WFE 60° | 17.69 nm | 18.81 nm |
| Mass | 95.81 kg ✓ | 102.38 kg |
| Quote | $525,000 | $520,000 |
| Risk | Lower (proven geometry) | Moderate (new variant) |
Recent Development — Refined Lateral Contact Model
+
+
+ Design decision (Jan 30, 2026): Changed lateral shoe-blank interface from silicone adhesive to low-friction sliding material (Teflon-like).
++
+
+
+
+ Why this change?
+-
+
- Mirror independence — blank floats freely within lateral supports +
- No parasitic transfer — frame distortions decoupled from mirror +
- Conservative — worst-case for self-support; actual friction → better performance +
+
+
+
+ | Metric | Previous | Refined | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| WFE 40° | 6.12 nm | 7.70 nm | +26% |
| WFE 60° | 13.41 nm | 17.69 nm | +32% |
| MFG 90° | 27.01 nm | 37.06 nm | +37% |
+
+
+✅ All values remain compliant with 22 nm requirement. Higher values = more physically accurate, not design degradation.
+Optical Performance — WFE Surface Maps
+
+
+
+ 
+
+
+ WFE surface — 40° vs 20° (7.70 nm RMS)
+
+ 
+
+
+ WFE surface — 60° vs 20° (17.69 nm RMS)
+ +
Refined contact model (Jan 30, 2026). J1–J4 removed (piston, tip, tilt, defocus corrected by active optics).
+Manufacturing & Analysis Summary
+
+
+
+ 
+
+
+ Manufacturing residual at 90° — 37.06 nm RMS
+
+ 
+
+
+ Per-angle RMS WFE bar chart (Atomizer report)
+ Zernike Trajectory & PSD Analysis
+
+
+
+ 
+
+
+ Zernike mode RMS vs. elevation — Spherical (Z11) dominates. Linear R² = 1.0000
+
+ 
+
+
+ Surface PSD — gravity signature, support print-through, high-frequency bands
+ +
PSD analysis confirms support print-through dominates (71–85% of total WFE). Predictable and well-characterized behavior.
+Zernike Coefficient Breakdown
+
+
+
+ 
+
+
+ 40° vs 20° — Defocus (J04) dominant
+
+ 
+
+
+ 60° vs 20° — Secondary Astigmatism (J13) rises
+
+ 
+
+
+ 90° absolute — Spherical (J11) at 37.5 nm
+ Modal Analysis — Natural Frequencies
+
+
+ First mode: 250.4 Hz — exceeds 150 Hz requirement by 67% margin.
++
+
+
+
+
+
+ | Mode | Freq (Hz) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 250.4 | Trefoil bending (3-nodal dia.) |
| 2 | 259.3 | Astigmatic bending (2-nodal dia.) |
| 3 | 466.2 | Rocking/tilting |
| 4 | 668.8 | Higher-order bending |
+ 
+
+
+ Mode 1 (250.4 Hz) — trefoil bending, 3-nodal diameter pattern
+ +
SOL 103 analysis with fixed BCs at all 54 whiffletree + 3 lateral support points. All 10 modes well above 150 Hz.
+Boundary Condition Strategy
+
+
+
+
+The Decoupling Approach
+We deliberately decouple two problems that can be solved independently:
+
+
+ Step 1: Optimize blank for ideal fixed BCs → Complete (CDR)
+Step 2: Engineer reference frame to approach ideal BCs → In progress (FDR)
++
Why this works
+-
+
- Reduces complexity: 14 variables vs. 60+ (blank + frame coupled) +
- Blank procurement & frame design proceed in parallel +
- Clear success criteria: frame stiffness targets derived from WFE sensitivity +
- Standard practice in large telescope projects (TMT, GMT, E-ELT) +
+
The self-maintaining structure
+The optimized blank is a self-maintaining structure — ribs aligned with gravity load paths, mass placed where stiffness is needed. Even with moderate support compliance, inherent structural efficiency limits WFE growth.
+Reference Frame — Scope & Requirements
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ Scope Boundary
+| Deliverable | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|
| M1 Blank (Zerodur) | Optiques Fullum | CDR ✓ |
| Vertical Support (54-pt) | Optiques Fullum | CDR ✓ |
| Lateral Support (3-pt) | Optiques Fullum | CDR ✓ |
| Reference Frame | StarSpec | Concept proposed |
+
Frame Stiffness Targets
+| Parameter | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Support point deflection | < 1 μm |
| First mode (frame + mirror) | > 150 Hz |
| Mass (frame only) | < 20 kg |
+ 
+
+
+
+ Reference frame — side view
+ +
+
+ ⚠️ CDR Open Item: ΔWFE vs. stiffness sweep not yet executed. Method is defined; execution is highest-priority post-CDR task.
