Refractive vs Reflective Correctors

Abstract

SummaryImproved designs of refractive correctors produce excellent images with fast telescopes such as those with an F/1.5 prime focus and F/3.5 secondary focus. The fields are flat and there is compensation for the chromatic effect caused by windows. Disadvantages of such correctors are that stray light is produced at the optical surfaces, the elements must be supported at their edges, prerequisite high quality glass is available in only limited sizes, and all wavelengths are not transmitted.Reflective correctors, on the other hand, can produce diffraction limited images at all wavelengths and the mirrors can be supported across their backs as well as at their edges. Disadvantages are that the images are degraded by any substantial window (such as a detector faceplate), there is more central obstruction, and the correctors are sometimes very large and heavy.Except, perhaps, for a specialized telescope, such as one devoted to multi-object slit spectroscopy using fibres, the refractive corrector is preferable at fast foci.A good combination is a Ritchey-Chretien (R-C) telescope with refractive correctors at the fast prime and secondary foci, and a reflective corrector-magnifier for the slow infrared focus.

Liquid mirror telescopes - Present and future

“…It is hard to correct parabolas over large fields. The Paul-Baker corrector (Richardson and Morbey 1984) is an interesting design but unfortunately the correcting elements can be very large. Large correctors, whether transmitting or reflecting are expensive and could be the most expensive components of a large LMT.…”