FUSE Archival Instrument Handbook
FUSE Archival Instrument Handbook Title Page
Table of Contents 2.3 Optical Design 2.5 Spectrograph 2.5.1 Optical Design 2.5.2 Wavelength Coverage and Dispersion 2.5.3 Spectral Image Characteristics 2.6 Detector Design and Operation 2.6.1 Hardware and Software Description 2.6.2 Stim Lamp Assembly 2.7.1 Camera Assembly 2.7.1.1 Optics 2.7.1.2 FES CCD Detector 2.7.2 FES
Images 2.8 Instrument Data System (IDS) 3.1 Command and Data Handling System 4 In-Flight Instrument Performance 4.1 Telescope Focus 4.1.1 Post-launch Focus Assessment 4.1.2 Tails of the Telescope PSF 4.2 Telescope Alignment Performance 4.2.1 Initial
Alignment 4.2.2 Target
Peakups 4.2.3 Mirror
Motion Anomaly 4.2.3.1 On-orbit
Mirror Motion Mitigation Strategy 4.3.1 Spectrograph
Resolving Power 4.3.2 Scattered
Light 4.3.3 Effective
Area 4.3.4 The
Worms 4.3.5 Spectral
Motion 4.4 Detector
On-orbit Performance 4.4.1 High
Voltage Operations 4.4.2 Gain
Sag and HV Adjustments 4.4.2.1 Gain
Sag and Detector Walk Effects 4.4.2.2 High
Voltage Adjustments 4.4.3 Detector
Background 4.4.3.1 Internal
Background 4.4.3.2 South
Atlantic Anomaly 4.4.3.3 Event
Bursts 4.4.3.4 High
Background Periods 4.4.4 Geometric
Distortion 4.4.4.1 Thermal
Distortion and Stability 4.4.5 Flat
Field / MCP Effects 4.4.5.1 Chicken
Wire 4.4.5.2 Moir
Pattern 4.4.5.3 Brush
Marks 4.4.5.4 Dead
Zones 4.4.6 Pulse
Height Effects 4.4.6.1 Y1
= Y2 Feature 4.4.6.2 Counts
at Left and Right Edges of Segments 4.4.6.3 Loss
of High Gain Events at Top and Bottom of Detectors 4.4.6.4 The
Fold 4.4.7 Count
Rate Dependent Effects 4.4.7.1 Y
Blooming 4.4.7.2 Phantom
Spectra 4.4.7.3 Resolution
vs. count rate 4.4.7.4 Dead
Time 4.4.8 SAA
Shutdowns 4.4.8.1 SAA
Incursions at full voltage 4.5 FES
Performance
4.5.1 FES Photometry
4.5.2 Stray Light
4.5.3 FES A Failure
5 Bright Target Observing Strategies & Restrictions
5.1 Flux Limitations
5.2 Bright Target Observing Strategies
5.2.1 Bright Target Observing Strategies Implemented
5.2.1.1 SiC Only Observations
5.2.1.2 HIRS LiF Only
5.2.1.3 Single Detector Segment
5.2.2 Bright Target Strategies Evaluated - But Not Implemented
5.2.2.1 Defocus technique
5.2.2.2 Lowered HV method
5.2.2.3 Scattered Light Technique
6 FUSE Instrument Technical Appendix
6.1.1 Telescope Mirror Design
6.1.2 Optical Bench Structure
6.1.3 Thermal Control
6.1.4 Pre-launch Performance Specification & Evaluation
6.1.5 Mirror Positioning System Design
6.2.1 FPA X Axis
6.2.2 FPA Z Axis
6.3 Detector Design and Pre-launch Characterization
6.3.1 Hardware and Software Description
6.3.1.1 Vacuum Assembly
6.3.1.2 Electronics Assembly
6.3.1.2.1 Digitizers
6.3.1.2.1.1 Stim Pulses and Thermal Stability
6.3.1.2.2 Data Processing Unit
6.3.1.2.2.1 Overview
6.3.1.2.2.2 Calculation of Y Position
6.3.1.2.2.3 Masks and counters
6.3.1.2.2.4 Pulse Height Histograms
6.3.1.2.2.5 Current Protection
6.3.1.2.2.6 Detector Diagnostic Codes
6.3.1.2.2.7 DPU Code Versions
6.3.1.3 Stim Lamp Assembly
6.3.2 Normal Detector Operations