+Why It's Safe to Order the Blank Now
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Evidence of Convergence
+| Campaign | Improvement | Trials After Plateau |
|---|---|---|
| Flat Back V9 → V10 | +1.3% (worse) | 296 |
| Adaptive V13 → V14 | −5.9% (better) | 785 |
| Adaptive V14 → V15 | 0% (none) | 126 |
+
The Frame is a Solvable Problem
+-
+
- Known physics — CFRP structural engineering, not research +
- Conservative stiffness target (<1 μm) with margin +
- Mitigation options exist if needed (local stiffening, shimming) +
- Frame development is independent of blank design +
+
+
+ 🕐 Schedule driver: 18-week Schott lead time. Quote valid until March 4, 2026. Delaying for coupled optimization would extend program by months with uncertain benefit.
+Risk Assessment
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ | Risk | L | I | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design convergence | 1 | 3 | Closed |
| Cost exceeds budget | 2 | 2 | Reduced |
| Schott delivery delay | 2 | 3 | Open |
| Frame stiffness | 2 | 2 | New |
| Mass exceedance | 1 | 2 | Closed |
| Polishing difficulty | 1 | 3 | Reduced |
| Interface incompatibility | 2 | 2 | Open |
+
+
+
+
+ Trend Since PDR
+| Category | PDR | CDR | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical | Medium | Low-Med | ↓ |
| Schedule | Medium | Medium | → |
| Cost | High | Medium | ↓ |
| Integration | Medium | Medium | → |
+
+
+ Technical and cost risks significantly improved since PDR. Risk posture supports procurement.
+What's Done & What's Next
+
+
+
+
+ ✅ Completed at CDR
+-
+
- Mirror blank geometry — optimized & validated +
- Support positions — optimized (14 variables) +
- Cost reduction campaign — closed $102K gap +
- Design selection — Option B confirmed +
- Whiffletree architecture — defined +
- Lateral support architecture — defined +
- Refined contact model — conservative basis +
- Schott quote received — $525K +
+
+ 🔜 Post-CDR Priorities
+-
+
- Frame stiffness characterization (ΔWFE vs. K sweep) +
- Reference frame preliminary design +
- Whiffletree detailed design +
- Lateral support detailed design +
- ICD finalization with StarSpec +
- Modal analysis (frame + mirror) +
- STOP analysis (StarSpec scope) +
Path to FDR — Timeline
+
+
+
+
+ January 2026
+ CDR Approval & Design Selection
+
+
+ February 2026
+ Blank Order — Schott PO placement
+
+
+ February 2026
+ Frame stiffness characterization — Highest priority post-CDR
+
+
+ Feb–March 2026
+ Reference frame preliminary design + ICD coordination
+
+
+ April–June 2026
+ Support hardware detailed design
+
+
+ June 2026
+ Blank delivery from Schott (~18 weeks)
+
+
+ June–August 2026
+ Polishing at Optiques Fullum
+
+
+ Q4 2026
+ FDR — Final Design Review
+ Requirement Compliance Summary
+| Category | Metric | Achieved | Requirement | Margin | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Optical | WFE 40° | 7.70 nm | 22 nm | 65% | ✓ |
| Optical | WFE 60° | 17.69 nm | 22 nm | 20% | ✓ |
| Optical | MFG 90° | 37.06 nm | — | Acceptable | ✓ |
| Mechanical | Mass | 95.81 kg | 103.5 kg | +7.4% | ✓ |
| Mechanical | Clear Aperture | 1202 mm | 1200 mm | — | ✓ |
| Cost | Blank Quote | $525K | $523K | +0.4% | ✓ |
| Dynamic | Mode 1 | 250.4 Hz | > 150 Hz | 67% | ✓ |
+
+
+All requirements met with margin. Design is mature and validated.
+Recommendation
+
+
+
+
+Approve CDR & proceed with blank procurement
++
+
+ -
+
- Design maturity: 3,770+ FEA simulations, confirmed convergence +
- Performance: WFE 20–65% margin (conservative contact model) +
- Mass: 7.4% under allocation +
- Cost: Within 0.4% of budget ($525K) +
- Schedule critical: 18-week lead time — quote valid until March 4 +
+
Next investment: Reference frame characterization + detailed support design → FDR Q4 2026
+The Investment Case — Continuing to FDR
+
+
+
+
+What the next phase delivers
+
+
+
+
+ Frame Characterization
+ΔWFE vs. stiffness curve — converts "reference frame risk" into a quantified, verifiable engineering requirement
+
+
+ Detailed Hardware Design
+Whiffletree + lateral supports ready for fabrication. ICD locked with StarSpec.
+
+
+ Polished Mirror
+Finished M1 primary mirror, verified against optical specs. Ready for integration.
++
Why continue now
+-
+
- 3,770+ simulations have retired the major technical risk — blank design is settled +
- The path from CDR → FDR is known engineering, not research +
- Schott quote expires March 4 — delay means re-quoting at likely higher cost +
- Parallel development maximizes schedule efficiency +
+
+
+ Bottom line: The hard part is done. Proceeding now converts 4 months of computational investment into a validated, flight-ready mirror assembly.
+Thank You
+Questions & Discussion
++
Optiques Fullum & Atomaste Solution — January 2026
+GigaBIT M1 Primary Mirror — Critical Design Review
+
+ GigaBIT M1 — Critical Design Review
+ Optiques Fullum / Atomaste
+
+GigaBIT M1 — Critical Design Review
+ Optiques Fullum / Atomaste
+