Managing the Gemini Project
Matt Mountain - Director
Jim Oschmann -Project Manager
Background
Project Management approach
Results
Final Thoughts
National Science Board
Committee on Programs & Plans
15th November, 2001
1
Jim Oschmann
Experience
• 20 years experience working in optics industries
– Defense R&D in High Energy Lasers, Laser Communications, Laser
Radar & IR systems
• TRW, Hughes, Sensis Corp (Optical Systems Engineer and Systems Engineer)
– Commercial Optical Industrial experience
• Phase Shift Technology (Manager of Optical Systems)
– With Gemini for nine years
• Systems Engineer in 1992
• Acting Project Manager 1993
• Systems Engineering Manager 1994-1997
• Project Manager 1998 to present
Optical Systems
Systems Engineering
Project Management
• Education in Optical Sciences
– University of Rochester and University of Arizona
2
The Gemini Scientific Mission
• “The main themes of the science programs are
concerned with observing and understanding the
origins and evolution of stars and planetary systems,
of galaxies, and of the Universe itself. The telescopes
will be used to observe objects ranging in distance
from within own our Solar System to within 10% of
the observable horizon of the Universe”
Gemini Science Requirements, 1991
3
International Agreement and Gemini Board
defined “Gemini”
• Construction
– Two 8m telescopes, on Mauna Kea and Cerro Pachon
– Superb image quality, infrared optimized configuration
– Initial instrument complement
• Operations
– Operations infrastructure at Hilo and La Serena
– Build up and training of operations staff
– Enable and support community access and exploitation of the
Gemini telescopes to undertake forefront astrophysical research
• Development
– On-going Instrumentation Program
– Upgrades and enhancements of existing instruments
– Facilities development
• Laser Guide Star Adaptive Optics
• Detector development
• Internet-II infrastructure
4
Gemini Schedule
$8M
1992
Australia joins
1997
2002
Construction
$184M
Operations
$68M
Development
$31M
Telescope “first light”
5
Site Construction
6
Completed Telescopes
7
Gemini Construction Schedule
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Initial Hiring of Central Project Team - Concept Design Begins
Primary Mirror Blanks Procured (long lead item)
International Agreement Signed
Construction Activities Begin (polishing, enclosure, & site construction)
Telescope Structures Contract
Mauna Kea & Cerro Pachon Foundations Complete
First Primary Mirror Completed & Telescope Structure Delivered to GN
Telescope Installed with Primary Mirror (GN),
Telescope Structure Delivered to GS, GS Primary Mirror Completed
Engineering First Light on Gemini North
Initial Science Observations from Gemini North
Engineering First Light on Gemini South
Initial Science Observations from Gemini South
Construction Close-out
Science Observing and Instrument Commissioning
8
Construction Project
Australia Joins
+$9.2M
9
Both Gemini Telescopes Completed
Mauna Kea, Hawaii and on Cerro Pachon, Chile
Gemini North - Mauna Kea
Budget =
+ $0M
$184M - $0.3M
Gemini South - Cerro Pachon
Schedule
- 3 months
Both Observatories in limited science observations
‘punch list’ construction and commissioning activities in full swing
10
Features of the Gemini
Construction Project
• AURA Managed
– Dedicated division set up to concentrate on Gemini
– Oversight committee including senior engineering manager input
• JPL Chief Engineer
• Lockheed Martin Engineering Manager
• Carried out as one unified project
– Two construction sites
– Limited initial instrument complement
• Partner funding provided when required
– NSF worked with partners to ensure project not limited by cash
flow concerns
