TestMassSubstrateMaterialSelectionforAdvancedLIGOAn分析.pptVIP

LIGO RD Test Mass Substrate Material Selection for Advanced LIGO: An Update from the Optics Working Group David Reitze UF for the OWG Test Mass Material Selection At the LSC meeting, Livingston, LA, March 2004: Date for selection: June 30, 2004 June 30th has passed; where are we? Deadline driven by intimate link between optics and suspensions Physical dimensions of test mass material different for sapphire and fused silica Test mass size difference affects quad suspension design Must fix size to move design forward (and keep UK funding synchronized…) Do we have enough information to make a good decision? We always want more… Very active RD programs in sapphire and silica still producing important results Link between substrate and coating performance made clear over last two years; leads to a more complex decision Agreement between SUS and OWG to push back decision Not a problem given current AdL funding and construction schedule Down Selection Participants LSC Participants Helena Armandula, Gari Billingsley, Eric Black, Jordan Camp*, Dennis Coyne, Marty Fejer*, Sam Finn*, Peter Fritschel*, Gregg Harry, Jim Hough*, Steve Penn, Dave Reitze, Roger Route, Norna Robertson, Shiela Rowan, Peter Saulson*, David Shoemaker**, Phil Willems* * DS committee member, **DS chair Industrial Partners/Contributors Chandra Khattak (Crystal Systems, sapphire), Jean-Marie Mackowsky (SMA Virgo, coatings), Roger Netterfield (CSIRO, coatings) Sapphire Test Mass Requirements Fused Silica Test Mass Requirements The Importance of Coatings Decision Criteria: Beyond the physical, optical, and mechanical characteristics… Primacy of the astrophysics mission of Advanced LIGO Which substrate is better suited to optimizing the number, type, and parameter estimation of detectable events? IFO performance - “Will it work if we choose _______?” Hard failure mode – interferometer will not operate (or operate with significant reduction in sensitivity) Soft failure mode – some red