Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 30 references

MORFEO's simulated Strehl ratios meet ELT requirement targets

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

MORFEO, the ELT's adaptive-optics module, is reported at an advanced design stage; SPECULA simulations show it meeting its Strehl-ratio and sky-coverage targets under median conditions.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid FDR status report; the compliance claim in Table 2 is stronger than the evidence supports. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13258 v1 pith:GP2ZBNYB submitted 2026-07-14 astro-ph.IM

MORFEO: Advancing Towards Final Design

Lorenzo Busoni , Guido Agapito , Marco Bonaglia , Alfio Puglisi , Marco Xompero , Matteo Aliverti , Francesca Annibali , Carmelo Arcidiacono
show 101 more authors
Natalia Auricchio Nicol\`o Azzaroli Andrea Balestra Alessandro Ballone Louis Barbier Andrea Baruffolo Federico Battaini Maria Bergomi Andrea Bianco Michele Cantiello Giulio Capasso Giulia Carl\`a Enrico Cascone Ed Chapin Manal Chebbo Simonetta Chinellato Vincenzo Cianniello Paolo Ciliegi Mirko Colapietro Jean-Jacques Correia Giuseppe Cosentino Elia Costa Matteo D'ambrogio Vincenzo De Caprio Giuseppe De Luca Nicholas Devaney Ivan Di Antonio Amico Di Cianno Simone Di Filippo Benedetta Di Francesco Ugo Di Giammatteo Chiara Di Prospero Gianluca Di Rico Andrea Di Rocco Daphne Diretto Christian Eredia Simone Esposito Jacopo Farinato Italo Foppiani Takashi Funakawa Fulvio Gianotti Laurence Gluck Davide Greggio Sylvain Guieu Marco Gullieuszik Yuuichi Harikane Masahiro Ikoma Laurent Jocou Dan Kerley Mikio Kurita Salvatore Lampitelli Tommaso Lapucci Fulvio Laudisio Yves Magnard Demetrio Magrin Hossein Mahmoodzadeh Dheeraj Malik Luca Marafatto Laurence Michaud Christophe Michel Satoshi Miyazaki Kentaro Motohara David Mouillet Thibaut Moulin Matteo Munari Kentaro Nagamine Sylvain Oberti Fabrice Pancher Giorgio Pariani Sophie Penger Amedeo Petrella Laurent Pinard C\'edric Plantet Elisa Portaluri Kalyan Radhakrishnan Roberto Ragazzoni Edoardo Redaelli Edgar Renault Colin Richardson Marco Riva Sylvain Rochat Gabriele Rodeghiero Luca Rosignoli Bernardo Salasnich Benoit Sassolas Salvatore Savarese Marcello Scalera Pietro Schipani Danilo Selvestrel Mahshid Shiri Mina Sibalic Malcolm Smith Sebastian Soler Rosanna Sordo Alessandro Tacchini Alessio Taranto Ludovico Teodori Gabriele Umbriaco Yoshinori Uzawa Angelo Valentini Jean-Pierre V\'eran
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IM
keywords Adaptive OpticsMORFEOELTMCAOLaser Guide StarWavefront ControlDeformable MirrorsStrehl Ratio
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports that MORFEO, the adaptive-optics system that will feed the MICADO camera on the Extremely Large Telescope, is now passing its performance requirements in end-to-end simulations. Using the SPECULA simulation framework, the authors show that under median atmospheric conditions the system meets targets for Strehl ratio, full width at half maximum, and ensquared energy in K, J, and I bands across a 53-arcsec corrected field. The design consolidates key hardware: two post-focal deformable mirrors with about 1,000 actuators each, six laser-guide-star wavefront sensors, three natural-guide-star sensors, and a split hard/soft real-time control computer running a pseudo-open-loop control strategy. If the simulations are faithful to the as-built instrument and the real telescope atmosphere, MORFEO would deliver diffraction-limited, uniform imaging to MICADO, enabling the science that relies on wide-field near-infrared sharpness. The compliance evidence is entirely simulated; the wavefront error budget itself is deferred to a companion paper.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that MORFEO meets its top-level adaptive-optics requirements, quantified in Table 2 as Strehl ratio, FWHM, and 16×16 mas ensquared energy for several atmospheric cases. In every listed case the simulated value equals or exceeds the requirement: K-band Strehl of 0.61 against a 0.60 requirement in the best profile, 0.45 against 0.44 in the median profile, and 0.51 against 0.50 in a single-NGS configuration; J- and I-band values are likewise within reach. The paper further claims that under median seeing at a zenith angle of 30 degrees, stable performance is achieved over more than 80% of pointings at the South Galactic Pole, and that performance is governed mainly

