Build to Cost Meeting:
Goals, Agenda & New Directions
Peter Wizinowich
NGAO Team Meeting
September 11-12, 2008
Presentation Sequence
• Goals of Meeting
1. First step in design to cost
– Identify core science & Observatory requirements
– Identify base NGAO system
2. Planning for Internal Review of Build to Cost concept
– Identify concept review success criteria
– Identify tasks & schedule leading up to review
• Agenda
• Build to Cost (B2C)
–
–
–
–
Directions & Guidelines from Directors
Implications
Concept review success criteria
Plan
2
New Directions & Guidelines
• $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)
• Reviews
– NFIRAOS cost comparison report at Nov/08 SSC meeting
• To better understand the fidelity of the SDR costing
– Internal review of build to cost concept
– Report on internal review no later than Apr/08 SSC meeting
3
Implications of New Directions & Guidelines
•
New work required to reduce costs to fit in $60M cap
– NGAO estimate at SDR, plus SD phase, ~ $53M (then-year $)
– Science instrument estimate at proposal ~ $27M (then-year $)
– Need to provide a major breakthrough in science capability for $
•
•
Need Science Advisory Team
New work required on science instruments
– Cost cap requires NGAO project to integrate all costs & planning including
instruments
•
•
During PD phase, instrument program management will continue for
instruments, but integrated with NGAO (moved under NGAO project
management at the same level as WMKO, COO and UCO project
management; see Fig. 1 of NGAO PD phase SEMP)
This will be re-evaluated for future phases during PD phase
– Need to develop at least system designs, preferably preliminary designs,
& costs during the NGAO PD
– Need to identify funds & people for this (none in WMKO FY09 plan) &
determine impact on NGAO PD plan
4
Implications of New Directions & Guidelines
• Report/Reviews
– NFIRAOS cost comparison already planned
– Cancel phased implementation & descopes review
• Need something for PDR, but not for build to cost concept review
– Need success criteria, & plan to prepare, for build to cost review
• Budget
– Cost cap does not need to include funding contingency
– Team expected to raise up to $12.4M through government
proposals, plus support proposals to private foundations
– Do we charge indirect costs to government funding?
• Could reduce cost cap unless indirect costs not included in cost cap or
we can use this infrastructure money
– Can we place long lead procurements after PDR?
• Impacts schedule & then-year dollars
5
Build to Cost Concept Review
• Success Criteria
– We have a believable approach to producing an NGAO facility
within the cost cap
– We have dealt with contingency properly
– We have made the proper science benefit choices
• Assumptions
– We will use our SD cost estimate refined by the NFIRAOS cost
comparison
– Better cost estimates will be produced for the PDR
6
Draft B2C / Cost Comparison Schedule
Month Week
NFIRAOS Cost Comparison
Sept 8-12 Post NGAO & NFIRAOS cost books
15-19 Review detailed NFIRAOS cost sheets
22-26 Prepare side-by-side comparison
29-2 Prepare topics & questions for TMT
Oct
6-10 Meet with TMT for comparison
13-17 Update NGAO cost estimates
Write & review report
20-24 Submit report to Directors
27-31
Nov
3-7
Report at 11/3 SSC meeting (UCSC)
10-14
17-21
24-28
Dec
1-5
8-12
15-19
Jan
5-9
11-15
18-22
25-29
Feb
2-6
9-13
16-20
23-27
Mar
2-6
9-13
16-20
23-27
30-3
Apr
6-10
13-17
20-24
27-1
Build to Cost (B2C)
Other
NGAO Team Meeting (UCSC)
1st SAT telecon?
Decide on ATI proposal topic
Write ATI proposal
Write ATI proposal & submit to Directors
Finalize & submit ATI proposal
Update cost estimates based on changes
Write B2C Concept Report
Write B2C Concept Report
Submit Concept Report to Directors
Submit Concept Report to Reviewers
Prepare Concept Review presentation
Respond to reviewer questions
Internal B2C Concept Review
SSC meeting (Waimea)
Receive reviewer report
Prepare SSC presentation
Report at SSC meeting (date tbd)
Send reviewer report response to reviewers
7
Science Instruments “Management Path
Forward”
Need to identify:
• minimum NGAO facility including science instruments
• science instrument success criteria for PDR
• resources needed for PD phase
• funds to support PD phase instrument work
• personnel to support PD phase instrument work
• near-term instrument project plan
• PD phase instrument project plan
Will need to include:
• supporting B2C process
• further development of cost estimates
8
Science Instruments “Path Forward”
• Priorities
– Support PDR success
• Design and build to cost objectives
• Systems engineering goals
• Interface definitions
– Move instrument designs forward
•
•
•
•
Address most challenging design aspects
Develop firm interface definitions with AO system
Support other design activities
Develop full plans for design and fabrication
• Initial Plan
–
–
–
–
–
Limited in scope due to funding uncertainty
Focused on “minimum” needs to support AO system design
Pragmatic, based on heritage designs and proven concepts
Takes advantage of design overlaps between imagers
Seeks to develop synergy for probe arms between TT and d-IFS
9
Summary
• Further discussion of meeting goals?
1. First step in design to cost
– Identify core science & Observatory requirements
– Identify base NGAO system
2. Planning for Internal Review of Build to Cost concept
– Identify concept review success criteria
– Identify tasks & schedule leading up to review
• Further discussion of cost guidelines or path forward?
Let’s take this opportunity to brainstorm
& identify a successful path forward.
Agenda
10
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
11