6.3.2.1 High Voltage Ramp-up
6.3.2.2 High Voltage Management: Occultation Manager
6.3.3 SIA tables
6.3.4 Single Event Upsets
6.3.5 High Voltage Transients (Crackles)
6.4.1 FES CCD Detector
6.4.2 Performance and Anomalies
6.4.2.1 FES-A Failure
6.4.2.2 FES-B Focusing
6.5 IDS: Instrument Data System
6.5.1 IDSACS Interface
6.5.2 Observation Sequencing and Fine Guiding
6.5.3 IDS Thermal Control
6.5.3.1 Thermal Design
6.5.3.2 Thermal Performance
6.6 Instrument On-orbit Performance
6.6.1 Telescope Focus
6.6.1.1 Post-launch Focus Assessment Details
6.7 Telescope Alignment Performance
6.7.1 Initial Alignment
6.7.2 Mirror Motion Anomaly
6.7.3 On-orbit Mirror Motion Mitigation Strategy
6.7.3.1 Mirror Alignment: Baseline Maintenance
6.7.3.2 Mirror Alignment: Predictive Modeling
6.7.3.3 Channel Alignment Operations
6.7.3.4 Orbital Motion
6.7.3.5 Impact and Evolution of Image Motion Corrections
6.7.3.6 Target Peak-up Strategy for MDRS and HIRS Observations
6.7.4 Channel Alignment: Observations and Analysis
6.7.5 Mirror Motion Accuracy
6.7.5.1 Mirror Motion Tracking and Actuator Performance
6.7.6 Spectral Motion Anomaly: Thermal & Mechanical Analysis
6.8 Optical Design Specifications
6.9 Dead Time
7 Attitude Control System Technical Appendix
7.1 In-flight ACS Performance Summary
7.2 Inertial Reference Unit Failures
7.3.1 Pitch & Yaw Reaction Wheel Failures: ~December 2001
7.3.2 Roll Reaction Wheel Failure: December 2004
7.3.3 Skew Reaction Wheel Failure: May 2007 & Observatory Decommissioning
7.4 Gyroless Attitude Determination
7.4.1 Basic Considerations
7.4.2 Flight Software Modifications
8 Satellite to Target Coordinate Transformation
8.2 Conversion of Raw FES Pixel Coordinates to Celestial Coordinates
10 FUSE Development and Operations Teams
10.1 Team List
11 Acronym List
12 References and Further Reading
12.1 Pre-launch Instrument Design and Testing
12.1.1 Optics
12.1.2 Detectors
12.1.3 Instrument Data System
12.2 In-Flight Instrument Performance
12.3 Target Acquisition and Guiding, Attitude Control System
12.4 Mission Operations and Observation Scheduling
12.5 Other
Table of Figures
Figure 2‑1 : Top: The integrated FUSE satellite. Bottom: Optical layout of FUSE instrument showing 4 channel design but only two
detectors Figure 2‑2: Exploded view of the FUSE instrument
structure. This figure illustrates the relationship between the photograph
of the assembled, flight-ready, FUSE instrument in the previous figure and the
schematic of the optical layout of the telescope and spectrograph Figure 2‑3: Schematic of the LiF1 and SiC1 FPAs shown relative
to the instrument optical design and beam size (top), with a detail of the FPAs
and their relationship to the Rowland Circle and the IPCS coordinate system
(bottom). In the LiF channel, light from the star field in the vicinity of the
target is reflected into an FES camera Figure 2‑4: The locations of the FUSE apertures projected on
the sky for a slit position angle of 0 with North in the -Y direction.