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the SPECULA end-to-end adaptive-optics simulation framework. It combines a pseudo-open-loop control (POLC) estimator with tomographic reconstruction, models the six LGS Shack-Hartmann sensors and three low-order/reference wavefront sensors, and computes point-spread functions and ensquared energies for specified ELT turbulence profiles. Supporting hardware that the simulation must represent faithfully includes the two fifth-generation voice-coil post-focal deformable mirrors (930 mm and 1224 mm, with 1026 and 1147 actuators, conjugated at about 17.5 km and 6.5 km), the telecentric LGS objective with a linear stage to track sodium-layer focus, and the split hard-

Load-bearing premise

The compliance conclusion depends on SPECULA's end-to-end model being a faithful surrogate for the as-built instrument and the real ELT atmosphere; no laboratory or on-sky validation is presented, and the wavefront error budget that would anchor the simulation is deferred to a companion paper.

What would settle it

Measure the on-sky K-band point-spread function of MICADO+MORFEO at commissioning, and compare Strehl ratio, FWHM, and 16×16 mas ensquared energy to Table 2 for the same atmospheric profile and asterism; a systematic deficit (for example, median Strehl 0.40 rather than 0.45) would falsify the claim. A cheaper pre-commissioning check is to compare SPECULA predictions against end-to-end measurements taken with the Test Unit and Test and Alignment Camera during integration in the facility.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the simulated compliance holds, MICADO will receive diffraction-limited, uniform K-band images over a 53×53 arcsec field, with the specified FWHM and ensquared energy, under median ELT atmospheric conditions.
  • The sky-coverage result of over 80% at the South Galactic Pole means a large fraction of extragalactic fields, not just bright calibrators, would be accessible to the wide-field AO mode.
  • The near-equivalence of two- and three-NGS asterisms suggests target selection can be relaxed, potentially increasing the usable sky fraction for a given guide-star catalog.
  • The staged final-design review and assembly/integration schedule, with deformable mirrors already in assembly, implies the design is considered mature enough to proceed into manufacturing and integration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The compliance claim rests entirely on SPECULA simulation; the first laboratory tests with the Test Unit and the Test and Alignment Camera during integration will be the earliest chance to check whether the simulated point-spread function, and therefore the Table 2 margins, survive contact with the as-built optics.
  • If the two-versus-three-NGS result transfers to operations, the MORFEO scheduler could prioritize brighter two-star asterisms over fainter three-star triangles, trading field coverage for sky coverage; the paper hints at this but does not state it as an operational rule.
  • The LIFT-based sensing of segmented-mirror petal modes, if validated, could give ELT-class instruments a phasing capability without a dedicated pupil-plane sensor, a design choice other diffraction-limited instruments may adopt.
  • The paper's performance drivers—brightest NGS magnitude and asterism geometry—suggest that real-time optimized NGS selection, rather than only loop control, is the next lever for improving sky coverage; a testable extension would be to simulate an intelligent NGS-picking algorithm on the same atmospheric ensemble.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a status update for MORFEO, the ELT's multiconjugate adaptive optics module, as it approaches Final Design Review. It describes the opto-mechanical architecture (relay optics, thermal control), the two post-focal deformable mirrors (DM1/DM2), the LGS WFS system with its sodium-following zoom objective, the NGS low-order/reference WFS units, and the pseudo-open-loop control strategy implemented on a split hard/soft real-time computer. The central quantitative claim is in Section 5 and Table 2, where end-to-end simulations with the new SPECULA framework are said to 'demonstrate compliance' with the MORFEO top-level Strehl ratio, FWHM, and ensquared-energy requirements under median and other atmospheric conditions. The paper also summarizes the project's FDR roadmap and AIT/commissioning schedule.

