WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics
Build to Cost Concept Review:
Introductions &
Charge to the Review Committee
Taft Armandroff, Hilton Lewis
March 18, 2009
Introductions
• Reviewers:
– Brent Ellerbroek (TMT)
– Mike Liu (UH)
– Jerry Nelson (UCSC)
• Directors
– Taft Armandroff
– Mike Bolte
– Tom Soifer for Shri
Kulkarni
– Hilton Lewis
• SSC co-chair
– Chris Martin
• NGAO Team
2
Review Success Criteria
• The revised science cases & requirements continue to
provide a compelling case for building NGAO
• We have a credible technical approach to producing an
NGAO facility within the cost cap and in a timely fashion
• We have reserved contingency consistent with the level of
programmatic & technical risk
These criteria, plus the deliverables & assumptions (next
page), were approved by the Directors & presented at the
Nov. 3, 2008 SSC meeting
3
Review Deliverables & Assumptions
•
Deliverables include a summary of the:
–
–
–
–
–
•
Revisions to the science cases & requirements, & the scientific impact
Major design changes
Major cost changes (cost book updated for design changes)
Major schedule changes
Contingency changes
Assumptions
– Starting point will be the SD cost estimate with the addition of the science
instruments & refined by the NFIRAOS cost comparison
•
Better cost estimates will be produced for the PDR
– No phased implementation options will be provided at this time
•
Some may be for the PDR to respond to the reviewer concerns
– Major documents will only be updated for the PDR
•
SCRD, SRD, FRD, SDM, SEMP
– Will take into account the Keck Strategic Planning 2008 results
4
Agenda
9:00 Introductions & Charge
9:15-14:30 Review Presentation
with 10:15 break & 12:30 Lunch
14:45 Review Panel Discussion & Report Drafting
16:45 Draft Report from Panel
17:15 End
5
WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics:
Build to Cost Concept Review
Peter Wizinowich, Sean Adkins, Rich Dekany,
Don Gavel, Claire Max & the NGAO Team
March 18, 2009
Presentation Sequence / Schedule
9:15
9:25
9:45
10:15
10:30
11:40
11:50
12:30
13:30
14:00
14:15
14:45
B2C Guidelines & Cost Reduction Approach (PW)
Science Priorities (CM)
Cost Estimate Starting Point (PW)
Break
AO Design Changes (PW, RD, DG)
Science Impact (CM)
Science Instrument Design Changes & Cost Estimate (SA)
Lunch
Revised Cost Estimate (PW)
Assessment of Review Deliverables & Success Criteria (PW)
Questions & Discussion
End
7
Build-to-Cost Guidelines &
Cost Reduction Approach
Build-to-Cost Guidelines
Provided by the Directors & SSC co-chairs in Aug/08
• $60M cost cap in then-year dollars
–
–
–
–
From start of system design through completion
Includes science instruments
Must include realistic contingency
Cap of $17.1M in Federal + Observatory funds ($4.7M committed)
• An internal review of the build to cost concept to be held
and reported on no later than the Apr/09 SSC meeting
9
The Challenge
• Previous estimate ~$80M in then-year dollars
– NGAO estimate at SDR, including system design (SD), ~ $50M
– Science instrument estimate at proposal ~ $30M
– Instrument designs were not part of the NGAO SDR deliverables
10
Cost Reduction Approach
• Review & update the science priorities
• Review other changes to the estimate (e.g. NFIRAOS cost
comparison)
• Update the cost estimate in then-year $
• Present & evaluate the recommended cost reductions
– As architectural changes
– As a whole including performance predictions
• Present revised cost estimate
• Revisit review success criteria & deliverables
We believe the criteria have been successfully met
11
Science Priorities
Key Science Drivers
Five key science drivers were developed for the NGAO SDR (KAON 455):
1. Galaxy assembly & star formation history
2. Nearby Active Galactic Nuclei
3. Measurements of GR effects in the Galactic Center
4. Imaging & characterization of extrasolar planets around nearby stars
5. Multiplicity of minor planets
•
We will discuss how our recommended cost reductions impact this
science.
13
Science Priority Input: SDR Report
From the SDR review panel report (KAON 588) executive summary:
•
The panel supported the science cases
–
•
The panel was satisfied with the science requirements flow down & error
budget
–
–
•
“The science requirements are comprehensive, and sufficiently analyzed to properly
flow-down technical requirements.”
“… high Strehl ratio (or high Ensquared Energy), high sky coverage, moderate
multiplex gain, PSF stability accuracy and PSF knowledge accuracy … These
design drivers are well justified by the key science cases which themselves fit well
into the scientific landscape.”
The panel was concerned about complexity & especially the deployable IFS
–
–
•
“The NGAO Science cases are mature, well developed and provide enough
confidence that the science … will be unique within the current landscape.”
“However, the review panel believes that the actual cost/complexity to science
benefits of the required IFS multiplex factor of 6 should be reassessed.”
“… recommends that the NGAO team reassess the concept choices with a goal to
reduce the complexity and risk of NGAO while keeping the science objectives.”
The panel had input on the priorities
–
“The predicted Sky Coverage for NGAO is essential and should remain a top
requirement.”
14
Science Priority Input: Keck Scientific Strategic Plan
From the Keck SSP 2008:
•
•
•
•
•
“NGAO was the unanimous highest priority of the Planetary, Galactic, &
Extragalactic (in high angular resolution astronomy) science groups. NGAO
will reinvent Keck and place us decisively in the lead in high-resolution
astronomy. However, the timely design, fabrication & deployment of NGAO
are essential to maximize the scientific opportunity.”
“Given the cost and complexity of the multi-object deployable IFU instrument
for NGAO, …, the multi-IFU instrument should be the lowest priority part of the
NGAO plan.”
Planetary recommendations in priority order: higher contrast near-IR imaging,
extension to optical, large sky coverage.
Galactic recommendations in priority order: higher Strehl, wider field, more
uniform Strehl, astrometric capability, wide field IFU, optical AO
Extragalactic high angular resolution recommendations a balance between the
highest possible angular resolution (high priority) at the science  & high
sensitivity
15
Science Implications of no Multiplexed d-IFU
• Galaxy Assembly and Star Formation History
– Reduced observing efficiency
• Single target observed at a time
• Calibrations (e.g., sky, telluric, PSF) may require dedicated observing
sequences
– Decreases overall statistics for understanding processes of galaxy
formation and evolution
•
Can be supplemented with complementary HST & JWST results at higher z
• General Relativity in the Galactic Center
– Decreased efficiency in radial velocity measurements (fewer stars
observed at once)
• Can gain back some of efficiency hit with a single on-axis
IFU that has higher sensitivity (especially for galaxy assembly)
& larger FOV (especially for GC)
16
Flowdown of Science Priorities
(resultant NGAO Perspective)
Based on the SDR science cases, SDR panel report & Keck Strategic Plan:
1. High Strehl
•
•
Required directly, plus to achieve high contrast NIR imaging, shorter  AO, highest
possible angular resolution, high throughput NIR IFU & high SNR
Required for AGN, GC, exoplanet & minor planet key science cases
2. NIR Imager with low wavefront error, high sensitivity, ≥ 20” FOV & simple
coronagraph
•
Required for all key science cases.
