Based on Doug, people believed it is safe to put the actual mirror on M1M3 support system because it passes all the requirements. This makes sense. However, for the M2, it might be hard to verify all the requirements at this moment since we are replacing all the existed software, which takes some time.
Based on Harris's document, the way they judged the mirror will be safe or not is the actuator force. That means they make sure the maximum actuator force will not be more than a specific threshold, and believe the mirror should be safe.
If this is reasonable, we could evaluate the actuator forces under all possible conditions (0-90 elevation angles, possible temperature fluctuation, reasonable applied bending mode forces, etc.). The test process can be developed on the test stand first. When we test this on the summit, we may want to rotator the cart to see the force change.
Another thing needs to check is the LUT parameters and others. Need to compare the configuration files for mirror and surrogate provided by Harris to have the idea of difference. When Bo and I did the test at 2019, we used the configuration files for the surrogate mirror. I think we may need to use the configuration files of mirror on the surrogate mirror to see the force changes.
I have the concern for the natural frequency of mirror. From the LTS-107, we can see several frequencies are listed. I do not know how to measure this on the real hardware. May need to check with the hardware engineers.
For the possible altitude of active forces, the existed AOS closed-loop simulation may or may not be a good source of judgement. In that simulation, the simulated force errors comes from the M1M3 instead of M2. There are two possible ways to make the simulation is for M2:
1. Update the AOS simulation to support to generate the mirror error from M2.
2. Change the penalty matrix to enforce to use the M2 to correct the error from simulated M1M3.
The above AOS tests can be parallel with the test of M2. For the M2, we could apply the bounce test to check the affection of each actuator. Maybe we could increase the applied force. In my memory, we only tried 10-30 N for each actuator before. I know there is the threshold for the actuator force in the cell control system. Maybe I should check the code logic there to see the code implementation. I am not sure it is based on the measured force, or just parts of corrections. When I reviewed Harris's documents, it is weird to me to see that they did not use the measured force in the judgement of safety. I do not know why at this moment.