telescopeѲptics.net
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪▪▪▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪ CONTENTS
10.2.3.2. Maksutov-Newtonian telescope
Telescopes with meniscus-type full
aperture corrector - usually referred to as Maksutov corrector - are
respected among amateurs almost as no other telescope type. Many are
inclined to believe that the meniscus gives them some extra optical
quality, not achievable with other telescope types. Or, at least, that
this kind of telescopes, generally featuring spherical surfaces, is
easier to make to higher optical standards. Neither is factual -
Maksutov corrector is not perfect optically, and is all but easy to make
- and if there is a particular reason that it performs better, it is in
the above average fabrication quality.
It could be that it is exactly the high required fabrication accuracy
that resulted in the above average fabrication quality of the Maksutovs'.
The tolerances are very narrow, and the manufacturer cannot allow for
the luxury of relaxed fabrication/control, if planning on any kind of success
on the market. On the other hand, it is the labour-intensive nature
that allows achieving very small changes in radius - in the end
it boils down to being familiar with the proper grinding/polishing
technique and testing accuracy.
Similarly to the Schmidt-Newtonian, the only
difference between the camera and telescope arrangement with Maksutov
corrector in the Newtonian configuration comes from the
corrector's position. In the Maksutov-Newtonian, the meniscus is closer to the
spherical primary, commonly inside its focal point. Corrector position usually
nearly coincides with the aperture stop, so that reduction in mirror's off-axis
aberrations is very similar to that in the Schmidt-Newtonian. However,
unlike the Schmidt corrector, the meniscus induces some coma and astigmatism
of its own, which makes the final system properties somewhat different.
System properties in
the Newtonian configuration
with spherical primary (FIG. 184) can be quite well approximated
based on the mirror/meniscus combination described in the previous
section.
FIGURE 184: Illustration of the
Maksutov-Newtonian telescope configuration. The primary is spherical, and the
corrector lens is at ~0.8 of the primary's focal length in front of it. Aperture
stop at the corrector reduces mirror coma by
~40%. About half of the remaining mirror coma is
cancelled by the offset with the
opposite coma of the corrector.
That puts the coma of a typical MNT at ~30% of that of a
comparable Newtonian. Astigmatism and field curvature in
Maksutov-Newtonian are also lower, mostly due to the effect of
displaced aperture stop.
With σ~0.43, according
to Eq. 131, coma is reduced to ~30% of that in a comparable paraboloid
(note that with the meniscus convex to outside its coma changes sign, and adds to that of the primary;
in such arrangement, this system would have nearly twice as much coma).
Somewhat lower astigmatism - mostly due to the
aperture stop being
displaced from the spherical primary, and the rest due to the offset by
the opposite astigmatism of the corrector - results in less than half as strongly curved median
image surface. Spherical aberration cannot be reduced to zero, as it can
- at least in the design stage - with the comparable Schmidt
corrector, but the correction level is still impeccable at ~f/4 and smaller relative
apertures, and the
chromatism is, for all practical purposes, non-existent (FIG. 185).
As a consequence of the
corrector being closer to the mirror, its effective power for the mirror
is slightly higher. In other words, the corrector's spherical aberration
contribution is slightly higher. Since the mirror contribution is
unchanged, in order to strike the optimum balance between the two, radii
of the corrector need to be slightly more relaxed than in the camera
arrangement. Reflecting this, the first corrector radius is better
approximated by R1~[1-2τ-(F/100)]R"1,
than as given with
Eq. 128.
FIGURE
185: Ray spot diagrams for 200mm f/4 Maksutov- and Schmidt-Newtonian,
for (from left) the violet (436nm), blue (486nm), green (546nm), red
C (654nm) and h (707nm) spectral lines. Seemingly greater axial
chromatism (secondary spectrum) in the MN is actually its
residual higher-order spherical
aberration (not correctable in an all-spherical system, but reduced to
only 1/80 wave RMS here by balancing it with primary spherical).
On the other hand, in the Schmidt-Newtonian chromatc error
nearly entirely stems from spherochromatism. Closer look at the OPD (optical path difference, i.e. wavefront error)
reveals that the chromatic error is slightly greater in the MN
(the PSFs shown are for the violet g-line).
However, in either system axial chromatism is, for all practical purposes, non-existent.
Some lateral chromatism is noticeable in the MN, insignificant
visually, and acceptable for most photographic purposes. Both
systems have inferior field performance to that of
comparable Houghton-Newtonian varieties (FIG.
130 a/b). Astigmatism is similar in both, near negligible: 0.025mm longitudinal
astigmatism at 0.5 degrees off axis translates into 0.025/8F^2=0.000195mm P-V wavefront error, or
0.36 wave for 0.00055mm wavelength - just a tad better than the "diffraction limited" 0.0745 wave RMS
(astigmatism plot originates in the paraxial focus - hence it's shifted from the best focus in
the MN - since the wavefront deviation is
measured vs. central portion of the wavefront, focusing at the paraxial focus).
Unlike the SN, Maksutov-Newtonians typically have a small central obstruction, around 0.2D,
with near-negligible effect, and a slower focal ratio.
SPEC'S:
MN
SN
Similarly
to the Schmidt-Newtonian, alignment of the Maksutov-Newtonian is more complex
than that of all-reflecting Newtonian, due to the presence of lens corrector.
Ray tracing indicates that sensitivity to decenter of the
Maksutov corrector is similar to that of the Schmidt; however, its sensitivity
to tilt is several times higher. Raytracing a more common 6-inch f/6
configuration (below) illustrates aberrations arising from misaligned meniscus
(the two mirrors simply cause the field to shift with respect to
the apparent field center, w/o creating any aberrations).
In other words, field created by the meniscus misalignment
will be in effect shifted by misaligned mirrors and/or focuser.
That could be either compensatory, or additive. Note that the ray
spot plots are for flat field, since field aberrations are
slightly lower than for the best astigmatic - i.e. curved - field, due to the
presence of coma.
Decentering
meniscus by 2mm down brings 1/6.2 waves P-V of coma to the field
center, with the best focus shifted 0.2° down (1/80 wave RMS of
asymmetrical aberration consisting mainly from Zernike defocus and coma).
Meniscus tilt of 1° counterclockwise (top away from the primary)
induces 0.27 wave P-V of coma to the field center, with the best
focus point shifted about 0.3° down (1/40 wave RMS of Zernike defocus and
coma). Best focus section extends to about 0.15° gradually
worsening after that. Either decenter or tilt cause astigmatic
field to become asymmetrical, with sagittal astigmatism decreasing
in the upper field, and increasing in the lower (a bit less with the
decenter than with the - shown - tilt). This in effect creates
image tilt that can become significant with more of misalignment.
Coma induced by misalignment is approximately in inverse proportion to
the 3rd power of focal ratio: at f/4, this same amount of decenter would induce 1/2,
and tilt 2/3 wave P-V of coma to the field center.
Vignetting at the diagonal (bottom) is with 36mm diagonal minor
aixis, w/o offset. Out of 917 rays launched 872, or 95% makes it
past central obstruction (it should be closer to 94%, but accuracy
is less than 100% due to the limited number of rays). Considering that,
vignetting of the 0.75° beam ranges from 38% at the diagonal's bottom
to 33% at the top (24% and 16% for the 0.525° beam, respectively).
◄
10.2.3.1. Approximating
corrector radii
▐
10.2.3.3. Maksutov-Cassegrain
►
Home
| Comments |