3. Large sky coverage
•
Priority for all key science cases.
4. NIR IFU with high angular resolution, high sensitivity & larger format
•
Required for galaxy assembly, AGN, GC & minor planet key science cases
5. Visible imaging capability to ~ 800 nm
•
Required for higher angular resolution science
6. Visible IFU capability to ~ 800 nm
7. Deployable multi-IFS instrument (removed from plan)
–
Included in B2C
Excluded
Ranked as low priority by Keck SSP 2008 & represents a significant cost
8. Visible imager & IFU to shorter 
17
Cost Estimate
Starting Point
NGAO System Architecture
Key AO Elements:
• Configurable laser tomography
• Closed loop LGS AO for low
order correction over a wide field
• Narrow field MOAO (open loop)
for high Strehl science, NIR TT
correction & ensquared energy
X
19
Cost Estimation Methodology (KAON 546)
• Cost estimation spreadsheets
– Based on TMT Cost Book approach, simplified for SD phase
– Prepared for each WBS element (~75 in all)
– Prepared for each of 4 phases
• Preliminary design, detailed design, full scale development,
delivery/commissioning
– Prepared by technical experts responsible for deliverables
– Process captures
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
WBS dictionary
Major deliverables
Estimates of labor hours
Estimates of non-labor dollars (incl. tax & shipping) & travel dollars
Basis of estimate (e.g. vendor quote, CER, engineering judgment)
Contingency risk factors & estimates
Descope options
– Standard labor classes, labor rates & travel costs used
20
Cost Estimate to Completion (FY08 $k)
Cost Estimate (FY08 $k)
Labor
(PY)
Labor
NonLabor
Travel
SubTotal
Contin
-gency
Total
% of
NGAO
Budget
Preliminary Design
21.0
2,582
216
224
3,022
458
3,479
8%
Detailed Design
43.6
5,516
1,827
354
7,697
1,403
9,100
22%
Full Scale Develop
50.5
5,661
14,510
626
20,797
5,234
26,031
62%
Delivery/Commission
22.4
2,287
250
478
3,015
602
3,617
9%
Total =
138
16,045
16,804
1,681
34,531
7,697
42,227
100%
46%
49%
5%
100%
22%
122%
Phase
% =
22
SDR Reviewer Comments
•
“Based on the cost and schedule of past and planned projects of lower
or similar complexity, the review panel believes that the NGAO project
cost and schedule are not reliable and may not be realistic.
Contingencies are also too tight. In particular, the time of 18 months
allocated for manufacturing and assembly and 6 months for integration
and test, is probably optimistic by a large amount.”
•
Relevant to this point they also said:
– “The review panel believes that Keck Observatory has assembled an
NGAO team with the necessary past experience … needed to develop the
Next Generation Adaptive Optics facility for Keck.”
– “The proposed schedule and budget estimate have been carried out with
sound methodology”
•
Clarification: Reviewers thought our lab and telescope I&T durations were
smaller by 2x than our plan (they are 6 & 12 months, respectively).
23
Results of NFIRAOS Cost Comparison (KAON 625)
• Comparison provided increased confidence in NGAO SDR
estimate
– Methodology largely gave us reasonable system design estimates
– NGAO traceably less expensive than NFIRAOS & we
understand why
• Some areas identified that require more work:
– Contingency rates need to be re-evaluated
• At minimum should be increased for laser & potentially for RTC
– Laser procurement estimate needs to be more solidly based
• Will have ROMs soon & a fixed price quote for PDR through ESO
collaboration
– Minor items: Laser system labor & cost of RTC labor
24
Science Instrument Cost Estimates
• The science instruments are only at a proposal level
– Estimate of $3M (FY06 $) each for NIR imager and Visible imager
in NGAO proposal (June 2006)
– NIR & visible imager estimates updated by Adkins
– Estimate of $14M (FY06 $) for deployable multi-IFS in NGAO
proposal (June 2006)
• This is not included in the starting cost estimate
– No estimate available for NIR IFS when the build-to-cost process
began
• We did have the Nov/08 ATI proposal for the design costs of a near-IR
IFS
• Just assumed $5M total for the starting point
25
Contingency
• NGAO budget at SDR included 22% contingency
– $7.7M on a base of $34.5M in FY08 $
– $9.1M on a base of $40.2M in then-year $
• Increased contingency based on NFIRAOS cost
comparison
– $0.68M for laser to increase laser contingency from 19 to 30%
– Additional $0.45M to increase overall contingency from 22 to 25%
• Instruments only at proposal level
– Assume 30% contingency
26
Starting Cost Estimate
Start from SDR cost estimate
+ additional contingency (per NFIRAOS cost comparison)
+ updated NIR & visible imager cost estimates (no instrument designs yet)
- deployable multi-IFU ($14M FY06 estimate; $17M in then-year $)
+ fixed NIR IFU (very rough estimate) + 3.5% inflation/year
Actuals ($k)
Plan (Then-Year $k)
NGAO System
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
System Design
739
495
Preliminary Design
214
1800
1144
Detailed Design
1600
5500
1426
Full Scale Development
5966 11115
7669
Delivery & Commissioning
1853
1918
Contingency (22%)
490
3111
2798
2300
383
Added Contingency (25% total)
300
400
445
NGAO Total =
739
709
1800
3234
5500 10504 14213 12223
2745
NIR Imager
200
482
907
1044
978
157
NIR IFU
50
240
606
1300
1400
1404
Visible Imager
499
1161
948
879
162
Contingency (30%)
50
300
600
1000
1775
NGAO Instrument Total =
250
772
2312
4105
4326
4216
162
Overall Total =
739
709
2050
4006
7812 14609 18539 16438
2908
Total
1234
3158
8526
24750
3771
9082
1145
51667
3769
5000
3650
3725
16144
67810
27
Starting Cost Estimate
NGAO Spending Profile
– Highly desirable to maximize
science competitiveness
– Slow current start-up rate
imposed by available funds
– Critical to produce viable
funding/management plan
during preliminary design
•
NGAO system labor profile is
flat after initial ramp-up
– $19.4M in then-year $ or 47%
of NGAO system budget
– ~ 40,000 hours/year from
FY10 to FY14 or ~ 20 FTEs
Total cost
20000
18000
System
16000
Then-Year $k
Very ambitious spending profile
both for finding funds &
ramping up effort
Instruments
14000
Total
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
Fiscal Year
NGAO System Labor $ Spending Profile (without contingency)
NGAO labor only
3500
3000
2500
Then-Year $k
•
2000
1500
1000
500
0
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
Fiscal Year
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
28
AO Design Changes
to Support Build-to-Cost
AO Design Changes Summary
A. Architectural changes allowed by no deployable multi-IFS instrument
1. LGS asterism & WFS architecture
2. Narrow field relay location
B. New design choices that don’t impact the requirements
1. Laser location
2. AO optics cooling enclosure
C. Design choices with modest science implications
1.