Significance. If the performance-compliance claim is established, the result is significant: MORFEO would be on track to deliver diffraction-limited wide-field correction for MICADO, with concrete implications for ELT first-light science. The paper is strong on hardware concreteness: DM actuator counts and conjugation altitudes, LGS WFS pixel scales, LOR WFS configurations, FEA eigenfrequencies, and thermoelastic centroid drifts are all specified. The use of the SPECULA framework is a clear step forward relative to prior status reports, and the paper names the relevant companion analytical codes (TipTop, dedicated sky-coverage tools). The weakness is that the load-bearing compliance numbers rest entirely on an unvalidated simulation framework, with no error bars or sensitivity analysis, and the detailed wavefront error budget is deferred to a companion paper. Thus the headline claim is not yet supported to the level implied by the word 'demonstrate.'

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Table 2] The compliance margins are extremely small in several rows: R-MAO-82 K-band SR is 0.45 vs 0.44 required; R-MAO-168 K-band SR is 0.51 vs 0.50; R-MAO-80 K-band SR is 0.61 vs 0.60; R-MAO-82 J-band SR is 0.10 vs 0.08. No error bars, statistical ensembles, or sensitivity analyses are given for any of these point estimates. A systematic bias in the simulation of only 0.01–0.02 in K-band SR (from, e.g., DM fitting-error calibration, LGS spot-elongation modeling, sodium-layer profile assumptions, or tomographic reconstructor errors) would flip R-MAO-82 and R-MAO-168 from compliant to non-compliant. The text in §5 and the abstract says the simulations 'demonstrate compliance'; given these margins, this is an overstatement without an uncertainty estimate. Please either provide such an estimate or explicitly soften the claim to a provisional indication of compliance.
  2. [§5 and Ref. [28]] All performance numbers in Table 2 come from SPECULA, which the paper describes as a new next-generation framework that replaced PASSATA. No cross-calibration of SPECULA against PASSATA, against laboratory measurements, or against on-sky data is reported anywhere in the manuscript. Because the compliance claim depends on the credibility of SPECULA to a precision better than the smallest requirement margin, this is a load-bearing gap. I would like to see at least a representative cross-validation against PASSATA or a lab/on-sky dataset, or an explicit statement of which model inputs dominate the uncertainty and how they were bounded. Without this, the paper supports a design-status report but not a demonstrated performance compliance.
  3. [§5, before Table 2] The paragraph introducing the simulations states that a comprehensive wavefront error budget is deferred to the companion paper Agapito et al. 2026 [3]. Yet Table 2 and Figures 6–9 are presented as the evidence for the 'demonstration' claim. Since the reader cannot verify the error-budget contributions or the atmospheric/turbulence inputs behind the simulated values, the paper should either include a summary decomposition of the error budget and its uncertainties, or clearly label the results as preliminary and dependent on the companion paper. The current wording 'simulated values demonstrate compliance' is not supportable from what is in this manuscript alone.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] Reference [10] cites the same title and same proceedings ('MORFEO: Advancing Towards Final Design', these proceedings) as this manuscript itself. This appears to be a self-reference or a duplicate citation; please clarify the relationship or replace with a distinct prior-publication reference.
  2. [Table 1] The header 'LO 1×1 F ALO 2×2 SH' appears to be a formatting/typo issue; it should read 'LO FA (1×1)' and 'LO 2×2 SH' for clarity. Also, the units for FoV and pixel scale are given but should be defined consistently (arcsec vs milliarcsec) across columns.
