EmberScope

Optical evaluation stack - 30 May 2026

Each screened mirror candidate gets the same optical evaluation.

The proof-of-concept ray trace reports field, wavelength, detector-pixel energy, MTF proxy, vignetting, perturbation yield, thermal focus sensitivity, packaging, and small-hot-target impact in one repeatable table.

Review candidate table Download CSV Download JSON

Historical checkpoint — these shapes are not working imagers.

The three shapes below are early three-mirror packaging variants. Detector-pixel energy is zero at every field point, and later work showed the screening-series layouts were physically self-obstructed, so none of these is a candidate design. The page is kept as the record of the evaluation method. The current reference design is the optimized four-mirror prescription of 10 June 2026 on the optics hub.

Checkpoint result

The stack is repeatable; the screened shapes were design baselines, not prototype prescriptions.

3 Mirror-shape candidates screened with the same checklist.
3 Field points: 0, 0.75, and 1.5 degrees.
8-14 um LWIR wavelength references used for diffraction and MTF proxies.
17 um Detector pixel pitch used for ensquared-energy and MTF checks.

Evaluation stack

The checklist covers the optical terms that feed the detection model.

Each row records centroided spot size, ray-fan proxy, wavefront proxy, MTF proxy, pixel ensquared energy, vignetting, tolerance perturbation yield, thermal focus yield, manufacturability notes, package fit, and a small-hot-target SNR factor.

The wavefront and Zernike values are marked as ray-residual proxies. A true optical-path-difference model and a non-sequential stray-light model are still required before any candidate can be treated as fabrication-ready.

Candidate comparison

The edge-field detector-energy result is visible beside the geometry screen.

Edge-field optical evaluation proxy for EmberScope mirror candidates.
Centroided edge-field RMS spot size is compared with two-pixel energy and vignetting for the current candidates.
Candidate Family Edge RMS 2x2 pixel energy MTF 0.5 Nyquist SNR factor Vignetting Tolerance yield Readiness
spherical spherical 6408.8 um 0% 0% 0% 38% 0% Needs maturation: image energy is too spread for the detector proxy.
conic conic 6236.7 um 0% 0% 0% 38% 0% Needs maturation: image energy is too spread for the detector proxy.
starter_freeform starter freeform 3788.0 um 0% 0% 0% 38% 0% Needs maturation: image energy is too spread for the detector proxy.

The SNR factor combines the current optical transmission proxy, vignetting, and two-pixel ensquared energy. It should replace the assumed image-energy term in the end-to-end model only after the candidate prescription is improved.

Open limits

The new table exposes the next optical work instead of hiding it.

True WFE still needs OPD tracing

The report carries WFE and Zernike-labelled proxy columns, but diffraction claims need optical-path-difference sampling.

Ghosts need a non-sequential model

Window reflections, warm housing paths, baffle scatter, and detector narcissus are outside the current sequential trace.

Candidate prescriptions need optimization

The current shapes are useful baselines; the detector-energy rows show why they are not yet prototype prescriptions.

Detection rows can use measured optics

The 2x2-pixel energy and MTF fields give the end-to-end model a concrete replacement for assumed image-spread factors.