2.
3.
4.
Reduced field of view for the wide field relay (120” vs 150” dia.)
Direct pick-off of TT stars
Truth wavefront sensor (one visible instead of 1 vis & 1 NIR)
Reduced priority on NGS AO science
– Fixed sodium dichroic, no ADC for NGS WFS & fewer NGS WFS subaperture
scales (2 vs 3)
5. No ADC implemented for LOWFS (but design for mechanical fit)
6. OSIRIS role replaced by new IFS
30
Science Instrument Design Changes
• NGAO Proposal had three science instruments ($20M in FY06 $)
– Deployable multi IFS instrument
– NIR imager
– Visible imager
• For the SDR we included OSIRIS integration with NGAO
• Science instrument design changes that impact the science
capabilities
–
–
–
–
–
No deployable multi IFS instrument
Addition of single channel NIR IFS
Removal of OSIRIS (science capabilities covered by NIR IFS)
No visible imager
Extension of NIR imager & IFS to 800 nm
31
Revised NGAO System Architecture
Key Changes:
1. No wide field science instrument 
• Fixed narrow field tomography
• TT sharpening with single LGS AO
• 75W instead of 100W
• Narrow field relay not reflected
2. Cooled AO enclosure smaller
3. Lasers on elevation ring
4. Combined imager/IFU instrument
& no OSIRIS
5. Only one TWFS
32
LGS Architecture (A1)
•
Absence of multiple d-IFS allowed us to rethink the LGS asterism
– 1st architecture result: a fixed, fewer LGS asterism (4 vs 6) to provide
tomographic correction over the narrow science field
– 2nd: no tomographic correction is provided over the wide field.
•
3 point & shoot LGS used in single beacon AO systems for each tip-tilt NGS
– 3rd: able to reduce the overall laser power from 100W to 75W
•
Went from ~11W/LGS to 12.5W/LGS in central asterism & 8W/LGS for tip-tilt
– Also performance analysis defined # of subapertures (only 1 lenslet array)
33
Performance Analysis Assumptions
•
Launch facility & LGS return
•
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
– All LGS are center launched
– Uplink tip-tilt on each LGS
– 100 ph/cm2/sec/W in
mesosphere (“SOR-like”)
– 3E9 atoms/cm2 Na density
– 0.75 laser transmission
– 0.896 atmosphere trans (zenith)
•
LGS WFS
– 0.39 throughput (tel + AO)
– 4x4 pixels/subaperture
– CCID56 (1.6 e- RON, 400 cnt/s,
0.80 QE, 0.2 pix chg diff)
– “3+1” optimized integ. time
– PNS optimized integ. Time
– 60” radius FoR for PNS
LOWFS
•
0.32 throughput
2 TT + 1 TTFA
Single LGS AO sharpened
J+H band
No ADC (Design change C5)
32x32 MEMS DM
H2RG (4.5 e-, 0.85 QE at J)
60” rad FoR (Design change C1)
Seeing Conditions
–
–
–
–
37.5%: r0 = 14 cm, 0 = 2.15”
50.0%: r0 = 16 cm, 0 = 2.7”
62.5%: r0 = 18 cm, 0 = 2.9”
87.5%: r0 = 22 cm, 0 = 4.0”
34
Justification for Assumptions
•
100 ph/cm2/sec/W in mesosphere
– 150 ph/cm2/sec/W shown at SOR
•
Measured
Power at laser output
– Prediction lower for Hawaii
•
•
By sin where  = angle between
geo-magnetic field & beam
direction (62 at SOR, 37 at HI)
Predicted
3E9 atoms/cm2 Na density
– Based on Maui LIDAR
measurements
Median 4.3x109 cm-2
3x109 cm-2
35
Performance Analysis Science Cases
•
The following parameters were used to define the key science driver
cases for the performance analysis
Zenith angle
Guide stars
Guide star color
Off-axis evaluation radius
Required sky coverage
Galactic latitude
Science filter
Max science exposure
Galaxy
Assembly
30
Field stars
M
1"
30%
30
K
1800s
Nearby
AGNs
30
Field stars
M
1"
30%
30
Z
900s
Galactic
Exo-planets
Center
50
30
IRS 7,9,12N Field stars
M
2"
0"
n/a
30%
n/a
10
K
H
60s (image)
300s
900 (spectra)
Minor
Planets
30
Field stars
M
0"
30%
30
Z
120s
38
Tomography Error versus Field Position
•
•
Many alternative asterisms evaluated
Selected 10”-radius “3+1” fixed asterism with 50W total
– Best performance & considered lowest performance risk option
– Remaining 25W in 3 point & shoot lasers
Max. science
field radius
39
Wavefront Error versus Laser Power
50W +
median Na
density
50W in
science
asterism
40
Strehl Ratio versus Laser Power
50W in
science
asterism
41
Performance versus Sky Coverage
EE70mas and Tip-Tilt Error vs. % Sky Coverage
for Galaxy Assembly case, median seeing
16.00
100%
90%
14.00
70%
10.00
60%
1d Tilt Error (mas)
8.00
50%
40%
6.00
% EE (41 mas)
30%
4.00
Tip-Tilt Error
EE 70 mas
EE 41 mas
20%
2.00
10%
0.00
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Sky Fraction
K-band
b = 30
42
EE70mas and Tip-Tilt Error vs. % Sky Coverage
1-D Tip-Tilt Error, RMS (mas)
80%
H-band Ensquared Energy
1-D Tip-Tilt Error, RMS (mas)
% EE (70 mas)
12.00
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sky Fraction
Performance versus Sky Coverage
Strehl Ratio and Tip-Tilt Error vs. % Sky Coverage
for Minor Planets case, median seeing
16.00
100%
90%
14.00
33 mas
17 mas
70%
10.00
60%
8.00
50%
40%
6.00
Z-band Strehl Ratio
p-Tilt Error
1-D Tip-Tilt Error, RMS (mas)
80%
12.00
Tip-Tilt Error
Strehl Ratio
30%
4.00
20%
2.00
Strehl
0.00
10%
0%
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sky Fraction
Z-band
b = 30
45
Performance versus Seeing
Median
37.5%
87.5%
46
Optimum # of Subapertures
47
Optimum # of Subapertures
Conclusion: A
single scale
across pupil
works well
(N = 64 assumed
for costing)
3E9 Na, Opt Subaps
3E9 Na, N = 64
1E9 Na, Opt Subaps
1E9 Na, N = 64
49
Off-axis Performance
Imaging radius
requirement
Max. IFU
radius
Max. imager
radius
Median seeing
50
Off-axis Performance
Max. imager
radius
Median seeing
51
Performance Analysis Summary