Positive aperture position angles correspond to a counter-clockwise rotation of
the apertures on the sky. In the FPA coordinate system the LWRS, HIRS, and MDRS
apertures are centered at Y= -118.07, -10.27, and +90.18,
respectively. This diagram represents only a portion of the FPA; the full
active area is ~19arcmin 19
arcmin Figure 2‑5: Photograph of the FUVS in a clean room at University
of Colorado Boulder just prior to shipment to Johns Hopkins University, with
the major optical components identified Figure 2‑6: Wavelength coverage, dispersion directions, and
image locations for the FUSE detectors. In this figure, the coordinate system
as used for the detectors is shown, where X is the dispersion direction Figure 2‑7:The astigmatic height of the FUSE spectra are shown
in these figures. The units of both axes for both the top and bottom figures
are detector elements, or pixels Figure 2‑8: Molecular hydrogen emission spectrum recorded by
detector 1B. This figure shows the full extent of the segment in the Y
direction (1024 pixels) but only a very small extent in X (1000 pixels or about
6 ). This image was constructed by adding together 6 different
images, each made with the lamp source illuminating an individual
aperture. From the top to the bottom of the image, the spectra are LiF
(MDRS aperture), LIF (HIRS aperture), LiF (LWRS aperture), SiC (MDRS aperture),
SiC (HIRS aperture), and SiC (LWRS aperture). The pinholes were not illuminated.
The LiF spectra are centered at ~1160 while the SiC spectra are centered at
~930 Figure 2‑9: Drawing showing the light path inside the FES Figure 2‑10: Diagram of an FES-A image with its different
coordinate frames. The raw FES CCD coordinates are (XFES, YFES)
with its origin at the lower left corner of the image. The FES IPCS coordinates
as projected onto the sky are (XIPCS, YIPCS) with its
origin located below the HIRS aperture. The exact location and size of the
three apertures are not on scale Figure 3‑1: ACS coordinate frames. Red: original, Green:
revised for magnetic control system Figure 4‑1:
The log of the count rate, normalized to unity, is shown plotted as a function of the X-position of a point-source image relative to the center of the HIRS aperture in each channel. This is equivalent to the convolution of the telescope PSF with the HIRS aperture. Figure 4‑2:
Same as Figure 4 1 above, but for the MDRS aperture Figure 4‑3:
Same as Figure 4 1 above, but for the LWRS aperture Figure 4‑4: Peakup scans over 5 successive orbits for
observation P203:04:01. The count rates as a function of scan step are shown in
different colors; the first scan of the observation is plotted in black and
shows the largest channel alignment errors. FPA adjustments required in
subsequent orbits were much smaller Figure 4‑5: Spectral resolution measured from ISM absorption lines along the line of sight to K1-16. Figure 4‑6:Spectral resolution measured from ISM absorption lines along the line of sight to RX J2117+3412. Figure 4‑7: The in-flight derived effective area as a
function of wavelength for each detector segment. Each curve for a given
detector segment represents a snapshot of the effective area as a function of
time and wavelength. The family of curves for each segment represents the
degradation of the effective area over the eight year on-orbit lifetime of the
mission Figure 4‑8:
Spectral images of a stellar spectrum obtained in the LiF1 channel for each aperture are plotted for detector segment 1A. The grey scale is inverted, so that regions of high count rate appear dark. The narrow vertical lines are absorption features arising from interstellar gas, primarily H2. The broad horizontal stripes are shadows cast by the detector QE grid wires, aka the "worms".
Figure 4‑9:
As in Figure 4-8 above, but for LiF1B. Note the strong worm feature in the LWRS spectral image.
Figure 4‑10:
As in Figure 4-8 above, but for LiF2A. In addition to the worm features present in each spectral image, faint single-pixel-wide horizontal moire patterns are evident, which are an artifact of the distortion corrections.