  3. [§3.1] The claim that DM1/DM2 provide 'a fitting error below 40 nm RMS' and 'pre-calibrated shape within 10 hours... below 25 nm RMS surface' would benefit from a footnote or reference explaining how these numbers feed into the end-to-end budget, since they are not connected to Table 2.
  4. [§5, Fig. 8] The sentence 'The system achieves stable performance over 80% of the sky at the South Galactic Pole' is ambiguous: does '80% of the sky' mean 80% of the region around the SGP, or 80% of pointings with a certain magnitude limit? Please define the exact CDF threshold and the NGS asterism constraints used in the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity found: compliance numbers are simulation outputs compared with external requirements, not derived from the requirements or from fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper's central performance claim is that SPECULA end-to-end simulations in Table 2 and Figs. 6-9 meet MORFEO's Strehl, FWHM, ensquared-energy, and sky-coverage requirements. Those requirements and atmospheric conditions are external inputs, taken from the MORFEO Technical Specification and reference turbulence profiles [29]. The parenthetical values in Table 2 are explicitly 'estimated ... values obtained via simulation'; no equation in the paper defines those simulated quantities as equal to the requirements, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to Ref. [28] (the SPECULA framework paper, by project members) and Ref. [3] (companion wavefront error budget paper) provide provenance and deferred detail for the simulation tools, but they do not by construction force the compliance conclusion: the reported numbers are new outputs of a time-domain AO simulation, not identities derived from the requirements. The absence of SPECULA cross-validation against PASSATA, laboratory, or on-sky data, and the deferral of the detailed error budget to a companion paper, are genuine verification/correctness risks that weaken 'demonstrate compliance', but they are not circularity under the stated rubric. No specific reduction of an output to an input, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work, can be quoted, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no free parameters. Its central claim depends on the listed domain assumptions: reference atmospheric profiles, fidelity of the SPECULA simulation, manufacturer-specified DM performance, LGS sodium-layer behavior, and control-loop assumptions. These are engineering assumptions from the project or external references, not independently demonstrated here.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Reference turbulence profiles Q1/median/Q4 and median seeing 0.64 arcsec at Z=30 deg represent real ELT conditions.
    Table 2 and Figures 6-9 use these profiles to claim compliance; if actual site seeing or turbulence structure differs, the simulated margins may not hold (Sec 5).
  • domain assumption SPECULA faithfully simulates the AO loop, including LGS WFS, DMs, control, and PSF formation.
    All performance numbers in Table 2 and Figures 6-9 come from SPECULA, cited as Ref [28] but not independently validated or released (Sec 5).
  • domain assumption Manufacturer-specified DM performance (1026/1147 actuators, 500 Hz, fitting error <40 nm RMS, 10-hour stability <25 nm RMS) is assumed in the error budget.
    Sec 3.1 states these values; they feed the performance model and are not independently verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption The LGS sodium-layer altitude range 80-200 km and the LGSO telecentric zoom plus 16 arcsec FoV are sufficient to avoid defocus and spot truncation.
    Sec 3.2; if sodium-layer excursions or spot elongation exceed assumptions, LGS WFS performance degrades.
  • domain assumption Pseudo-open-loop control with the HRTC/SRTC split achieves the assumed bandwidth and latency at 500 Hz.
    Sec 4; control details are in Ref [2] (in preparation), so latency, noise, and reconstruction assumptions are not checkable here.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MORFEO: Advancing Towards Final Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GP2ZBNYB

