NGAO System Design Review
Response
Peter Wizinowich, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max
for NGAO Team
SSC Meeting
June 18, 2008
Presentation Sequence
• Response to SDR Panel Recommendations
– Plan to address Phased Implementation & Descope Options
• Response to SSC Recommendations
This is valuable input and we are actively using it in refining
our preliminary design phase plans.
2
SDR Panel Recommendations: Response
•
•
Panel report documented in KAON 588
NGAO response documented in KAON 593
– Results incorporated in preliminary design replan (KAON 595)
•
Recommendations divided into 12 categories
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Complete the science cases
Requirements development
Consider L’ imaging
More performance modeling & validation
Component performance assumptions
More systems engineering
Re-evaluate benefit/cost of d-IFS
Perform science instrument conceptual designs
Complete the risk register & develop mitigation plans
Produce a staged implementation & descope plan
Re-examine the cost & develop a full schedule
Implement management structure changes
3
Phased Implementation & Descope Options
• Proposed Approach (documented in KAON 594)
– Investigate & report on the costs & schedules for the following:
• The SDR proposed NGAO system.
• A staged implementation of the SDR proposed NGAO system.
– Science capabilities, performance, cost & risk will be considered in
determining the optimal sequencing.
• Keck AO upgrades that might benefit the program or provide fallback
science.
• A few tbd descope options.
• A few tbd cost savings options.
– Cost estimates will be deltas relative to the existing cost estimate,
modulo changes from a cost comparison to NFIRAOS.
• Report will be distributed prior to the Nov. SSC meeting
– Would like to present the results at this meeting
4
SSC Recommendations: Response
Recommendations & response documented in KAON 596:
• accept our kudos and congratulations on the successful NGAO effort
to date.
– We appreciate the SSC’s support & that many SSC members attended the
SDR
– We look forward to working more with SSC members to ensure that
NGAO meets the community’s scientific needs
•
start planning detailed responses to points made in the review panel
report. By June the SSC would like to see the schedule for delivering
these responses.
– Changes to the preliminary design plan are documented in KAON 595
– The plan to address the joint panel & SSC recommendation to develop an
implementation plan is documented in KAON 594 (see previous slide)
– Each panel recommendation will be addressed in a report as part of the
preliminary design phase deliverables
5
SSC Recommendations: Response
•
better engage scientists, probably in the integrated scientific and
technical case for NGAO and its instrumentation suite, where they both
care more and can contribute more relative to the NGAO system itself.
– We hope to engage significantly more scientists during the PD
•
•
•
24 astronomers contributed to the proposal & 22 to the system design science
case requirements document
Difficult to get time from busy scientists
Would be good to get more CIT/UC faculty members engaged
– We would like to strengthen & better understand the requirements for
some science cases & utilize community expertise in defining science
instruments
– Directors plan to establish a working NGAO Science Advisory Team (SAT)
– Welcome SSC input on how to move the instrument designs forward
•
•
•
ATI has not funded the deployable integral field spectrograph system design
WMKO management working on how to address/fund instrument designs
WMKO instrument program manager to provide leadership
6
SSC Recommendations: Response
•
produce a plan for developing a reliable cost, including a cost floor
below which the system achieved for the money spent is deemed not
worth having on the Keck telescopes.
– Review panel approved of our cost estimation process but were
uncomfortable with the cost estimate itself especially in comparison to
NFIRAOS.
•
•
SDR package included a cost comparison with comparable systems
TMT recently provided their detailed NFIRAOS cost estimate. We will
endeavor to understand the differences, & where appropriate update our
estimates, by the time of the Nov. SSC meeting.
– A preliminary design level cost estimate, based on a more mature design
concept and better understanding of the risks, component costs, vendor
options and labor requirements, will be a product of the preliminary design.
– Some cost floor information will come out of the phased implementation
work.
– We will consider cost as a driver & issue throughout the preliminary
design.
7
SSC Recommendations: Response
•
facilitate connection of the technical trades to the science
– We have been very careful to make our technical trades based on the
science requirements.
– We would like more active astronomer involvement in evaluating the
science performance based on predicted PSFs, backgrounds, etc., & on
such topics as observing sequences & interfaces.
– We expect the SAT to actively contribute in this area.
•
identify the break points in major technology areas (e.g. tomography,
laser power, wavefront error, realtime control, etc.) that make NGAO a
major leap over existing capabilities (either at Keck or elsewhere), and
where significant break points in cost might lie in the path toward the
achieving [of] the goals of NGAO
– We will endeavor to identify break points during our work on a phased
implementation plan.
8
NGAO Papers at SPIE 08 Conference
•
•
•
•
•
WMKO’s NGAO Facility. Wizinowich et al. KAON 597
The Science Case for the NGAO at WMKO. Max et al.
Sharpening low-order NGS using patrolling LGS. Dekany et al.
Concept for the Keck NGAO system. Gavel et al.
Science operations for NGAO at the system design phase. Le Mignant
et al. KAON 599
•
•
AO PSF reconstruction at the WMKO. Flicker et al.
Low-order wavefront sensing in tomographic multibeacon AO systems.
Velur et al.
9
Cost Comparisons
NGAO Cost Estimate Comparisons
100
90
80
60
50
40
30
20
10
RA
O
S
NF
I
AO
NG
S
G
EM
G
PI
LG
S
K2
PA
LM
30
00
W
FC
0
NG
FY08 $M
70
10