Figure 4‑11:
As in Figure 4-8 above, but for LiF2B.
Figure 4‑12:
As in Figure 4-8 above, but for SiC1A.
Figure 4‑13:
As in Figure 4-8 above, but for SiC1B.
Figure 4‑14:
As in Figure 4-8 above, but for SiC2A.
Figure 4‑15:
As in Figure 4-8 above, but for SiC2B. Worms are weak or not present. The very thin white jagged line running across the MDRS spectral image is an artifact from the distortion correction; some residual vertical distortion is present in the HIRS and MDRS spectral images beyond pixel 12000.
Figure 4‑16:
For a single observation (S505702) the position of the LiF1A Lyman-β airglow line on the detector is shown as a function of time. Each point represents the average position on the detector of ~500 consecutive airglow photons.
Figure 4‑17: The same data as in Figure 4‑16 is shown both before (top panel) and after (bottom panel) the CalFUSE grating motion correction is
applied Figure 4‑18: A binned portion of detector segment 1B illuminated in flight by the stim lamp, using just photons with pulse heights of (a) 2, (b) 4, (c) 8, and (d) 16. The x range covers 1200 pixels, while y includes the full height of the detector. The shadows of the two sets of grid wires are clearly seen in the vertical direction, but because of the binning in y, the horizontal wires are difficult to see. It is obvious from comparing these figures that there is an apparent shift in the position of the grid wires as a function of pulse height. The dark horizontal bands show regions where a large amount of exposure has caused gain variations. Figure 4‑19: A small portion of a LiF spectrum on segment 1A,
showing the same data both with and without the CalFUSE walk correction
applied; the two spectra are offset in the y axis by an arbitrary amount so
that the differences can be seen more easily. The walk-corrected spectrum has a
different wavelength scale and shows higher resolving power Figure 4‑20: Gain sag on detector segment 1A. The mean pulse
height is shown as a function of X pixel at two Y locations on the detector: at
the LiF LWRS spectrum location (solid line) and in a background region (dotted
line) in September 2000 (exposure M9980101001 - red) and in September 2007
(M9986701001 - green). The gain of the background region increased
substantially during the mission due to the increases in high voltage, and
remained fairly flat as a function of x pixel. The LiF1 LWRS region, however,
shows a significant gain variation as a function of x. The gain sag at Lyman-β
(x 7000) is especially obvious Figure 4‑21: An example of the count rate as a function of time
during an event burst showing a high-frequency component is 10 seconds. The
size, spatial distribution, and temporal profile of the bursts varied
significantly during the mission Figure 4‑22: A portion of one detector showing an example of a
scalloped burst Figure 4‑23: An example of a very large checkerboard burst on
Segment 1A, shown in FARF coordinates. Note that the checkerboard pattern is
distorted, while the spectrum remains undistorted Figure 4‑24: Segment 2A with a high detector background Figure 4‑25: Segment 2B with a high detector background Figure 4‑26: Temperatures measured by two of the detector
thermistors during a two day period beginning on 29 August 2002 (MJD 52515),
along with the high voltage on detector segment 1A at the same time. These data
are taken from the engineering snapshots, and therefore are only collected
during science exposures. The orbital variation of the ~1 C of the
temperatures is seen, superimposed on longer-term variations, such as that due
to the high voltage dropping to zero at ~1.2 days Figure 4‑27: The X shift (shift of the mean position of the two
stims) and stretch (change in separation between the two stim pulses) on
segment 1A, measured from the stim pulses for the same time period shown in
Figure 4‑13. Large changes in both shift and stretch are seen when the high
voltage shuts down Figure 4‑28: A small section of a flat field taken before
launch. This region covers 950 x 150 pixels of a single segment. The hexagonal
multifiber bundles are visible, as are some brush marks and dead spots on the
