WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics:
Build to Cost Concept Review
Peter Wizinowich et al.
~ March 20, 2009
February 5, 2009 DRAFT
Presentation Sequence
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introductions
Build-to-Cost Guidelines & the Challenge
Build to Cost Concept Review Success Criteria
Cost Reduction Approach
Science Priorities
NFIRAOS Cost Comparison
Starting Cost Estimate
Cost Reductions
– Laser beacons, science instruments, opto-mechanical & other
• Revised Cost Estimate & Contingency
• Conclusion
2
Introductions
• Reviewers:
– Brent Ellerbroek (TMT)
– Mike Liu (UH)
– Jerry Nelson (UCSC)
• Directors
• NGAO Senior
Management Team
3
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
4
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
5
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 at the Nov. 3, 2008 SSC meeting
We believe that we have successfully met these success criteria
6
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
7
Cost Reduction Approach
•
•
•
•
Review & update the science priorities
Review other changes to the estimate (NFIRAOS cost comparison)
Update the cost estimate in then-year $
Present & evaluate the recommended cost reductions
– On an individual basis
– As a whole including performance predictions
•
•
Present revised cost estimate
Revisit review success criteria & deliverables
8
Science Priorities (from the NGAO SDR)
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.
9
Science Priorities (from the SDR Panel)
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.”
“The error budget is sufficiently developed at this stage of the project and meets the science
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.”
“The review panel recommends proceeding with the Preliminary Design phase because of the
appealing science cases of NGAO and time constraints for the competition.”
“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.”
10
Science Priorities (from the 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) and high sensitivity
11
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.
•
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 imager to ~ 850 nm.
•
Required for higher angular resolution science & AGN science
6. Visible IFU
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 to shorter 
12
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
13
Starting Cost Estimate
Start from SDR cost estimate
+ additional contingency (per NFIRAOS cost comparison)
•
•
$680k for laser to increase laser contingency from 19 to 30%
Additional $450k to increase overall contingency from 22 to 25%
+ updated instrument cost estimates (no instrument designs yet)
+ no deployable multi-IFU (fixed NIR IFU instead)
+ 3.5% inflation/year
NGAO System
System Design
Preliminary Design
Detailed Design
Full Scale Development
Delivery & Commissioning
Additional Contingency =
NGAO Total =
NIR Imager
NIR IFU
Visible Imager
Contingency
NGAO Instrument Total =
Overall Total =
Actuals ($k)
FY07
FY08
739
495
214
739
739
709
709
FY09
1800
1800
200
50
250
2050
FY10
1634
1600
3234
482
240
50
772
4006
Plan (Then-Year $k)
FY11
FY12
FY13
5500
5500
907
606
499
300
2312
7812
3036
7468
10504
1044
1300
1161
600
4105
14609
13913
300
14213
978
1400
948
1000
4326
18539
FY14
9600
2223
400
12223
157
1404
879
534
2974
15196
FY15
2301
445
2745
162
162
2908
Total
1234
3649
10136
30980
4524
1145
51667
3769
5000
3650
2484
14902
66569
14
Starting Cost Estimate
Very ambitious spending profile both for finding funds & ramping up effort.
–
–
Highly desirable to maximize science competitiveness.
Slow current start-up rate imposed by available funds.
NGAO Spending Profile
20000
18000
System
16000
Then-Year $k
•
Instruments
14000
Total
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
Fiscal Year
Also insert labor plot?
15
Cost Reductions – Laser Beacons
•
Absence of multiple d-IFS allowed us to rethink the LGS asterism
– 1st architecture result: a fixed, fewer LGS asterism (4 vs 6) to provide
tomographic correction over the narrow science field
– 2nd: no tomographic correction is provided over the wide field.
•
3 point & shoot LGS used in single beacon AO systems for each tip-tilt NGS
– 3rd: able to reduce the overall laser power from 100W to 75W
•
Went from ~11W/LGS to 12.5W/LGS in central asterism & 8W/LGS for tip-tilt
16
Cost Reductions – Laser Beacons
•
Reduce total laser power from 100W to 75W (50W in central asterism)
& number of LGS beacons from 9 to 7 (6 to 4 in central asterism).
– In worse case (ExoJupiter science case & best seeing) rms wavefront
error increases from 160 nm to 167 nm  SR(J) reduced by 6%.
– Optimal number of subapertures across pupil reduced from 64 to 56.