•
•
“3+1” science asterism + 3 point & shoot lasers has excellent
performance for narrow field science
Overall performance comparable to estimates at SDR
Gal Center imaging (1" off-axis)
Exoplanets
Minor Planets
Galaxy Assembly
Nearby AGN
High order
wavefront
error (nm)
188
162
162
162
162
TT error
(mas)
1.4
3.3
4.3
7
5
Effective
wavefront
error (nm)
189
171
177
204
182
Ensquared
energy
(, X mas)
71% (K, 70)
24% (Z, 34)
Effective
WFE at
SDR (nm)
184
157
175
257
Ensquared
energy at
SDR
55% (K, 70)
– Assumptions different than at SDR (e.g. we are now using lower Na
density & sodium return values)
– Analysis tool/inputs have evolved (e.g. lower tomography error, higher
atmospheric transmission off zenith & higher throughput)
– Lower total laser power but smaller tomography volume
– Most importantly performance optimized for on-axis science
52
Narrow Field Relay Location (A2)
•
•
•
At SDR the location of the multiple deployable IFS & LOWFS required
that the narrow field relay be in reflection off a choice of dichroics
Narrow field relay now in transmission
Allows option of not using a dichroic in front of the LOWFS
– Saves cost of dichroics & switcher
– Higher throughput to LOWFS & science instruments
53
Laser Location (B1)
•
Likely availability of new lasers allowed a new design choice
– Lasers on elevation moving part of telescope (previously Nasmyth)
 higher throughput & no need for tracking beam transport system
54
AO Optics Cooling Enclosure (B2)
•
•
At SDR assumed that we would cool the entire AO enclosure
including science instruments
New approach: cool as little as possible beyond the science path
– Science instrument front face forms a seal to cooled enclosure
Cooled Volume
SDR
New
55
Reduced Wide Field Relay FOV (C1)
•
•
•
150” dia SDR FOV reduced to 120” with new assumptions
Allows a smaller image rotator + smaller wide field relay optics
Allows a smaller DM – 100 mm instead of 140 mm
 higher performance tip-tilt platform
 Wide field relay scaled down by 100/140 ~70%
Visible Imager focal plane
Science
Instrument
OAP4
FSM
NGS WFS
TWFS focal
plane
LOWFS Boxes
FSM
NGS WFS
OAP3
Tweeter DM
OAP2
K-mirror
rotator,
upper level
25mm tweeter DM
NIR Imager focal
plane
Fold
down
140 mm
Woofer DM
Switchyard mirror
LGS WFS
100 mm
Woofer DM
K-mirror
OAP1,
upper
level
OAP4
OAP3
LGS WFS focal
plane
OAP1
LOWFS/dIFS focal
plane
OAP2
57
Direct LOWFS Pick-offs (C2)
•
•
At SDR pickoffs for TT stars in front of d-IFS & after dichroic that fed
narrow field relay  no interference
New design: direct pickoff of each TT star
– no dichroic to split light between LOWFS & science instruments
 Pickoffs can vignette science field & can’t use science target for LOWFS
 Higher throughput to LOWFS & science instruments
Narrow field
science
instrument
Narrow field
science AO relay
dIFS and
Tip/Tilt sensors
Dichroic
changer
58
One Truth Wavefront Sensor (C3)
•
•
At SDR had a NIR Truth WFS (TWFS) in one of the LOWFS units & a
visible TWFS in the narrow field relay
New design: 1 TWFS - a visible TWFS in one of the LOWFS.
Rationale:
– Location: low probably of finding a star in the narrow field
– Calibration: Calibrate TWFS for science camera; MEMS impact well
defined
– Wavelength: Shouldn’t impact performance
59
Reduced NGS AO Science Priority (C4)
• Fixed sodium dichroic, no ADC & fewer lenslets (2 vs 3)
• Rationale (besides need to cut costs):
– NGS vs LGS regime for NGAO
• NGS only provides an advantage for science next to very bright NGS
• Backup science on nights with > 1 mag cirrus extinction
• NGS science has not been a strong driver
– NGS AO regime for NGAO vs Keck I
• Higher Strehl NGS AO science on bright targets
• Higher sensitivity NGS AO science at K-band on similar magnitude
targets
• Other NGS AO science may be better done with K1 NGS AO
• K1 NGS AO probably offers more availability
– Reduced capabilities straightforward to implement as future
upgrades if motivated by the science
60
OSIRIS role replaced by new IFS (C6)
• Carefully reviewed OSIRIS role
– In consultation with Larkin & McLean
• Determined that a new IFS was required by science
requirements
– Higher sensitivity, higher spatial resolution & larger FOV needed
• Minor science benefit to having both new IFS & OSIRIS
– Perhaps some plate scales
– Perhaps some multiplexing if new IFS deployable (extra cost)
• More overall science benefit to continuing to use OSIRIS
on K1
• NGAO cost savings & design freedom in not having to
implement OSIRIS
61
Design Impact in other Areas
• Motion control degrees of freedom reduced by 37%
– AO devices reduced from 126 to 77
– Laser devices from 89 to 59
• Tomography computation reduced by ~ factor of 10
~ ratio of tomography volumes = (120”/40”)2
• Optical switchyard reduced dramatically
– Reduced from 7 to 3 mechanisms
– Dichroics reduced from 8 to 2
62
Impact on Science Requirements
Impact on ability to meet Science Requirements
Key Science Driver
SCRD Requirement
Performance of B2C
EE  50% in 70 mas for
sky cov = 30% (JHK)
EE > 70% in 70 mas for
sky cov  90% (K band)
√
Nearby AGNs
(Z band for Ca triplet)
EE  50% in 1/2 grav
sphere of influence
EE  25% in 33 mas 
MBH  107 Msun @ Virgo
cluster (17.6 Mpc )
√
General Relativity at
the Galactic Center
(K band)
100 as astrometric
accuracy  5” from GC
Need to quantify. Already
very close to meeting this
requirement with KII AO.