left side of the image. This image contains ~100 counts per pixel Figure 4‑29: This small section of a segment 2B ground flat
shows the most prominent Moir pattern, visible as the nearly vertical ripples
running across the image. The ripples have a peak-to-peak amplitude of +/-15%
and a period of ~9 pixels in X (~54 microns or ~1.5 resolution elements) Figure 4‑30: An isolated Type I dead zone on segment 1A is
shown. This dead spot is not completely black at the center, but the
sensitivity is down by a factor of ~4 from the surrounding region Figure 4‑31: An isolated Type II dead zone on segment 1A is
shown. Note the bright outer rim. The spot is located at (X, Y) = (10515, 530),
and it has a diameter of 40 pixels in X and 25 in Y (~250 microns). The Y1=Y2
feature is also prominent Figure 4‑32: Y projection of the normalized counts in a segment
2B stim lamp image for pulse heights 24 to 31. At a pulse height of 24 or
below, all Y pixels in the active region have counts. For pulse heights above
24, however, counts are discarded symmetrically about pixel 512. Note that the
shape of each projection is determined by the gain of the segment as a function
of position Figure 4‑33: Raw data from the far right edge of segment 1A in a
stim lamp exposure. Counts that should have been lost beyond the active area to
the right are instead folded back into the active region Figure 4‑34: FES-A 1 × 1 image (A1080201001fesafraw.fit) of the field
of view in the direction of the globular cluster NGC 6723 Figure 4‑35: FES intensities (top) and positional errors
(bottom) compared with HST GSC values Figure 4‑36:
A raw image from FES-A with a high level of scattered light is shown. The dark border seen on all sides is the aperture mask. The spectrograph apertures are visible: MDRS, HIRS, and LWRS in order from left to right. Light scattered by the edges of the HIRS aperture cause it to appear bright in this image. The dimpled region surrounding the apertures is an artifact of the manufacture of the FPA mirrors. The feature centered at X=97, Y=344, that appears somewhat oblong is a glint caused by a defect in the FPA surface. It extends roughly +/-5 pixels along either axis, and may move +/-5 pixels in the vertical direction, depending on the FPA position. There are a few other defects on the LiF1 FPA, but they are small and are rarely seen.
Figure 4‑37:
A raw FES-B image with a high level of scattered light is shown. The dark border seen on three sides is the aperture mask. The spectrograph apertures are visible: LWRS, HIRS,MDRS in order from left to right. Light scattered by edges of HIRS make it appear bright in this image. The dimpled region surrounding the apertures is an artifact of the manufacture of the FPA mirrors. A long scratch in the FPA is visible on the left side of the image.
Figure 6‑1 Left: FUSE mirror resting face-up on flexures prior
to integration into the mirror assembly. Right: Backside of the FUSE primary
mirror illustrating the aggressive lightweighting of the Zerodur mirror
substrate Figure 6‑2: Face-on view of mirror actuator assembly
showing the three actuators and composite structure Figure 6‑3: Left: Dummy aluminum mirror with actuator
assembly (ref Ohl). Right: Full flight mirror assembly, including pie-pan
thermal enclosure and aperture stop. 98 Figure 6‑4: The actuator locations relative to the mirrors and
the IPCS coordinate frame Figure 6‑5: Expanded view of the detector stack mounting in the
FUSE detector. The QE grid is held by the frame at the top, and the curved MCPs
are mounted to a cylindrical surface to match the Rowland circle Figure 6‑6: A FUSE detector
Vacuum Assembly mounted to the detector mounting bracket in the spectrograph
cavity. The door assembly is at the top, with the light baffle protruding. Two
ion pumps are visible at the front right, and the high voltage filter module,
charge amplifiers, and timing amplifiers are visible behind them. The
ladder-like structures at the top on either side of the detector are
spectrograph baffles. Figure 6‑7: Electronics Assembly and Stim Lamp Assembly of the