@misc{pith2026260713258,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MORFEO: Advancing Towards Final Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GP2ZBNYB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.13258}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The Multiconjugate adaptive Optics Relay For ELT Observations (MORFEO) is a first-generation adaptive optics module for the Extremely Large Telescope (ELT), designed to deliver a diffraction-limited, highly uniform 53x53 arcsec field of view to the MICADO near-infrared camera. As the project advances toward its Final Design Review (FDR), significant consolidations have been achieved across all subsystems. This paper presents an updated overview of the MORFEO system, highlighting its dual operational modes (MCAO and SCAO) and recent developments in its opto-mechanical architecture. We dedicate specific focus to the core adaptive hardware, detailing the fifth-generation post-focal deformable mirrors, the highly complex Laser Guide Star (LGS) objective zoom system required to track sodium layer variations, and the Natural Guide Star (NGS) low-order and reference sensing strategies. Furthermore, we detail the advanced pseudo-open-loop control strategy managed by a split Hard and Soft Real-Time Computer architecture. Finally, we report the latest end-to-end performance estimations obtained via the SPECULA simulation framework, demonstrating compliance with the stringent Strehl Ratio and sky coverage requirements under median atmospheric conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.13258 by Alessandro Ballone, Alessandro Tacchini, Alessio Taranto, Alfio Puglisi, Amedeo Petrella, Amico Di Cianno, Andrea Balestra, Andrea Baruffolo, Andrea Bianco, Andrea Di Rocco, Angelo Valentini, Benedetta Di Francesco, Benoit Sassolas, Bernardo Salasnich, Carmelo Arcidiacono, C\'edric Plantet, Chiara Di Prospero, Christian Eredia, Christophe Michel, Colin Richardson, Danilo Selvestrel, Dan Kerley, Daphne Diretto, Davide Greggio, David Mouillet, Demetrio Magrin, Dheeraj Malik, Ed Chapin, Edgar Renault, Edoardo Redaelli, Elia Costa, Elisa Portaluri, Enrico Cascone, Fabrice Pancher, Federico Battaini, Francesca Annibali, Fulvio Gianotti, Fulvio Laudisio, Gabriele Rodeghiero, Gabriele Umbriaco, Gianluca Di Rico, Giorgio Pariani, Giulia Carl\`a, Giulio Capasso, Giuseppe Cosentino, Giuseppe De Luca, Guido Agapito, Hossein Mahmoodzadeh, Italo Foppiani, Ivan Di Antonio, Jacopo Farinato, Jean-Jacques Correia, Jean-Pierre V\'eran, Kalyan Radhakrishnan, Kentaro Motohara, Kentaro Nagamine, Laurence Gluck, Laurence Michaud, Laurent Jocou, Laurent Pinard, Lorenzo Busoni, Louis Barbier, Luca Marafatto, Luca Rosignoli, Ludovico Teodori, Mahshid Shiri, Malcolm Smith, Manal Chebbo, Marcello Scalera, Marco Bonaglia, Marco Gullieuszik, Marco Riva, Marco Xompero, Maria Bergomi, Masahiro Ikoma, Matteo Aliverti, Matteo D'Ambrogio, Matteo Munari, Michele Cantiello, Mikio Kurita, Mina Sibalic, Mirko Colapietro, Natalia Auricchio, Nicholas Devaney, Nicol\`o Azzaroli, Paolo Ciliegi, Pietro Schipani, Roberto Ragazzoni, Rosanna Sordo, Salvatore Lampitelli, Salvatore Savarese, Satoshi Miyazaki, Sebastian Soler, Simone Di Filippo, Simone Esposito, Simonetta Chinellato, Sophie Penger, Sylvain Guieu, Sylvain Oberti, Sylvain Rochat, Takashi Funakawa, Thibaut Moulin, Tommaso Lapucci, Ugo Di Giammatteo, Vincenzo Cianniello, Vincenzo de Caprio, Yoshinori Uzawa, Yuuichi Harikane, Yves Magnard.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Updated optical layout and main structure overview of the MORFEO system [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: MORFEO DM1. stability and stroke. This technology ensures the high actuator density and fast dynamical response times required to operate at the 500 Hz system frame rate, with a fitting error below 40 nm RMS; the DMs will be able to keep a pre-calibrated shape within 10 hour observations time with an error below 25 nm RMS surface. The DMs passed the FDR phase and are now under AIV phase. In particular the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: MORFEO DM2. (LGSO) in an LGS focal plane and the support structure that holds the six probes and aligns them within the beam in rotation and focus. The physical arrangement of the support structure and the probes is illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Laser Guide Star Wavefront Sensor (LGS-WFS). (a): 3D model of the assembly of six units, with a detailed view [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: sketch of the MORFEO Green Doughnut volume with the three LOR WFS Units (orange) on their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MORFEO K band SR. 6. ROADMAP AND AIT PLAN To efficiently manage the project’s high complexity, the Final Design Review (FDR) is structured as a multi-stage process rather than a single milestone. Several specific subsystem reviews have already been conducted or are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SR as a function of the off-axis distance for the Q1 atmospheric profile and I, J and K bands. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Cumulative Distribution Function (the so-called [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: K band SR as a function of brightest NGS magnitude and NGS asterism barycenter distance for the Q1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    PASSATA: object oriented numerical simulation software for adaptive optics

