Peter Wizinowich, Richard Dekany, Don Gavel with input & review by Brent Ellerbroek
SSC Meeting
November 3, 2008

• SDR Reviewer comments leading to this cost comparison
• NGAO SDR Cost Estimate & Methodology
• Cost Comparison Goal, Products & Approach
• High-level Summary of Results
• Cost Comparison
• Conclusion
Conclusion Preview:
We & TMT agree that NGAO is traceably less expensive than the 1 st light TMT AO system & we understand why
- Larger NGAO contingency needed in some areas
- Quote needed for laser & will be obtained soon
2

• “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).
3

• “We will develop another level of cost estimation during preliminary design.”
– During system design, we considered project costs composed of hundreds of tasks and specific procurements
– Reviewers noted “the budget book showed some pages not complete or no estimates for the words in the task”. Our choice to produce cost sheets for each WBS in each of 4 project phases resulted in blank sheets
• e.g., no subsystem work during the delivery & commissioning phase
– During PD, we will revise the basis of estimate to move more items from engineering judgment and analogy to direct vendor quote basis
– Reviewers felt that the laser procurement needs more time & should start much earlier. We agree.
• Requested next level of cost information for TMT NFIRAOS project to better understand the reasons for the cost estimate differences
– This brings us to this presentation …
4

(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
5

• Goal of Comparison:
– Increase confidence in the NGAO cost estimate
• Products
– Updated cost estimation data base to take advantage of comparison information
– Cost comparison presentation (this presentation)
• Approach
– Identify differences between systems
– Identify differences in assumptions
– Identify similarities & differences in effort & procurement estimates, & resolve/justify these differences
– As appropriate update the NGAO cost estimate
– Identify other support for NGAO estimates
– Respond to reviewer sense that “methodology good, but not fully executed”
• “NFIRAOS” used as shorthand for the full TMT 1 st light AO configuration
– Updates to TMT cost estimate since 2006 (globally < 5%) not incorporated
6

(in FY08 $ as reported at the SDR)
NGAO Cost Estimate Comparisons
100
90
80
70
1 st Gen 30m AO
60
50
40
2 nd Gen 8-10m AO
30
20
10
0
1 st Gen 8-10m AO
Upgrades
N
G
W
FC
P
AL
M
30
00
K
2
LG
S
G
P
I
G
E
M
S
N
G
AO
N
FI
R
A
O
S
7

• 30 m versus 10 m
– ~ 3x physical size of AO system
– 3x smaller image  more sensitive to image motion & vibrations
– 3x more perspective elongation  more laser power for same performance
&/or better detectors
– 9x LGS focus change with zenith angle
(1.4 m from zenith to 65

)
– Physical paths for laser beam transport much longer
• New versus existing telescope
– Interfaces and observatory software not as well known for TMT
– TMT, NFIRAOS & Instrument I&T could be overlapping
– 2 nd (or 3 rd ) Keck AO system versus 1 st TMT AO system
– Need to be conservative for TMT first light system
• Architecture & Technologies
– Different lasers
(new laser suppliers have emerged since TMT 2006 CoDR)
– MCAO versus MOAO
(2 large high order DMs vs 1 lower order DM + MEMS; & different I&T issues)
– NFIRAOS cooled to -30 
C versus -15

C for NGAO
8

NGAO (below) roughly to NFIRAOS (left) scale
9 x 4 x 3 m
(blue) box
3.8 m
9

• NGAO $42.2M SDR estimate is 48% of NFIRAOS $88.2M
CoDR estimate
– NGAO $34.5M without contingency is 52% of NFIRAOS $66.7M
– All in FY08 $
• Cost differences attributed to the following major factors:
Largest items in $46M difference
Category
Contingency
$M
13.8
Laser Procurement
Labor Rates
Component Development
DM & Tip/Tilt Procurement
9.4
6.5
4.7
4.5
RTC System
LGS WFS
+/- other items
3.9
2.7
Total = 45.5
Conclusions:
Modest contingency increase likely needed
Need quote for new laser
No significant adjustments required - differences largely understood
10