spare detector Figure 6‑8: Block diagram of the encoding electronics for the
FUSE detectors Figure 6‑9: Functional Block Diagram of the Detector Electronics
Assembly (hardware and software) Figure 6‑10: Detector X shift, as measured by the change in
position of the stim pulses, for all four segments during the mission. Long
term trends appear to dominate short term temperature effects, particularly on
segments 1B and 2B Figure 6‑11: Positions of SEUs during the mission. The dashed
line shows the SAA region used by Mission Planning after 17 September 2003. No
events occur below -25 due to the orbit of the satellite Figure 6‑12: HVIA, HVIB, and AUXI during a crackle Figure 6‑13: Number of crackles and mini-crackles vs. time Figure 6‑14: Orbital Dependency of Image Motion for Selected
Targets Figure 6‑15: xy alignment scans as depicted using the
Alignment Tool Graphical Analysis. These data are discussed in Section
6.7.4 Figure 6‑16: Example of Channel Alignment Tool (ChAT) Results Figure 6‑17: (Revised) One Wheel Mode Alignment Scan Pattern Figure 6‑18: One Wheel Mode Alignment Scan Pattern Results Figure 6‑19: Additional ChAT Sample Results Figure 6‑20: Time series of individual mirror motions executed
to maintain co-alignment of the LiF channels Figure 6‑21: Time series of individual mirror motions executed
to maintain co-alignment of the SiC channels Figure 6‑22: The range of motion for each of the Lif1 (top) and
LiF2 (bottom) mirrors illustrating that although to co-alignment position for
each actuator exhibits a secular drift with time, this change is small and well
within the range of travel for each of the actuators Figure 6‑23: The range of motion for each of the SiC1 and
SiC2 mirror actuators Figure 6‑24: LiF2B data over an orbital period illustrating
that the spectral motion observed with the GMA shroud at 19 C (top) is
shifted/offset by ~5-6 pixels from the data acquired with the GMA shroud at the
nominal 23 C (bottom) Figure 6‑25: Optical element layout for LiF1, SiC1 channels Figure 6‑26: Optical element layout for LiF2, SiC2 channels Figure 6‑27: Optical element layout, top view Figure 6‑28: Line drawing of an FPA mechanism, showing the
two-axis stage and aperture plate Figure 6‑29: Details of optics layout at detector surfaces Figure 6‑30: Positions of optical elements Figure 6‑31: Side views of instrument, showing the structure,
optics, baffles, electronics, and radiators. Left: Y-Z view, Right: X-Z view Figure 6‑32: Section views of a primary mirror. Top:
"pie-pan" enclosure, intermediate plate and bench are shown, with
positions of the actuators. Bottom: mirror dimensions and vertex position are
shown Figure 6‑33: Close-up view of light paths at the FPA-FES
interface Figure 6‑34: A section view of a grating mount assembly and
grating are shown Figure 6‑35: Functional block diagram showing the flow of events
through the detector electronics (1 of 2). Counts incident on the detector can
be lost (1) at the digitizer; (2) due to counts falling outside the Active
Image Mask; and (3) in the Round Robin, which combines the data from two
segments on one detector. 169 Figure 6‑36: Functional block diagram showing the flow of events
through the detector electronics (2 of 2). Counts can be lost (4) in the IDS if
the count rate is above 32,000 cps (HIST only); (5) due to screening by the SIA
table (HIST only); (6) in the IDS if the count rate is above 8,000 cps (TTAG);
(7) if the FIFO fills (TTAG); or between the spacecraft and the ground system Figure 6‑37: Apparent count rate as a function of time for
exposure Q11401001, which was obtained in TTAG mode, despite having a count
rate of more than 100,000 counts per second. For the first ~520 seconds the
count rates on all four segments were constant, with their sum limited to the
8,000 cps TTAG data bus limit. For the remainder of the exposure, regular data
dropouts appeared as the FIFO filled Figure 6‑38: Detector dead time performance Figure 6‑39: Updated live-time calibration curves. Figure 8‑1: This typical FUSE guide star plot shows the usable
guide stars and aperture positions. The pixel coordinate scale is for FES-A.