• Partners took responsibility timely funding for transition to
operations and for continued development
11
Features of the Gemini
Construction Project
• Science objectives defined and prioritized
– Cost fixed, so constant ‘tension’ built into process
– Effort to get most for the money
• Central single management of effort
– Contingency funds managed centrally
– Product Oriented Work Breakdown
• Organization matches WBS
• Subcontractors managed rigorously
– Project Scientist part of design team
• Partner with Project Management
• Instrument Management was the exception
– Initially had more control at the partner level
12
Gemini Construction Project
Organization
Project Director
Responsible to Gemini Board
Systems Engineering
Project Manager
Project Scientist
Cost and Schedule
(National Project Managers)
Science Requirements
(International Science Committee)
Telescope, Building & Enclosure
Optics
Error Budgets
MK Site Construction
Primary Mirror Assembly
Interface Control
CP Site Construction
Secondary Mirror Assembly
Integration Planning
Enclosures
Coating & Handling
Electronics
Telescope Structure
Controls & Software
Instrumentation
Real Time Systems
Instrument Facilities
High Level Software
Science Instrumentation
Computing Hardware
13
Design Process
• Establish science requirements
• Perform conceptual design and analysis
– Design requirements
•
•
•
•
•
Flow down through error budgeting process
System breakdown and major interfaces defined
Initial integration plan established early
Schedule reworked from bottom up
Trades in concepts
– Cost, risk, and science trades
– Hard choices made early
– Long lead items designed and procured early
• Minimizing schedule risk
• Focuses remaining design effort
14
Systems and subsystem reviews
• Science and engineering reviews
– Major cost trades performed early
• Systems reviews
– Science representatives from all partners
– High level plan and trades presented and discussed
• Conceptual, preliminary, and critical design reviews for major
subsystems
– Mix of internal and external reviewers
» Brought in specialists as required
– Several science working groups for specific reviews and trades
– Vendor reviews in some cases
15
Cost Estimates
• Cost estimates reviewed consistent with reviews
– Bottoms up cost estimates
• Drove major trades and risks
• Trade of budget across WBS to solve problems
– Systems Engineering involvement
» Cost, schedule and technical trades
– Cost progress reviewed on monthly basis
• Problems identified early
• Competitive bidding where possible
– Some partner work altered to full international bidding
– Goal was producing the most science for the money
– Major exception was instrumentation
» Partners took on cost risk for this freedom
» Instrument costs “ring-fenced”
16
Schedule
• Schedule was structured from bottoms up
– Driven by Systems Engineering
• Sub system organization
• Integration & Test planning for flow of assembly
• Schedule
– Options, trades, feedback into Integration & Test planning
– Major elements followed WBS
– Progress reviewed monthly along with budget
17
Development of systems plan:
Defining Interfaces
Gemini Example: Science Instruments Internal Interfaces
Instrument Components
1.9.1
Detector
1.9.1/1.9.2
1.9.1/1.9.3
1.9.2
1.9.2/1.9.3
Detector Controller
1.9.3
Inst. Component Controller
Science
Instruments
1.9
1.9.1/1.9.4
1.9.1/1.9.6
1.9.3/1.9.5
1.9.4
Instrument Sequencer
1.9.4/1.9.5
1.9.5
Instrument Handling
1.9.6
Specific Instruments:
a:
b:
c:
d:
e:
f:
1-5 micron Imager
1-5 micron Spectrometer
HROS
GMOS
Mid-IR Imager
q:
r:
s:
MICHELLE
COB
Phoenix
18
System I&T Plan
Site Construction
Major Subsystem I&T
9 / 97
Sea Level Checkout
Install Services
Telescope Factory Erection
7 / 97
Telescope Assembly Int.