Labor
Category
NFIRAOS
NGAO hours
203164
$k
20535
231944 16045
NFIRAOS-NGAO -28781 4490
NFIRAOS/NGAO 0.88
1.28
Non-Labor
$k
45151
16804
28347
2.69
# Trips
380
549
-169
0.69
Travel
$k
972
1681
-709
0.58
Sub-total Contingency
$k $k %
66660 21530 32%
34530 7697 22%
32130 13834 10%
1.93
2.80
1.45
• All costs in FY08 dollars
– NFIRAOS costs have been inflated by 4%/year for 2 years
• NFIRAOS cost estimate is 2.1x NGAO
– $32.1M difference without contingency ($46.0M with contingency)
• Major difference is in non-labor (e.g., procurements)
– Factor of 2.7 or $28.3M, but less TMT work is performed “in-house”.
• Other significant differences:
– Factor of 1.3 or $4.5M in labor even though NGAO has 14% more labor
– NFIRAOS uses 32% contingency versus 22% for NGAO
Total
$k
88191
42227
45964
2.09
11

Labor
Category
NFIRAOS
NGAO hours
203164
$k
20535
231944 16045
NFIRAOS-NGAO -28781 4490
NFIRAOS/NGAO 0.88
1.28
• NFIRAOS average rate = 1.46x NGAO
– NFIRAOS average rate = $101/hr
– NGAO average rate = $69/hr
– Benefit rates are the same
– 24% burden rate versus 19% at CIT & 0% at WMKO & UCO
– NGAO uses actual CIT, UCO & WMKO rates
• 1.46x represents $6.5M of the $20.5M of NFIRAOS labor
12

> $1M
NFIRAOS -
Category
Management
System Eng
AO System
RTC System
Laser System
Laser
Operation Tools
I&T
Non-Labor ($k) NFIRAOS -
NFIRAOS
0
0
10667
11669
2474
15575
30
58
Subtotal = 40473
Component Dev 4678
NGAO
354
265
4757
2551
1554
5691
39
791
16001
0
NGAO
-354
-265
5910
9119
920
9884
-9
-733
24472
4678
Facility Mods 0
Total = 45151
803
16804
-803
28347
NFIRAOS /
NGAO
0.0
0.0
2.2
4.6
1.6
2.7
0.8
0.1
2.5
0.0
2.69
Labor (hrs)
NFIRAOS NGAO
23979 42310
31538
62924
6396
43988
25506
56527
16819
15041
0
15975
3440
18295
18364 37050
203164 214987
0
0
0
16957
203164 231944
NGAO
-18331
6032
6398
-10423
28947
-3440
-2320
-18686
-11824
0
-16957
-40604
> 5 wy
NFIRAOS /
NGAO
0.6
1.2
1.1
0.4
2.9
0.0
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.0
0.88
• Start by removing Component Development & Facility Modifications
– NFIRAOS investment (not needed for NGAO) in polar coordinate CCDs & readout electronics to address perspective elongation
– NFIRAOS reserves $0.5M for NIR sensor development (NGAO to use available detectors)
– NGAO modifications to telescope facility (not needed for NFIRAOS) for new
AO system & laser, & to remove old systems
13

AO Components
LGS WFS
Low order WFS
Equipment
Source simulators
Optics
Acquisition camera
NGS WFS / TWFS
Support structure
TT mitigation
Device control
Enclosure
Total =
Non-labor ($k) NFIRAOS
NFIRAOS NGAO
3721 1618
- NGAO
2102
NFIRAOS
/ NGAO
2.3
2.8
2785
1142
896
1324
223
247
107
0
1007 1778
1 1141
135 761
624 699
69 154
237 9
113
52
-6
-52
6.6
2.1
3.2
1.0
0.9
116
107
10667
282 -166
618 -511
4757 5910
0.4
0.2
2.2
• Sorted by non-labor cost difference
Labor (hrs) NFIRAOS
NFIRAOS NGAO
16200 7450
- NGAO
8750
NFIRAOS
/ NGAO
2.2
0
5693
3488
9161
1690
5042
9520
1695
1865
14340
578
3384
-9520
3998
1623
-5179
1113
1658
0.0
3.4
1.9
0.6
2.9
1.5
2.1
4050
0
11960
5640
62924
1920 2130
3180 -3180
12075 -115
520 5120
56527 6398
1.0
10.8
1.1
• Cost of many items, especially LGS WFS & Optics, impacted by different scales of TMT & Keck
• Equipment & source simulators represent different philosophies
– NFIRAOS equipment includes high resolution test WFS, jigs & fixtures, & a turbulence generator versus NGAO alignment tools
14