    G. Agapito, A. Puglisi, and S. Esposito. “PASSATA: object oriented numerical simulation software for adaptive optics”. In:Adaptive Optics Systems V. Ed. by Enrico Marchetti, Laird M. Close, and Jean-Pierre V´ eran. Vol. 9909. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. July 2016, 99097E, 99097E.doi:10.1117/12.2233963. arXi...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    MORFEO control strategy

    Guido Agapito et al. “MORFEO control strategy”. in preparation

  3. [3]

    MORFEO wavefront error budget

    Guido Agapito et al. “MORFEO wavefront error budget”. In: these proceedings

  4. [4]

    MAORY/MORFEO and LIFT: can the low order wavefront sensors become phasing sensors?

    Guido Agapito et al. “MAORY/MORFEO and LIFT: can the low order wavefront sensors become phasing sensors?” In:Adaptive Optics Systems VIII. Ed. by Laura Schreiber, Dirk Schmidt, and Elise Vernet. Vol. 12185. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. Aug. 2022, 1218556, p. 1218556.doi:10.1117/12.2629352. arXiv:2208.02662 [...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [6]

    NGSs acquisition in MORFEO

    Guido Agapito et al. “NGSs acquisition in MORFEO”. In:Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes (AO4ELT7). June 2023, 10, p. 10.doi: 10.13009/AO4ELT7-2023-011. arXiv: 2310.08181 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [7]

    Rolling shutter-induced aberrations in laser guide star wavefront sensing

    Guido Agapito et al. “Rolling shutter-induced aberrations in laser guide star wavefront sensing”. In: Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems8, 021505 (Apr. 2022), p. 021505.doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.021505. arXiv:2208.02661 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [8]

    MAORY/MORFEO at ELT: Thermal Control System preliminary design

    Matteo Aliverti et al. “MAORY/MORFEO at ELT: Thermal Control System preliminary design”. In: Adaptive Optics Systems VIII. Ed. by Laura Schreiber, Dirk Schmidt, and Elise Vernet. Vol. 12185. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. Aug. 2022, 121854P, 121854P.doi: 10.1117/12.2629908

    doi:10.1117/12.2629908 2022

  8. [9]

    Fifth generation AdOptica deformable mirrors for adaptive optics systems: Subaru ASM, GMT ASMS, MORFEO DM1/DM2, VLT 2GDSM

    Roberto Biasi et al. “Fifth generation AdOptica deformable mirrors for adaptive optics systems: Subaru ASM, GMT ASMS, MORFEO DM1/DM2, VLT 2GDSM.” In: these proceedings

  9. [10]

    MORFEO: Advancing Towards Final Design

    Lorenzo Busoni et al. “MORFEO: Advancing Towards Final Design”. In: these proceedings

  10. [11]