4 / 98
10 / 97
M1 Assem. Factory Subsystem I&T
CR/ISS Subsystem I&T - TBD
M1 Assembly Prep
5 / 98
System Integration & Test
2 / 98
12 / 98
11 / 97
A&G Subsystem I&T - RGO
A&G Preparation
1 / 98
M1 Preparation
7 / 98
Commissioning
10 / 97
M1 Polishing - Reosc
Coating/Clean Facilites
9 / 97
4 / 97
Handover
3 / 2000
PFWFS to Mount Subsystem I&T
M2 Tilt Subsystem I&T
2 / 98
M2 Assem. Subsystem I&T - NOAO
M2 Sea Level Checkout
M2 Assembly Prep
5 / 98
Calibration Unit Sea Level
6 / 98
IR Imager Subsystem I&T - U of H
9 / 98
IR Imager Sea Level Checkout
Instrument Preparation
8 / 97
Control System I&T - IGPO
Control System I&T - Sea Level
Software Final Integration (Top Level )
AO Sea Level Checkout
19
Schedule based upon flow diagram
Gemini overall example
(details too numerous to present)
20
Design Smooth
Transition to Operations
(Gemini Example)
Operations Ramp-up during I&T
120
100
Total Operations Team Ramp-up
80
Total ramp-up w / temps
Construction Project Staff
60
Gemini Total Staff
40
20
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
21
Contingency Planning
A Key to Risk mitigation
– Hold budget in project office for contingency (<10% for Gemini)
– Need to prioritize this with science goals
• No time to re-do this at end of design phase
» Exception are items easily cut or defined as future additions
» Design with mind toward achieving all goals, but in
modular fashion if money is limited
– Establish Time contingency in project schedule
• Allowing time and money for recovery from problems
• Establish key dates for decisions, early
Stick to them
Most projects need financial and functional contingency
Options for future upgrades considered if financial limits are
exceeded
22
Gemini Telescopes “designed to cost”
- key scientific capabilities not compromised
1. Items removed from the Gemini baseline, defined for two telescopes as
described in the Gemini Science Requirements version 1.0, September 1991.
Two Nasmyth foci
2
4
4
2
x
x
x
x
rotating deployable tertiary mirror
nasmyth field rotators
nasmyth A&G systems
optical secondary mirrors
$1,200K
$3,200K
$4,400K
$1,200K
F/6 wide field focus (one telescope only)
F/6 secondary mirrors
F/6 top end
F/6 instrument support structure
Deployable field corrector and ADC
Wide field fiber fed MOS
$24,000K
Cerro Pachon Dormitories
$1,200K
Wide field Optical Imagers
$2,000K
Total
$37,200K
2. Facilities descoped to meet budget constraints
Reduced size and scope of MK support building
Second (north) exhaust fan removed from MK enclosure
$2,000K
$ 250K
Permanent CP water installation
$
Eximer primary mirror laser cleaning systems (x2)
$
Composite secondary mirror vanes
$
Change orders < 5%
Total
300K
700K
400K
$3,650K
23
Meetings & Reporting
– Weekly
• Internal managers meeting
• Weekly engineering group meetings
• Conference and video meetings for extended groups
– Monthly
• Schedule and budget reviews
– PM, PS, Director, Systems Engineer, each engineering manager
• Partner manager meetings
• Project scientist meetings with partner scientist representatives
• Contract progress reports
– 2-3 times per year
•
•
•
•
Partner meetings for overall progress & issues
Oversight committee
Gemini Finance Committee
Gemini Board
24
Other Techniques
• Rigorous subcontract management
– Project central contracts manager
– Strong technical leads
• Active Gemini Board involvement
– Partner issues and trades
– Cash flow issues
– Science issues and trades
• Taking Gemini Science Committee and Project input
Always focused on success of project
– Timely and consistent help from NSF and Gemini Board
– Partner issues secondary to partnership success
• Two way flow of information and help
• Provide the best facilities for partners to use scientifically
25
“Lessons Learned” on Gemini
• Cost was the constraint
• Develop Science Requirements and Goals
• Integrated Approach
• International Partnership “buy-in” essential
26
Summary
• NSF provided the single point of contact between AURA
and the NSF (as Executive Agency for the International
Partnership) and delegated full Project Management
responsibilities to AURA ensuring considerable:
–
–
–
–
Autonomy
Authority
Responsibility
Accountability
Performance
• Instruments where another matter….
27
Matt Mountain
Experience
• 20 years building and observing with forefront
astronomical groundbased instrumentation
– Research interests: Starformation and starformation systems in galaxies
(including our own), infrared instrumentation, capabilities of “second
generation telescopes”.
