We present a reconstructions of galaxy-cluster-scale mass distributions from simulated gravitational lensing data sets including strong lensing, weak lensing shear, and measurements of quadratic image distortions -- flexion. The lensing data is constructed to make a direct comparison between mass reconstructions with and without flexion. We show that in the absence of flexion measurements, significant galaxy-group scale substructure can remain undetected in the reconstructed mass profiles, and that the resulting profiles underestimate the aperture mass in the substructure regions by $\sim25-40\%$. When flexion is included, subhaloes down to a mass of $\sim3\times10^{12}$ M$_\odot$ can be detected at an angular resolution smaller than 10\arcsec. Aperture masses from profiles reconstructed with flexion match the input distribution values to within an error of $\sim13\%$, including both statistical error and scatter. This demonstrates the important constraint that flexion measurements place on substructure in galaxy clusters and its utility for producing high-fidelity mass reconstructions.

Given a galaxy image, one cannot simply measure its flexion. An image's spin one and three shape properties, typically associated with F- and G-flexion, are actually complicated functions of the galaxy's intrinsic shape and the telescope's PSF, in addition to the lensing properties. The same is true for shear. In this work we create a completely analytic mapping from apparent measured galaxy flexions to gravitational flexions by (1) creating simple models for a lensed galaxy and for a PSF whose distortions are dominated by atmospheric smearing and optical aberrations, (2) convolving the two models, and (3) comparing the pre- and post-convolved flexion-like shape variations of the final image. For completeness, we do the same for shear. As expected, telescope astigmatism, coma, and trefoil can corrupt measurements of shear, F- flexion, and G-flexion, especially for small galaxies. We additionally find that PSF size dilutes the flexion signal more rapidly than the shear signal. Moreover, mixing between shears, flexions, and asymmetric aberrations can create additive offsets in lensing measurements that vary with both galaxy size and galaxy ellipticity and flexion values. But all is not lost; by measuring the patterns, we can correct for them.

Q1: Why deploy N wavefront sensors on a three mirror anastigmat (TMA) and not N + 1? Q2: Why measure M Zernike coefficients and not M + 1? Q3: Why control L rigid body degrees of freedom (total) on the secondary and tertiary and not L + 1? The usual answer: "We did a lot of ray tracing and N,M, and L seemed OK." We show how straightforward results from aberration theory may be used to address these questions. We consider, in particular, the case of a three mirror anastigmat.

Axially symmetric telescopes produce well known "Seidel" off-axis third-order aberration patterns: coma, astigmatism, curvature of field and distortion. When axial symmetry is broken by the small misalignments of optical elements, additional third-order aberration patterns arise: one each for coma, astigmatism and curvature of field and two for distortion. Each of these misalignment patterns is characterized by an associated two-dimensional vector, each of which in turn is a linear combination of the tilt and decenter vectors of the individual optical elements. For an N-mirror telescope, 2(N-1) patterns must be measured to keep the telescope aligned. Alignment of the focal plane may require two additional patterns. For N = 3, as in a three mirror anastigmat, there is a two-dimensional "subspace of benign misalignment" over which the misalignment patterns for third-order coma, astigmatism and curvature of field are identically zero. One would need to measure at least one of the two distortion patterns to keep the telescope aligned. Alternatively, one might measure one of the fifth-order misalignment patterns, which are derived herein. But the fifth-order patterns are rather insensitive to misalignments, even with moderately wide fields, rendering them of relatively little use in telescope alignment. Another alternative would be to use telescope pointing as part of the alignment solution.