    MAORY: A Multi-conjugate Adaptive Optics RelaY for ELT

    Paolo Ciliegi et al. “MAORY: A Multi-conjugate Adaptive Optics RelaY for ELT”. In:The Messenger182 (Mar. 2021), pp. 13–16.doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5216. arXiv:2103.11219 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [12]

    MORFEO at ELT: the adaptive optics module for ELT

    Paolo Ciliegi et al. “MORFEO at ELT: the adaptive optics module for ELT”. In:Adaptive Optics Systems IX. Ed. by Kathryn J. Jackson, Dirk Schmidt, and Elise Vernet. Vol. 13097. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. Aug. 2024, 1309722, p. 1309722.doi: 10.1117/12. 3019058

    doi:10.1117/12 2024

  12. [13]

    The Rise of the Giant: ESO’s Extremely Large Telescope

    M. Cirasuolo et al. “The Rise of the Giant: ESO’s Extremely Large Telescope”. In:The Messenger192 (Mar. 2024), pp. 3–3.doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5346

    doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5346 2024

  13. [14]

    Advances in the Instrument Control System Software Design for MORFEO: Integration with MICADO and the post-focal Deformable Mirrors in the ELT Environment

    Elia Costa et al. “Advances in the Instrument Control System Software Design for MORFEO: Integration with MICADO and the post-focal Deformable Mirrors in the ELT Environment.” In: these proceedings

  14. [15]

    Design and challenges for the HARMONI Laser Guide Star Sensors

    Anne Costille et al. “Design and challenges for the HARMONI Laser Guide Star Sensors”. In:Adaptive Optics for Extremely Large Telescopes (AO4ELT7). June 2023, 9, p. 9.doi:10.13009/AO4ELT7-2023-010

    work page doi:10.13009/ao4elt7-2023-010 2023

  15. [16]

    MICADO: The Multi-Adaptive Optics Camera for Deep Observations

    R. Davies et al. “MICADO: The Multi-Adaptive Optics Camera for Deep Observations”. In:The Messenger 182 (Mar. 2021), pp. 17–21.doi:10.18727/0722-6691/5217. arXiv:2103.11631 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [17]

    Main structure general overview: mechanical design update from PDR towards the final design phase

    Vincenzo De Caprio et al. “Main structure general overview: mechanical design update from PDR towards the final design phase”. In:Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X. Ed. by Julia J. Bryant, Kentaro Motohara, and Jo¨ el. R. D. Vernet. Vol. 13096. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. July 2024, ...

    doi:10.1117/12.3019972 2024

  17. [18]

    2022.url: https://ftp.eso.org/pub/elt/repos/docs/ RTCTK/documents/v3.0.0/sphinx_doc/html/index.html

    ESO.RTC Toolkit v.3.0.0 Documentation. 2022.url: https://ftp.eso.org/pub/elt/repos/docs/ RTCTK/documents/v3.0.0/sphinx_doc/html/index.html

    2022

  18. [19]

    Real-Time Regulator Optimization for Tip-Tilt Compensation on Extremely Large Telescopes

    Marco Falotico et al. “Real-Time Regulator Optimization for Tip-Tilt Compensation on Extremely Large Telescopes”. In: these proceedings

  19. [20]

    Key wavefront sensors features for laser-assisted tomographic adaptive optics systems on the Extremely Large Telescope

    Thierry Fusco et al. “Key wavefront sensors features for laser-assisted tomographic adaptive optics systems on the Extremely Large Telescope”. In:Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems8, 021514 (Apr. 2022), p. 021514.doi:10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.021514. arXiv:2206.11383 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [21]

    Final optical design of MORFEO for the ELT

    D. Magrin et al. “Final optical design of MORFEO for the ELT”. In:Adaptive Optics Systems IX. Ed. by Kathryn J. Jackson, Dirk Schmidt, and Elise Vernet. Vol. 13097. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. Aug. 2024, 1309754, p. 1309754.doi:10.1117/12.3020359

    doi:10.1117/12.3020359 2024

  21. [22]