√
Galaxy Assembly
(JHK bands)
Extrasolar planets
around old field brown
dwarfs (H band)
Contrast ratio H > 10 at
0.2” from H=14 star
(2 MJ at 4 AU, d* = 20 pc)
Meets requirements
(determined by static
errors)
√
Multiplicity of minor
planets (Z or J bands)
Contrast ratio J > 5.5 at
0.5” from J < 16 asteroid
Meets requirements: WFE
= 170 nm is sufficient
√
64
B2C Design Changes: only modest effect on
meeting science requirements
√
• Galaxy Assembly: B2C exceeds SDR requirements
√
• Nearby AGNs: B2C doesn’t meet EE requirement (didn’t meet at
SDR either). Still in interesting regime for BH mass measurements
(MBH  107 Msun @ Virgo cluster). Need to review & more clearly
define requirement.
√
• General Relativity at the Galactic Center: Key variables (e.g.
differential tilt jitter, geometric distortion in AO & instrument,
differential atmospheric refraction) not strongly affected by laser
power. Confusion only slightly worse than SDR design.
√
• Extrasolar planets around old field brown dwarfs: contrast ratio not
affected by B2C design changes. Static errors dominate.
√
• Multiplicity of minor planets: Meets SDR requirements
65
NGAO comparison to JWST & TMT
• Higher spatial resolution for imaging & spectroscopy than JWST
– JWST much more sensitive at K. NGAO more sensitive at J & between OH lines at H
• Lots of NGAO science possible in 5 years prior to TMT 1st science
– Key community resource in support of TMT science (do at Keck 1st if can)
– Could push to shorter  or multi-object IFS or … as TMT arrives on scene
• NGAO could perform long term studies (e.g., synoptic, GC astrometry)
Diffraction-limit (mas) at 2 m
Diffraction-limit (mas) at 1 m
Sensitivity
Imager
Detector
Wavelength range (m)
Sampling (mas/pixel)
FOV (arcsec)
Spectrometer
Detector
Wavelength range (m)
WMKO NGAO
41
20
1x
NGAO Imager
H4RG
0.8-2.4
8.5
35
NGAO IFS
H4RG
0.8-2.4
Spectral Resolution
Spatial Resolution (mas)
R~4000
10, ~25 & ~60
FOV (arcsec)
Projected 1st science paper
0.8, 2 & 4
~2015
JWST
TMT NFIRAOS
63
14
limited by sampling
7
~200x at 2 m
~80x
IRMS
NIRCam
IRIS Imager
H2RG
4x H2RG
H4RG
0.8-2.5
0.6-2.35
0.8-2.5
60
31.7
4
120
130
15
IRMS
NIRSpec
IRIS IFS
H2RG
2x H2RG
H4RG
0.8-2.5
0.6-2.35
0.8-2.5
R~100 & ~1000
R=3270
multi-object modes Two image
(0.24" slit)
R~3000 IFU or longslicers;
R=4660
slit modes
R~4000
(0.16" slit)
~100
160
4 to 50
200 FOR
4 slit; 3x3 IFU
120 FOR
up to 3
~2014
~2020
66
NGAO comparison to JWST
Evaluation of key science cases:
Key Science Case
Galaxy Assembly
(JHK)
Nearby AGNs (Z)
General Relativity at
Galactic Center (K)
Extrasolar Planets
around old Field
Brown Dwarfs (H)
Multiplicity of Minor
Planets (Z or J)
JWST & NGAO
JWST much more sensitive at K.
NGAO sensitivity higher between OH lines at H.
NGAO sensitivity higher for imaging & spectroscopy at J.
NGAO wins in spatial resolution at all .
NGAO provides higher spectral resolution.
Only NGAO provides needed spatial resolution (especially at Ca triplet).
Only NGAO provides needed spatial resolution (especially important to
reduce confusion limit).
Long term monitoring may be inappropriate for JWST.
Only NGAO provides needed spatial resolution.
JWST coronagraph optimized for 3-5 m, >1"; NGAO competitive ≤2
m, <1".
Only NGAO provides needed spatial resolution.
67
NGAO comparison to TMT
• NGAO & NFIRAOS wavefront errors are ~ the same (162 vs 174 nm rms)
– Similar Strehls but higher spatial resolution for TMT
– Similar spatial resolution for IFU science but higher sensitivity for TMT
Key Science Case
Galaxy Assembly
(JHK)
Nearby AGNs (Z)
General Relativity at
Galactic Center (K)
Extrasolar Planets
around old Field
Brown Dwarfs (H)
Multiplicity of Minor
Planets (Z or J)
TMT & NGAO
NGAO & TMT have the same spatial resolution with ~20 & 50 mas IFUs,
but TMT has higher sensitivity.
NGAO may do most of Z < 2.5-3 targets either before TMT or because
of scarce TMT time.
NGAO will screen most important targets.
With 3x higher spatial resolution TMT will detect smaller black holes.
TMT wins in spatial resolution, sensitivity less important.
Significant value in continuing NGAO astrometry into TMT era (MCAO
field stability concern; Keck access easier).
NGAO synoptic advantage.
TMT spatial resolution an advantage.
Control of static wavefront errors & PSF characterization will be critical
(NGAO will have 5 year head start on experience).
NGAO synoptic advantage.
TMT spatial resolution an advantage; NGAO could move to shorter .
Much of this science may be done before TMT?
NGAO synoptic advantage.
