Control of the Optical Wavefront in Phase and Amplitude by a Single LC-SLM in a Stellar Coronagraph Aiming for Direct Exoplanet Imaging

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is devoted to an interesting topic – correction of the wavefront in the coronograph. It presents both analytically obtained expressions and the results of numerical and laboratory experiments. At the same time, it is quite brief and specific. Nevertheless, the presented work is not without flaws, after correcting which and some additional explanations, the article can be published.

1) The numbering of references  must be done in numbers

2) Section 4. Why is the abbreviation in the name of the item?

3) In section 4 devoted to the experiment, the experimental setup itself is not actually described. It is necessary to explain which camera was used, which spatial modulator, what wavelength of the illuminating beam?

4) Captions to figures 3 and 4 are too long. It is necessary to replace a part of the captions in corresponding text secctions.

If the authors hope to use the developed method on a space telescope, then it would be useful to explain how the LC-SLM will work in harsh space conditions. Why LC-SLM was chosen and not other types of spatial modulators. Why do we need an adaptive scheme? Is it possible to use a static wavefront aberration corrector by measuring them once? Since they arrived at the Hubble Telescope. A static corrector is much more reliable and durable than a SLM.

Author Response

Dear Reviewers and editors. Thank you for review, for understanding and for joint efforts to adopt the manuscript easier for reader by addressing us to several valuable questions and remarks which we found them worth to be clarified in manuscript.

1. We made references numbering in numbers.  
2. Corrected section 4 title
3. Revised and some more detail are added to manuscript, such as LC-SLM and camera model, working wavelength, etc.
4. Captions for figures 3 and 4 shortened.
5. Added some thoughts about using this technique on space based telescopes in discussion section (5)

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see attached review report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewers and editors. Thank you for review, for understanding and for joint efforts to adopt the manuscript easier for reader by addressing us to several valuable questions and remarks which we found them worth to be clarified in manuscript.

1. Mentioned about fringe field effect and added link
2. Included more details about LC-SLM and incident angle + added a link
3. Details about wavelength also added
4. More technical details about LC-SLM added