    MORFEO LGSO optical design

    M. Munari et al. “MORFEO LGSO optical design”. In:Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy X. Ed. by Julia J. Bryant, Kentaro Motohara, and Jo¨ el. R. D. Vernet. Vol. 13096. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. July 2024, 130965K, 130965K.doi: 10.1117/12.3019893

    doi:10.1117/12.3019893 2024

  22. [23]

    TIPTOP: a new tool to efficiently predict your favorite AO PSF

    Benoit Neichel et al. “TIPTOP: a new tool to efficiently predict your favorite AO PSF”. In:Adaptive Optics Systems VII. Ed. by Laura Schreiber, Dirk Schmidt, and Elise Vernet. Vol. 11448. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. Dec. 2020, 114482T, 114482T.doi: 10.1117/12.2561533. arXiv:2101.06486 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [24]

    Interfacing adaptive optics simulations with the optical model: a powerful tool for MORFEO

    G. Pariani et al. “Interfacing adaptive optics simulations with the optical model: a powerful tool for MORFEO”. In:Adaptive Optics Systems IX. Ed. by Kathryn J. Jackson, Dirk Schmidt, and Elise Vernet. Vol. 13097. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. Aug. 2024, 130974R, 130974R.doi:10.1117/12.3018817

    doi:10.1117/12.3018817 2024

  24. [25]

    MORFEO and LIFT: are you allergic to petals?

    C´ edric Plantet et al. “MORFEO and LIFT: are you allergic to petals?” In: these proceedings

  25. [26]

    Sky coverage assessment for the European ELT: a joint evaluation for MAORY/MICADO and HARMONI

    C´ edric Plantet et al. “Sky coverage assessment for the European ELT: a joint evaluation for MAORY/MICADO and HARMONI”. In:Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems8, 021509 (Apr. 2022), p. 021509.doi:10.1117/1.JATIS.8.2.021509

    doi:10.1117/1.jatis.8.2.021509 2022

  26. [27]

    LOR optomechanical design and analyses

    Edoardo Redaelli et al. “LOR optomechanical design and analyses.” In: these proceedings

  27. [28]

    Introducing a new generation adaptive optics simulation framework: from PASSATA to SPECULA

    Fabio Rossi, Alfio Puglisi, and Guido Agapito. “Introducing a new generation adaptive optics simulation framework: from PASSATA to SPECULA”. In:Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems12.1 (2026), p. 019001.doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.12.1.019001.url: https://doi.org/10.1117/1. JATIS.12.1.019001

    doi:10.1117/1.jatis.12.1.019001.url: 2026

  28. [29]

    Defining reference turbulence profiles for E-ELT AO performance simulations

    Marc Sarazin et al. “Defining reference turbulence profiles for E-ELT AO performance simulations”. In: Proceedings of the Third AO4ELT Conference. Ed. by Simone Esposito and Luca Fini. Dec. 2013, 89, p. 89. doi:10.12839/AO4ELT3.13383

    doi:10.12839/ao4elt3.13383 2013

  29. [30]

    The MAORY laser guide star wavefront sensor: design status

    Laura Schreiber et al. “The MAORY laser guide star wavefront sensor: design status”. In:Adaptive Optics Systems VI. Ed. by Laird M. Close, Laura Schreiber, and Dirk Schmidt. Vol. 10703. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. July 2018, 107031Y, 107031Y.doi: 10.1117/12.2314467

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2314467 2018

  30. [31]

    HEART: Herzberg Extensible Adaptive Real-time Toolkit (HEART): internal structure: blocks, pipes, and composition of a new RTC

    Malcolm Smith et al. “HEART: Herzberg Extensible Adaptive Real-time Toolkit (HEART): internal structure: blocks, pipes, and composition of a new RTC”. In:Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy VII. Vol. 12189. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series. Aug. 2022, 1218926, p. 1218926.doi:10.1117/12.2630528

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2630528 2022

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.