68
Science Instruments
to Support Build-to-Cost
NGAO Science Instrumentation
•
•
•
•
Background
Approach to design/build to cost
Changes to Instrumentation
Baseline capabilities
70
Background
•
NGAO science requirements established a need for certain capabilities in
the SD phase
– Imaging
• ~700 nm to 2.4 m
• high contrast coronagraph
– Integral field spectroscopy in near-IR and visible
•
•
•
•
•
spatially resolved spectroscopy for kinematics and radial velocities
high sensitivity
high angular resolution spatial sampling
R ~ 3000 to 5000 (as required for OH suppression and key diagnostic lines)
Improved efficiency
– larger FOV
– multi-object capability
– At SDR
• two imagers and an integral field spectrograph (IFS) on narrow field high Strehl AO
relay (IFS might be OSIRIS)
• 6 channel deployable IFS on the moderate field AO relay with MOAO in each channel
– Build to cost forces a narrowing of scope, significant reduction in number and
capabilities for science instruments
– May only be able to afford one science instrument
71
Approach to design/build to cost
1. Be sure instrument capabilities are well matched to key science
requirements
–
–
–
–
–
Galaxy assembly & star formation history
Nearby Active Galactic Nuclei
Measurements of GR effects in the Galactic Center
Imaging & characterization of extrasolar planets around nearby stars
Multiplicity of minor planets
2. Match instrument capabilities to AO system – maximize benefit of improved
capabilities for science gains
3. Understand which requirements drive cost
4. Resist the temptation to add features
5. Maximize heritage from previous instruments
6. Exploit redundancies in compatible platforms – e.g. Near-IR imager and
Near-IR IFS
7. Evaluate ways to break the normal visible/near-IR paradigm of using
different detectors
72
Changes to Instrumentation
•
•
•
•
No deployable IFS
One broadband imager
One new IFS
Address cost drivers
73
NGAO Imaging Capability
• Broadband
– z, Y, J, H, K (0.818 to 2.4 µm)
– photometric filters for each band plus narrowband filters similar to
NIRC2
• Single plate scale
– selected to optimally sample the diffraction limit, e.g. 2(/D) or 8.5 mas
at 0.818 µm
• FOV
– 34.8" x 34.8" with 8.5 mas plate scale
• Simple coronagraph
• Throughput ≥ 60% over full wavelength range
• Sky background limited performance
74
Issues for Wavelength Coverage
• NGAO offers extended wavelength coverage
– Significant performance below 1 µm, Strehl ~20% at 800 nm
• Substrate removed HgCdTe detectors work well below 1 µm
– ~20% lower QE than a thick substrate CCD
– Non-destructive readout takes care of higher read noise of IR array
100.00%
LBNL QE
H2RG QE
100.00%
90.00%
90.00%
80.00%
80.00%
Y
J
K
H
70.00%
NGAO
z spec
Transmission, %
Transmission, %
70.00%
60.00%
NGAO z'
50.00%
NGAO i'
60.00%
Teledyne min. spec. for
substrate removed
H2RG
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
40.00%
NGAO rl
20.00%
30.00%
10.00%
NGAO visible
20.00%
0.00%
0.5
NGAO near-IR
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
Wavelength, m
10.00%
0.00%
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
1
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9
2
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9
3
Wavelength, m
75
1.2
NGAO IFS Capability
• Narrowband
– z, Y, J, H, K (0.818 to 2.4 µm)
– ~5% band pass per filter, number as required to cover each wave band
• Spectroscopy
– R ~4,000
– High efficiency e.g. multiple gratings working in a single order
• Spatial sampling (3 scales maximum)
• 10 mas e.g. 2(/D) at 1 m
• 50 to 75 mas, selected to match 50% ensquared energy of NGAO
• Intermediate scale (20 or 35 mas) to balance FOV/sensitivity trade off
• FOV on axis
– 4" x 4" at 50 mas sampling
– possible rectangular FOV (1" x 3") at a smaller spatial sampling
• Throughput ≥ 40% over full wavelength range
• Detector limited performance
76
Narrowband Science
• Extra-galactic
– IFS will be used for targets with known redshifts
• Therefore 5% bandpass sufficient?
• 5% spans Hα and NII lines for example
– 4 narrowband (5%) filters will cover the K-band
– Excitation temperatures
•
•
•
•
Need at least 4 lines
Can expect to get 2 or more in each filter
Can optimize center wavelength to maximize this
Practical to use 2 or more exposures to get enough lines
– Imaging spectrograph allows you to detect, and discount image motion for better
photometric matching of spectra
– Need to have enough FOV to ensure you cover the whole object in each exposure
• Exoplanet detection
– Broadband filters available with narrow FOV ~1" x 1"
77
Narrowband Science
• Nearby AGN (Black Holes)
– Galaxy kinematics
• CO bandhead 4 to 5% wide (OSIRIS Kn5 filter)
• Brackett gamma, H_2 emission lines (OSIRIS Kn3 filter)
– Remain in that passband to z = 0.03
• Same arguments on practicality of non-simultaneous spectra apply
– Central Black Hole
• Narrowband adequate for measuring black hole mass (only 1 line)
• ~1“ diameter FOV
• Galactic Center (e.g. GR effects)
– Narrowband acceptable for RV measurements
– Being used now
– Want better SNR
• Throughput
• Higher angular resolution to reduce stellar confusion, but keep present FOVs
– Could use more FOV
78
IFS/Imager
Product
Structures
• Some clear
commonalities
– Single
instrument
eliminates
having 2 of
everything
in green
(Same design, 2 detectors)
(Customized, common base)
79
Science Instrument Cost Estimate
Cost Drivers
• Imager
– Wavefront error contribution ≤ 25 nm
– Number of filters (18)
– FOV and sampling motivates selection of Hawaii-4RG
• will be cheaper on a per pixel basis than Hawaii-2RG but still more total $
• IFS
– Wavefront error contribution ≤ 25 nm
– Imager slicer
• 96 x 96 samples
• low wavefront error
• minimal crosstalk
– Multiple selectable gratings (3 to 5) to maximize efficiency
81
Cost Estimate
• Combined cost for imager and IFS
–
–
–
–
–
Same dewar & fore-optics
Shared filter wheels
Different detectors, camera
IFS has slicer, collimator, gratings
Imager has coronagraph
– Blended labor rates
– 3.5% inflation
82
Support of Cost Estimate
• Detailed WBS and effort
estimates
– highlighted rows are new
designs
– IFS camera and collimator
procurements include
detailed design by
subcontractor
– remaining major mechanical
and electronic WBS
elements are design re-use
– Software includes new data
reduction tools for IFS
83
Significant Design Re-use
• Designs suitable for re-use with straightforward modifications
–
–
–
–
–
–
MOSFIRE dewar and internal structure
MOSFIRE filter wheels
Detector head and focus mechanism
MOSFIRE low level servers
MOSFIRE global servers
MOSFIRE GUI base
• Designs with strong heritage
–
–
–
–
MOSFIRE Lyot stop mechanism
OSIRIS scale changer
MOSFIRE lens and mirror mountings for cryogenic environment
OSIRIS/MOSFIRE cooling system, vacuum system, electronics
84
Limited Number of New Designs
• IFS design based on OSIRIS
– 85 x 85 lenslets, 200 m pitch, 17 mm x 17 mm overall
• OSIRIS 64 x 64 lenslets, 250 m pitch, 16 mm x 16 mm overall
• Very similar collimator aperture