Degraded laser
power tradeoffs
KAON XXX
17
Cost Reductions – Laser Beacons
•
Likely availability of new lasers allowed a new design choice
–
•
Lasers on elevation moving part of telescope (previously Nasmyth)
Likely availability of new lasers allowed a check of our laser cost estimate
18
Cost Reductions – Laser Beacons
Cost Implications:
Science Fields
Central LGS Asterism
Laser Location
Total Power
No. of subapertures
Number of devices
RTC
Impact
SDR Design
B2C Baseline Design
Rationale
Savings ($M)
Narrow & Wide
Narrow
No multi d-IFS
5 variable, 1 fixed
4 fixed
Only narrow field
0.9
Nasmyth platform
Elevation ring
ESO laser proposals
0.4
100 W (~11W / LGS)
75 W (50W center)
Only narrow field
1.5
?
Optimized for above
64
LGS WFS dof reduced from 62 to 41; laser from 89 to 61; UTT from 9 to 7
0.2
2 less WFS & UTT; reduced subapertures & configurations
0.2
No wide field science support; no on-sky narrow field optimization
~ nm rms
3.1
19
Cost Reductions – Science Instruments
Science Case
Galaxy assembly & star formation
Nearby AGNs
GR effects in the Galactic Center
Extrasolar planets
Minor planets multiplicity
NIR IFS
NIR Cam
Vis Cam
Vis IFS
1
0.9
Quantum Efficiency
NIR IFS
NIR Imager
Visible Imager
Visible IFS
OSIRIS
Interferometer
Impact
SDR Design
B2C Baseline Design
Rationale
Savings ($M)
6 channel multi d-IFS
1 channel fixed IFS
KSP08; SDR
baseline
yes
Extends to 800 nm
To provide vis capability
-0.5
yes
no
Cost; future upgrade?
4.5
no
no
yes
no
Provided by NIR IFS
0.3
yes
yes
Limited visible science capability; no multiplexing capability
4.3
0.8
0.7
MOSFIRE
H-4RG goal
0.6
e2V meas
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
Wavelength (m icrons)
1.75
2
20
Cost Reductions – Opto-mechanical
Cooling
Truth WFS
Optical design
2nd relay location
NGS WFS
Impact
SDR Design
AO enclosure
NIR after 1st relay
Vis after 2nd relay
2-tier
reflection off dichroic
ADC; 3 lenslets
B2C Baseline Design
Science path optics
Rationale
Savings ($M)
Only science needs cold
0.4
Few NGS in narrow field
Similar performance
Vis after 1st relay
0.3
1-tier
Removes 2nd tier cost
0.1
transmitted, no dichroic
no d-IFS; lower cost
no ADC; 2 lenslets
Cost
0.1
0.8
21
Cost Reductions – Other
•
•
Reduced project management & systems engineering ~ $0.2M.
Risk reduction
– Each one of the cost reductions works in the direction of simplifying
NGAO, which also reduces risk.
•
Other ideas
22
Revised Cost Estimate
Assuming all cost reductions can be achieved:
Actuals ($k)
FY07
FY08
739
495
214
739
739
FY09
FY10
1800
709
709
Plan (Then-Year $k)
FY11
FY12
FY13
1634
1357
1800
200
50
2991
482
240
250
2050
50
772
3763
5235
5235
907
606
100
300
1913
7148
3036
6407
11313
9443
1044
1300
200
600
3144
12587
300
11613
978
1400
100
700
3178
14790
FY14
FY15
9600
2223
400
12223
157
1404
0
184
1745
13967
2301
445
2745
0
0
0
2745
Total
1234
3649
9628
27319
4524
1145
47497
3769
5000
400
1834
11002
58500
NGAO Spending Profile with Descopes
16000
14000
System
Instruments
12000
Total
The-Year $k
NGAO System
Start
End
Months
System Design
10/1/2007 4/30/2008
19
Preliminary Design
5/1/2008 4/30/2010
24
Detailed Design
5/1/2010 4/30/2012
24
Full Scale Development
5/1/2012 4/30/2014
24
Delivery & Commissioning
5/1/2014 2/28/2015
10
Additional Contingency =
NGAO Total =
101
NIR Imager
NIR IFU
Visible Imager
Contingency
NGAO Instrument Total =
Overall Total =
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
Fiscal Year
FY12
FY13
FY14
FY15
23
Review Deliverables Summary
•
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
24
Review Success Criteria: Assessment
• 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
– Note: timely for technical approach but have yet to demonstrate for
funding/project management
• We have reserved contingency consistent with the level of
programmatic & technical risk
25
Conclusions
26