{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028469750889679714, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0011862396204033216, 'mean_word_length': 4.9822695035460995, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparative theoretical and experimental study of a Shack-Hartmann and a phase diversity sensor, for high-precision wavefront sensing dedicated to space active optics

Earth-imaging or Universe Science satellites are always in need of higher spatial resolutions, in order to discern finer and finer details in images. This means that every new generation of satellites must have a larger main mirror than the previous one, because of the diffraction. Since it allows the use of larger mirrors, active optics is presently studied for the next generation of satellites. To measure the aberrations of such an active telescope, the Shack-Hartmann (SH), and the phase-diversity (PD) are the two wavefront sensors (WFS) considered preferentially because they are able to work with an extended source like the Earth's surface, as well as point sources like stars. The RASCASSE project was commissioned by the French spatial agency (CNES) to study the SH and PD sensors for high-performance wavefront sensing. It involved ONERA and Thales Alenia Space (TAS), and LAM. Papers by TAS and LAM on the same project are available in this conference, too [1,2]. The purpose of our work at ONERA was to explore what the best performance both wavefront sensors can achieve in a space optics context. So we first performed a theoretical study in order to identify the main sources of errors and quantify them — then we validated those results experimentally. The outline of this paper follows this approach: we first discuss phase diversity theoretical results, then Shack-Hartmann’s, then experimental results — to finally conclude on each sensor’s performance, and compare their weak and strong points.