– Larger camera, Hawaii-4RG with 15 m pixels
• OSIRIS Hawaii-2, 18 m pixels
• Camera focal plane 1.6 times OSIRIS in each dimension
• Multiple gratings to optimize efficiency
– Not a novel approach, SINFONI uses multiple gratings
• Imager very straightforward design
– Narrow field AO relay at f/46 with 40" FOV makes imager optics easier
85
Cost Comparisons
• OSIRIS
–
–
–
–
Full cost in 2005 dollars $5.63M
In 2009 dollars $6.6M
OSIRIS has IFS and imager
New IFS and imager have larger FOVs; FY09 cost estimate $11.8M
• Specific high cost components:
– OSIRIS collimator and camera $1M in 2009 dollars
• Budget is $2.1M for NGAO IFS
– OSIRIS lenslet array $70K in 2009 dollars
• Budget is $150K for NGAO IFS
• NIRC2
–
–
–
–
Full cost in 2001 dollars $5.9M
In 2009 dollars $8M
NIRC2 has three plate scales, and spectroscopic capability
Many more features than the NGAO imager
86
MOSFIRE comparison
• MOSFIRE costs are as built
costs in 2009 dollars
• NGAO imager cost
estimates are in 2009 dollars
• MOSFIRE optics for 6.8'
FOV cost ~$1.2M
87
TMT IRIS Cost Comparison
• IRIS estimate = $17.6M in FY09 $, excluding 23% contingency
• Major differences from NGAO instrument
– On-instrument WFS $4M
– Materials only costs:
•
•
•
•
Two kinds of slicer: mirror & lenslet, & 2 scale changer mechanisms ~$1.2M
More difficult TMAs ~$1M
Imager optical path is separate including filters & pupil masks ~$0.6M
Instrument rotator ~$0.3M
– IRIS/TMT interfaces more complex
– NGAO instrument reuses previous designs
• IRIS cost without OIWFS & additional features ~$10.5M versus
$10M for NGAO instrument
88
Revised Cost Estimate
Revised Cost Estimate
Including all proposed cost reductions & new cost estimates:
• Inflation assumption = 2.0% in FY09 & 3.5%/yr in FY10 to 15
NGAO System
System Design
Preliminary Design
Detailed Design
Full Scale Development
Delivery & Commissioning
Contingency (24%)
NGAO Total =
IFS Design
Imager and IFS Instrument
Contingency (10/30%)
NGAO Instrument Total =
Overall Total =
Actuals ($k)
Plan (Then-Year $k)
FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13
739
495
214
1240
1492
1600
5500
978
400
500
7415
8715
739
739
709
709
1240
51
123
17
192
1432
466
1741
3014
3958
6000 10134 11729
229
78
443
4284
4264
486
67
1309
1279
146
739
5670
5544
632
4697 11670 15678 12361
FY14
FY15
5262
1764
3119
10145
1825
611
2436
12
4
15
10161
0
2436
Total
1234
2946
8078
22293
3589
8951
47090
358
9613
2822
12793
59883
90
Revised Cost Estimate AO Labor Hours
Including all proposed cost reductions & new cost estimates:
Labor Only
Actuals (hrs)
NGAO System
FY07 FY08 FY09
Preliminary Design
2335 15000
Detailed Design
Full Scale Development
Delivery & Commissioning
NGAO Total =
2335 15000
Plan (hrs)
FY11 FY12 FY13
FY10
FY14 FY15
15872
12495 40000 19529
20000 40000 20336
16306 16306
28367 40000 39529 40000 36642 16306
Total
33207
72024
80336
32612
218179
NGAO Labor (excluding instruments)
45000
40000
Labor Hours
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
Fiscal Year
FY13
FY14
FY15
91
Revised AO Cost Estimate by Phase
B2C Estimate
Labor
Phase
(PY) Labor
Preliminary Design
18
2495
Detailed Design
40
5261
Full Scale Development
45
5227
Delivery & Commissioning
18
2184
Total = 121
15166
%=
47%
Revised Cost Estimate (FY08 $)
NonSub- ContinLabor Travel total gency
134
214
2843
441
1817
336
7414
1540
13360
596
19183 5150
250
478
2912
611
15562 1623 32352 7742
48%
5%
100% 24%
% of
NGAO
Total Budget
3284
8%
8953
22%
24333 61%
3522
9%
40093 100%
% of
Cost Estimate Reduction (FY08 $)
NonSub- ContinLabor
ReducPhase
(PY) Labor Labor Travel total gency Total
tion
Preliminary Design
1
86
82
10
178
17
195
9%
Detailed Design
4
255
10
18
283
-137
147
7%
Full Scale Development
6
434
1150
30
1614
84
1698
80%
Delivery & Commissioning
4
103
0
0
103
-9
95
4%
Total =
14
879
1241
58
2179
-45
2134 100%
%=
40%
57%
3%
100%
-2%
SDR – B2C Estimate
92
Revised Cost Estimate by WBS
B2C Estimate
PD
WBS Title
Management
837
Systems Engineering
702
AO System
704
Laser System
285
Science Operations
166
Telescope & Summit Eng.
87
Telescope I&T
46
Operations Transition
14
Sub-Totals = 2843
SDR – B2C Estimate
WBS Title
Management
Systems Engineering
AO System
Laser System
Science Operations
Telescope & Summit Eng.
Telescope I&T
Operations Transition
Sub-Totals =
PD
36
108
25
0
0
8
0
0
178
% of
%
NGAO ContinBudget gency
11%
7%
7%
17%
37%
30%
28%
29%
4%
15%
4%
22%
7%
24%
2%
14%
100%
24%
Revised Cost Estimate (FY08 $)
Base ContinDD
FSD
D&C
Cost gency
1202
1539
657
4235
309
1004
478
193
2377
395
2067
8739
3
11514 3437
1891
6335
128
8640
2491
746
640
0
1552
231
378
783
0
1247
275
106
114
1860
2127
513
20
555
70
660
91
7414 19183 2912 32352 7742
Total
4544
2773
14950
11131
1783
1522
2640
750
40093
Cost Estimate Reduction (FY08 $)
Base ContinDD
FSD
D&C
Cost gency
30
54
0
120
10
0
0
0
108
5
141
1003
0
1169
412
56
284
0
339
-556
10
6
0
16
2
46
266
19
340
69
0
0
84
84
12
0
0
0
0
0
283
1613
102
2177
-46
% of
ReducTotal
tion
130
6%
113
5%
1582
74%
-217
-10%
18
1%
409
19%
96
4%
0
0%
2131 100%
93
Cost Increases since SDR
• Cost of MEMS ($425k total)
– Estimate has increased from $75 to $150/actuator based on recent
quotes
• Laser cost estimate
– Nominally the laser power decrease from 100 to 75W should have
reduced the SDR laser procurement cost estimate by ~ $1M
– However, we have not reduced our SDR cost
• We have transferred some $ from labor to non-labor
– Initial rough estimates from the ESO laser preliminary design
contracts are consistent with the $5.7M budgeted for laser
procurement
– Recall that laser contingency has been increased to 30%
94
Other Post-SDR Changes considered in B2C
• B2C estimate includes NSF MRI proposal budget for K2
center launch telescope
– Early phased implementation of NGAO with nearer-term K2
science benefits
– Essentially identical launch telescope to one received for K1 LGS
• Evaluated to meet NGAO requirements
– Launch telescope cost based on quote
– Reason for FSD dollars in FY10/11
• B2C estimate also includes NSF ATI proposal budget for
IFS design study
• Solution for MASS/DIMM implementation
– TMT donated equipment being implemented by CFHT/UH
95
AO Contingency & Risk
•
Overall contingency has increased from 22.6% to 24.2%
– Due to increased laser contingency
– Contingency has not been increased on any other WBS
– Contingency has not been decreased due to the reduced complexity
•
Risk has been significantly reduced in a number of areas
– Laser
•
•
•
•
•
•
Collaboration with ESO, GMT, TMT & AURA on laser preliminary designs
ESO providing 250 kEuros each to 2 companies for preliminary designs
WMKO/GMT/TMT/AURA providing 125 kEuros each to the same companies
for additional risk reduction (using $300k of AURA funding)
All information will be shared with all under NDAs
ESO will procure 4x 25W lasers
WMKO could potentially order with ESO or TMT to reduce costs
– Complexity
•
•
•
All of the design changes move us in the direction of a less complex system
Simpler subsystems (e.g., LGS WFS, launch facility, motion control, RTC, etc.)
