Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Stahl, H. Philip

Publications and source records attributed to Stahl, H. Philip.

At least 145 records · Page 8

Reflections on My Time in the Wolfe Den

The three and a half years I spent as a member of the Infrared Group were transitional. Bill Wolfe was the nexus. Bill played a role in getting me to Arizona and keeping me there. He helped me advance professionally and taught me how to think like a systems engineer. He played a central role in my effort to earn a PhD. And, he helped start me in SPIE. This paper contains my personal and honest reflections on the impact which Bill Wolfe has had on me.

Stahl, H. Philip↗

Update on Multi-Variable Parametric Cost Models for Ground and Space Telescopes

Parametric cost models can be used by designers and project managers to perform relative cost comparisons between major architectural cost drivers and allow high-level design trades; enable cost-benefit analysis for technology development investment; and, provide a basis for estimating total project cost between related concepts. This paper reports on recent revisions and improvements to our ground telescope cost model and refinements of our understanding of space telescope cost models. One interesting observation is that while space telescopes are 50X to 100X more expensive than ground telescopes, their respective scaling relationships are similar. Another interesting speculation is that the role of technology development may be different between ground and space telescopes. For ground telescopes, the data indicates that technology development tends to reduce cost by approximately 50% every 20 years. But for space telescopes, there appears to be no such cost reduction because we do not tend to re-fly similar systems. Thus, instead of reducing cost, 20 years of technology development may be required to enable a doubling of space telescope capability. Other findings include: mass should not be used to estimate cost; spacecraft and science instrument costs account for approximately 50% of total mission cost; and, integration and testing accounts for only about 10% of total mission cost.

Stahl, H. Philip↗

NASA Astrophysics Technology Needs

July 2010, NASA Office of Chief Technologist (OCT) initiated an activity to create and maintain a NASA integrated roadmap for 15 key technology areas which recommend an overall technology investment strategy and prioritize NASA?s technology programs to meet NASA?s strategic goals. Science Instruments, Observatories and Sensor Systems(SIOSS) roadmap addresses technology needs to achieve NASA?s highest priority objectives -- not only for the Science Mission Directorate (SMD), but for all of NASA.

Stahl, H. Philip↗

Sub-pixel spatial resolution wavefront phase imaging

A phase imaging method for an optical wavefront acquires a plurality of phase images of the optical wavefront using a phase imager. Each phase image is unique and is shifted with respect to another of the phase images by a known/controlled amount that is less than the size of the phase imager's pixels. The phase images are then combined to generate a single high-spatial resolution phase image of the optical wavefront.

Stahl, H. Philip↗

Advanced Technology Large-Aperture Space Telescope: Science Drivers and Technology Developments

The Advanced Technology Large-Aperture Space Telescope (ATLAST) is a concept for an 8- to 16-m ultraviolet optical near Infrared space observatory for launch in the 2025 to 2030 era. ATLAST will allow astronomers to answer fundamental questions at the forefront of modern astrophysics, including: Is there life elsewhere in the Galaxy? We present a range of science drivers and the resulting performance requirements for ATLAST (8- to 16-marcsec angular resolution, diffraction limited imaging at 0.5 micron wavelength, minimum collecting area of 45 sq m, high sensitivity to light wavelengths from 0.1 to 2.4 micron, high stability in wavefront sensing and control). We also discuss the priorities for technology development needed to enable the construction of ATLAST for a cost that is comparable to that of current generation observatory-class space missions.

Postman, Marc↗

Metrology of Large Parts

As discussed in the first chapter of this book, there are many different methods to measure a part using optical technology. Chapter 2 discussed the use of machine vision to measure macroscopic features such as length and position, which was extended to the use of interferometry as a linear measurement tool in chapter 3, and laser or other trackers to find the relation of key points on large parts in chapter 4. This chapter looks at measuring large parts to optical tolerances in the sub-micron range using interferometry, ranging, and optical tools discussed in the previous chapters. The purpose of this chapter is not to discuss specific metrology tools (such as interferometers or gauges), but to describe a systems engineering approach to testing large parts. Issues such as material warpage and temperature drifts that may be insignificant when measuring a part to micron levels under a microscope, as will be discussed in later chapters, can prove to be very important when making the same measurement over a larger part. In this chapter, we will define a set of guiding principles for successfully overcoming these challenges and illustrate the application of these principles with real world examples. While these examples are drawn from specific large optical testing applications, they inform the problems associated with testing any large part to optical tolerances. Manufacturing today relies on micrometer level part performance. Fields such as energy and transportation are demanding higher tolerances to provide increased efficiencies and fuel savings. By looking at how the optics industry approaches sub-micrometer metrology, one can gain a better understanding of the metrology challenges for any larger part specified to micrometer tolerances. Testing large parts, whether optical components or precision structures, to optical tolerances is just like testing small parts, only harder. Identical with what one does for small parts, a metrologist tests large parts and optics in particular to quantify their mechanical properties (such as dimensions, mass, etc); their optical prescription or design (i.e. radius of curvature, conic constant, vertex location, size); and their full part shape. And, just as with small parts, a metrologist accomplishes these tests using distance measuring instruments such as tape measures, inside micrometers, coordinate measuring machines, distance measuring interferometers; angle measuring instruments such as theodolites, autocollimators; and surface measuring instruments including interferometers, stylus profilers, interference microscopes, photogrammetric cameras, or other tools. However, while the methodology may be similar, it is more difficult to test a large object for the simple reason that most metrologists do not have the necessary intuition. The skills used to test small parts or optics in a laboratory do not extrapolate to testing large parts in an industrial setting any more than a backyard gardener might successfully operate a farm. But first, what is a large part? A simple definition might be the part's size or diameter. For optics and diffuse surface parts alike, the driving constraint is ability to illuminate the part's surface. For reflective convex mirrors, large is typically anything greater than 1 meter. But, for refractive optics, flats or convex mirrors, large is typically greater than 0.5 meter. While a size definition is simple, it may be less than universal. A more nuanced definition might be that a large part is any component which cannot be easily tested in a standard laboratory environment, on a standard vibration isolated table using standard laboratory infrastructure. A micro-switch or a precision lens might be easily measured to nanometer levels under a microscope in a lab, but a power turbine spline or a larger telescope mirror will not fit under that microscope and may not even fit on the table.

Stahl, H. Philip↗

Advanced UVOIR Mirror Technology Development for Very Large Space Telescopes

Objective of this work is to define and initiate a long-term program to mature six inter-linked critical technologies for future UVOIR space telescope mirrors to TRL6 by 2018 so that a viable flight mission can be proposed to the 2020 Decadal Review. (1) Large-Aperture, Low Areal Density, High Stiffness Mirrors: 4 to 8 m monolithic & 8 to 16 m segmented primary mirrors require larger, thicker, stiffer substrates. (2) Support System:Large-aperture mirrors require large support systems to ensure that they survive launch and deploy on orbit in a stress-free and undistorted shape. (3) Mid/High Spatial Frequency Figure Error:A very smooth mirror is critical for producing a high-quality point spread function (PSF) for high-contrast imaging. (4) Segment Edges:Edges impact PSF for high-contrast imaging applications, contributes to stray light noise, and affects the total collecting aperture. (5) Segment-to-Segment Gap Phasing:Segment phasing is critical for producing a high-quality temporally stable PSF. (6) Integrated Model Validation:On-orbit performance is determined by mechanical and thermal stability. Future systems require validated performance models. We are pursuing multiple design paths give the science community the option to enable either a future monolithic or segmented space telescope.

Stahl, H. Philip↗