The orientation of North and East is shown in the lower left corner
Table of Tables Table 2.2‑1: FUSE Instrument Specifications; Channel 1 Table 2.2‑2: FUSE Instrument Specifications Channel 2 Table 2.4‑1: Apertures Table 2.4‑2 FPA locations and pointing offsets for a typical
FP-split pattern Table 2.5‑1: Spectrograph and Grating Properties Table 2.5‑2: Wavelength Ranges for Detector Segments Table 2.6‑1: Detector Specifications Table 2.7‑1: FES Camera Characteristics Table 2.7‑2: FES CCD Characteristics Table 2.7‑3: Center Positions of the Three Apertures and the
Reference Point in FES-A and FES-B 1 × 1-binned Images Table 4.3‑1: Spectral
resolving power of the FUSE instrument with the low resolution, LWRS, aperture.
These initial numbers were based on the channel with the best resolution performance
at the specified wavelength. At the shortest wavelengths SiC2 has higher
resolution than SiC1, and at the longest wavelengths the LiF1 spectral
resolution is superior to LiF2 Table 4.3‑2: Summary of worms identified in the FUSE data Table 4.4‑1: Default high voltage values used during the
mission Table 4.4‑2: ASC thresholds used during normal operations Table 6.1‑1: FUSE Mirror Properties Table 6.2‑1: History of FPA Z-axis motions. The first three
columns give the observation ID, date, and start time for the observation
immediately following a change in FPA Z position Table 6.3‑1: Detector Specifications Table 6.3‑2: Detector 1 Thermistors Table 6.3‑3: Summary of detector mask changes during the mission Table 6.3‑4: Detector masks and counters Table 6.3‑5: Selected DPU Diagnostic Codes Table 6.3‑6: DPU code versions used during normal operations.
Different values were used during stim lamp exposures Table 6.3‑7: SiC HIRS SIA Tables used during the mission Table 6.3‑8: SiC MDRS SIA Tables used during the mission Table 6.3‑9: SiC LWRS SIA Tables used during the mission Table 6.3‑10: LiF HIRS SIA Tables used during the mission Table 6.3‑11: LiF MDRS SIA Tables used during the mission Table 6.3‑12: LiF LWRS SIA Tables used during the mission Table 6.3‑13: SEUs by detector and memory core Table 6.3‑14: Number of mini-crackles and crackles during the
mission. The values in parentheses are the diagnostic value (in hex) issued by
the detector Table 6.6‑1: Initial
in-flight telescope focus adjustments made November 23, 1999. Adjustments
in the focus (Z) direction are limited to 10 micron increments of the FPAs.
Small residual errors account for the slight departures from integral 10 micron
changes in the adjustment values above. The true uncertainty in the
magnitude of the computed focus adjustment was at least 30 microns Table 6.6‑2: Spectrograph
focus adjustments executed on December 12th, 1999 as a result of the
I817 post-launch programs Table 6.6‑3: Spectrograph
focus adjustments executed as a result of the I817 and I819 post-launch programs.
The spectrograph focus adjustments implemented March 16th, 2000,
were used for nominal operations for the remainder of the FUSE mission Table 7.2‑1: IRU (gyro) Chronology of Events Table 7.3‑1: FUSE Reaction Wheel events Table 8.2‑1: Optical distortion coefficients for FES-A Table 8.2‑2: Optical distortion coefficients for FES-B Table 8.2‑3: Reference Point positions in corrected pixel
coordinates Table 9.2‑1: Airglow emission lines seen during orbital
day when looking up Table 9.2‑2: Strongest airglow emission lines seen looking down
during orbital day. 189 Table 10.1‑1: FUSE development and operations personnel