Significantly reduced complexity for I&T
96
Approach to NGAO Cost Changes
•
Started with SDR cost estimate summary spreadsheet
– Summary includes labor, travel, non-labor & contingency for 85 WBS
elements in each of 4 phases (PD, DD, FSD, DC)
•
•
Referenced initial cost sheet to understand cost impact of each design
change
Each cost change is highlighted (red) in cost estimate summary, a
comment has been added & a corresponding equation put in the cell
– Contingency is automatically updated using the original rate
•
Used actual hardware costs from initial cost sheets wherever possible
– If available used labor associated with a specific task in a cost sheet
•
•
Performed check with cost sheet estimator in some cases
Tried to be conservative with labor reductions
– Especially conservative in PD phase since PD phase still evolving
97
Cost Changes by WBS
Labor
hrs
PY
4
4.1
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.2.7
4.2.8
4.2.9
4.2.10
4.3.1
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.4.1
4.4.2
4.4.3
4.4.4
4.4.5
4.4.6
4.4.7
4.4.8
4.5.1
4.5.2
4.6
AO System Development
AO Enclosure
0
AO Support Structure
0
Rotator
0
Optical Relays
0
Optical Switchyard
2544
LGS Wavefront Sensor Assembly
994
NGS WFS / TWFS Assembly
952
Low Order Wavefront Sensor Assembly 0
Tip/Tilt Vibration Mitigation
0
Acquisition Cameras
0
Atmospheric Dispersion Correctors 864
Simulator
0
System Alignment Tools
0
Atmospheric Profiler
0
AO Controls Infrastructure
0
AO Sequencer
0
Motion Control SW
1500
Device Control SW
0
Motion Control Electronics
0
Non-RTC Electronics
0
Lab I&T System
0
Acquisition, Guiding, and Offloading Control
0
Real-time Control Processor
0
DM's and Tip/Tilt Stages
0
AO System Lab I&T
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
$k
Trips Labor Non-labor Travel Conting
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
149
66
55
0
0
0
42
0
0
0
0
0
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150
0
0
0
191
327
80
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
0
0
0
126
-225
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
27
0
0
0
102
170
30
24
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
28
0
0
0
35
-45
0
Use largest change as an example of cost spreadsheet
177
0
0
0
442
562
165
79
0
0
53
0
0
0
0
0
110
0
102
0
0
0
162
-270
0
B2
C2+
A1
C3,C4
C3
C4,C5+
A1,C2
A1,C2
A1
C1, MEMS
98
Cost Changes by WBS
Labor
hrs
PY
$k
Trips Labor Non-labor Travel Conting
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Laser System Development
Laser Enclosure
Laser
Laser Launch Facility
Laser Safety Systems
Laser System Control
Laser System Lab I&T
7
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
Labor
$k
hrs
PY Trips Labor Non-labor Travel Conting
Telescope & Summit Engineering
Telescope Performance
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
Infrastructure Mods for AO
316
0.2
0
17
150
0
43
Infrastructure Mods for Laser
358
0.2
0
19
19
0
8
OSIRIS Modifications
1200
0.7
0
90
46
0
17
Interferometer and OHANA Mods
0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1526
0
0
0
400
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
144
0
0
0
24
0
-26
146
0
0
20
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
-614
47
0
0
12
Total
0
-465
193 A1
0
0
56
Total
0
211 B2
46
153
0
100
Assessment of Build-to-Cost Review
Deliverables & Success Criteria
+ Conclusions
Review Deliverables Summary (1 of 3)
• Revisions to the science cases & requirements, & the
scientific impact
– Galaxy assembly science case & requirements need to be
modified for a single IFU instead of multiple deployable IFUs
• Scientific impact of no multi d-IFUs viewed as acceptable (low priority
in Keck SSP 2008 & single, higher performance IFU part of B2C)
– Only minor impacts on all other science cases
• Major design changes
– Major design changes discussed in this presentation
– Design changes documented in KAON 642
– Performance impact of design changes documented in KAON 644
103
Review Deliverables Summary (2 of 3)
• Major cost changes
– Major cost changes discussed in this presentation
– All cost changes documented with comments & equations in cost
book summary spreadsheet by WBS and phase
• Viewed as better tool than cost book for tracking changes
– Decision not to update cost book until PDR costing phase
• Summary cost spreadsheet will be used as input to the PDR costing
• Major schedule changes
– No major schedule changes assumed
• 2 month slip in milestones assumed for cost estimate
– New plan needs to be developed as part of preliminary design
• Preliminary design phase replan is a high priority post this review
104
Review Deliverables Summary (3 of 3)
• Contingency changes
– Reviewed contingency as part of NFIRAOS cost comparison
• Laser, & potentially RTC, increase identified as needed
– Laser contingency increased to 30%
– Other bottom-up contingency estimates viewed as sufficient
especially given reduction in complexity with design changes
105
Review Success Criteria Assessment
• The revised science cases & requirements continue to
provide a compelling case for building NGAO
– NGAO continues to be compelling scientifically
• We have a credible technical approach to producing an
NGAO facility within the cost cap and in a timely fashion
– We believe that we have a very credible technical approach to
producing the facility within the cost cap & in a timely fashion
– Beyond the criteria for this review we need to work on producing a
realistic funding profile & project management approach
• We have reserved contingency consistent with the level of
programmatic & technical risk
– We believe that we have met this criteria
106
Conclusions
•
The build-to-cost guidance has resulted in a simpler & therefore less
expensive NGAO facility with similar science performance
– This has primarily been achieved at the expense of a significant science
capability (e.g., the multiple deployable IFS)
•
Pending the outcome of this review our management priorities will
switch to:
– Replanning & completing the preliminary design in a timely fashion
– Developing a viable funding & management plan for delivering NGAO in a
timely fashion as a preliminary design deliverable
Thanks to all for your participation in this review!
107