Each lens is ~ 0.4m in diameter
Six zoom assemblies;
18 mechanisms
Entire ass’ly is
~ 0.5 x 0.5 m
Category
Non-labor (FY08)
Labor
Package size
WFS channels
Lenslet arrays
CCD
Camera
Mechanisms
Travel Range
Heritage
NFIRAOS
$3.7M
16,200 hrs
~ 3 m
6 zoom-optics channels with separating periscopes
30 mm diameter
Custom radial-format CCD
Custom controller
18
130 - 590 mm
Significant new optical challenges
NGAO
$1.6M
7,450 hrs
~ 0.5 m
9 optically simple channels
4 mm diameter
CCID56 (modest advance)
Commercial SciMeasure camera
45
1 to 150 mm
Considerable Keck AO heritage
Note: NFIRAOS PDR design corrects each WFS individually
 > ~ $1M savings in lens costs compared with aspheric CoDR design
15

Category
Correctors
Labor (hrs)
NFIRAOS NGAO
3620 3040
NFIRAOS - NFIRAOS
NGAO
580
/ NGAO
1.2
NFIRAOS
61x61 DM
73x73 DM
Cabling
Amps & HV
TT platform
Total =
Non-labor
($k) NGAO
1714 20x20 DM
1943 MEMS64
53 4x MEMS32
1298 DM TT platform
952 MEMS TT platform
5960 Total =
Non-labor
($k)
515
412
309
206
41
1483
• MCAO vs MOAO
• NFIRAOS DMs need to be developed
• NGAO DMs are commercially available
– ROM for MEMS64 (being developed for GPI)
• Estimates based on quotes
18

Category
RTC
Labor (hrs) NFIRAOS -
NFIRAOS NGAO
3130 13779
NGAO
-10649
NFIRAOS
/ NGAO
0.23
NFIRAOS
RTC design
RTC construct
PSF RT boards
RTC disk array
Total =
Non-labor
($k) NGAO
2163 RTC vendor
3245 FPGAs
54 Interface boards
248 Equipment
5710 Total =
Non-labor
($k)
480
375
168
45
1067
• Similar complexity & parallel processing approaches
• NFIRAOS assumes $5.4M RTC contract based on quote
– Includes ~ 6.9 work-years at industrial rates
• NGAO assumes mostly in-house development
– Includes 6 extra work-years of labor vs NFIRAOS
– NGAO hardware is based on quotes
• Need to add PSF RT boards ($100k should meet NGAO needs)
– Vendor quotes to be obtained prior to PDR to better anchor our estimate
• Less complex systems for comparison:
– NGWFC $2M, including $0.72M Microgate (3 RTC systems) subcontract
– Gemini MCAO RTC subcontract was $0.88M
– GPI $0.65M; PALM-3000 $0.60M
19

Laser
Procurement
Laser
Non-labor ($k) NFIRAOS
NFIRAOS NGAO
15575 5691
- NGAO
9884
NFIRAOS
/ NGAO
2.7
Labor (hrs) NFIRAOS
NFIRAOS NGAO
0 3440
- NGAO
-3440
NFIRAOS
/ NGAO
0.0
• Laser Differences
– NFIRAOS assumes 3x 50W LMCT lasers quote
• $6M design & $8.4M construction in FY06
• Reduced by ~ $1-2M at PDR by assuming fixed gravity vector
– NGAO assumes 2x 50W SOR-type lasers
• NGAO estimate based on our previous experience trying to set up a company to build SOR-type lasers for Gemini & Keck
– FASORtronics recently set up to commercialize this laser
• We are participating in ESO’s call for laser preliminary designs
– ROMs will be available within a month
– A fixed price quote will be available at PDR (Aug/09)
• The SDR reviewers questioned whether 100W would be adequate for the highest order correction
– After re-assessment we believe that 100W has sufficient margin by a factor of at least 1.5
20

Laser System
Components
Enclosure
Launch facility
Safety systems
System control
Total =
Non-labor ($k) NFIRAOS NFIRAOS
NFIRAOS NGAO
699
1154
224
- NGAO
51 648
1340 -187
36 188
397
2474
126 271
1554 920
/ NGAO
13.6
0.9
6.2
3.1
1.6
Labor (hrs)
NFIRAOS
760
20496
5384
NGAO
NFIRAOS
- NGAO
1224 -464
3900 16596
1812 3572
NFIRAOS
/ NGAO
0.6
5.3
3.0
17348
43988
8105 9243
15041 28947
2.1
2.9
• No major procurement differences ( > $1M)
– TMT system physically larger
• Biggest difference is the launch facility labor
– NGAO labor based on K1 LGS launch facility
– NGAO asterism generator based on LGS WFS pick-off mechanisms
• NFIRAOS estimate may be somewhat conservative (CoDR level)
• NGAO may be slightly optimistic
– Not obviously missing anything after comparison to NFIRAOS
– At most could imagine adding 2 work-years to estimate
21

I&T Non-labor
AO lab I&T
Laser lab I&T
Laser telescope I&T
AO telescope I&T
Total =
Non-labor ($k) NFIRAOS NFIRAOS
NFIRAOS NGAO
0 113
- NGAO
-113
17
0
45
72
40
51
-55
-40
-6
62 276 -214
/ NGAO
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.9
0.2
I&T Labor (hrs) NFIRAOS NFIRAOS
NFIRAOS NGAO
5526 8480
- NGAO
-2954
4664
2528
5646
3126
4838
19160
1538
-2310
-13514
18364 35604 -17240
/ NGAO
0.7
1.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
• NGAO has more labor in all but one category than NFIRAOS
– NFIRAOS laser lab I&T includes a full off-telescope system test
– NFIRAOS tel. I&T only covers to beginning of science commissioning
• ~ 25% of NGAO AO telescope I&T is for science commissioning
• NGAO estimate takes into account past experience with a detailed breakdown
• Possibility that we are not comparing apples to apples
– NFIRAOS may cover some under system eng. & I&T contingency
– NGAO assumes that each subsystem is complete & has met its requirements prior to lab I&T (presumably also true for NFIRAOS)
22

Category
Management
System Eng
Contingency %
NFIRAOS NGAO
18% 7%
$7.7M NGAO contingency
AO System
RTC System
Laser System
27%
36%
46%
28%
$22.0M NFIRAOS contingency
• Management & System Engineering:
Laser
I&T
Component Dev
Facility Mods
26%
32%
26%
0%
Total = 32%
16%
31%
24%
26%
19%
22%
0%
23%
22%
– 22% more NGAO labor pre-contingency
– Both NGAO & NFIRAOS assume level of effort
– Keck interfaces & telescope well known + 2 nd generation AO system
• AO & Laser systems: Contingencies fairly close
• RTC system: NFIRAOS at pre-CoDR study estimate, but have vendor quote
– 46% NGAO RTC contingency would require $300k more.
• Laser: NGAO 19% contingency too low. 50% would require $2M more.
• I&T: NGAO plan has ~1.7x more labor excluding science commissioning
• Contingencies generated using the same risk evaluation methodology
– Will evaluate whether applied adequately & consistently for NGAO
NFIRAOS
/ NGAO
2.5
1.7
1.2
1.9
1.1
1.4
1.4
0.0
1.45
23

• NGAO is 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
• NFIRAOS comparison was worthwhile for determining confidence in NGAO estimate.
– Methodology largely gave us reasonable system design estimates
• A cost review will be part of the NGAO PDR
– We will include NFIRAOS PDR estimate comparison
24