• 15 years experience with managing groundbased programs
in the UK and US
– With Gemini for nine years
• Project Scientist in 1992
• Project & Observatory Director 1994
Research astronomer
Project Scientist
Director
• For my entire career, astronomy has been an exhilarating,
international and cost constrained experience
– A useful background for managing a complex program within the NSFGemini Partnership environment
28
International Agreement Annex A – Project Description
Defined what was to be delivered within $176M (modified to $184M)
Mauna Kea
Infrared optimized 8m telescope
Multiple instrument mount
Actively ventilated enclosure
Summit support buildings
8m multi-layer coating facility
Computer infrastructure
& remote observing capability
Cerro Pachon
Infrared optimized 8m telescope
Multiple instrument mount
Actively ventilated enclosure
Summit support buildings
Access roads, power and water
Construction camp
Upgraded 8m coating facility
Computer infrastructure
& remote observing capability
Infrared camera (+ spec.)
Infrared spectrometer
High res. optical spectrograph
Multi-Object Spec. + Imager
Low order adaptive optics
High
Multi-Object Spec. + Imager









X

+ $300K
29
Gemini North
Data from 2000-2001 semesters
• 2000B:
33 programs (Quick Start Programs)
– 51 CDs of science; 66 CDs of calibration data sent to
PIs
• 2001A:
25 programs
– 85 CDs sent to PIs
• 2001B:
12 programs to date
– 50 CDs sent to PIs so far
• Total: 252 CDs, 70 programs to date
N.B. several 10s of CDs of SV data to be released
Gemini South Observations just begun
30
First results with facility IR Imager
Gemini North
Star forming
Region
AFGL 2591
NIRI f/6
2’ x 2’
J, K bands
FWHM=0.35’’
31
Gemini-South IR (4 micron) Commissioning
Images of Galactic Center
- IR optimization at work…
•Gemini South + ABU + fast tip/tilt
•Brackett 
•FWHM ~ 0.35”
•1 minute integration
•Simons & Becklin 1992
•IRTF (3.6m) - L’
•16,000 images shift/add
•An entire night….
32
Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph – Optical Imaging
NGC 628 (Messier 74) 32 Mega pixels/frame
34
Final thoughts on managing international
projects within the NSF
• International Projects are more complex
• Requires clear definition and agreement of
requirements and goals
• International stakeholders are partners not subcontractors
• The NSF approach to international programs has
(to date) worked well
– There is real value-added from the Gemini partnership
– “The whole is greater than the sum of the parts”
35
International Partnership
Cost vs. Benefit
• Financial structures and
accountability
undoubtedly more
complex
– 4 different financial
years and accounting
principles
– several overhead
structures
– being subject to seven
different Science
Agencies budget
cycles can introduce
cash flow uncertainties
• However, this does allow
considerable financial
flexibility
– Use the UK’s, Canada’s
and Australia’s 5 year
financial planning cycle to
make cash commitments
beyond the annual US
appropriations
– Makes available
enormous effective cash
reserves to do the project
correctly
36
International Partnership
Cost vs. Benefit
• Governance, and Advisory
structures undoubtedly
more complex
– Spent approx. year
building consensus on
approach (~$4M)
– 30% ~ 50% of travel costs
can attributed to
“international issues”
(~$150K-$200K/year)
– Internationalization does
not mean national
committees go away
– Cost ~3% of $184M
program
• However, this does
introduce considerable
international awareness
and competition
– consideration of
alternative approaches
– national communities,
even “premier
organizations” have to
compete
• Management and Science
Team consensus: this has
clearly led to a better
“product”
37
With the NSF approach to international projects,
innovation and risk management not inhibited
•
In construction both Gemini telescopes were required to deliver
exceptional (and unprecedented) performance within a fixed
budget
– 0.1 arcseconds image quality
– 4% infrared emissivity
– $184M fixed capital budget
•
In Operations partnership is experimenting with an “adaptive
operations model”
– Implement “adaptive queue scheduling” to match observations with
optimum conditions, and complete highly ranked programs
– Using new technologies, support both telescopes separated by
continents using a single engineering team
– Queue and classical observations synchronized to be “out of phase”
on Gemini North and South to optimize support costs, while
maximizing scientific return
•
In the Gemini case, NSF has supported the taking of risks
– National Science Board concluded that the Gemini operational
approach was a “worthwhile experiment”
38
What the NSF got right in the Gemini
Partnership
•
Clear agreement on the scientific priorities, requirements, goals and
expectations at the outset of the Gemini Project
•
Insisting on a single management entity with the responsibility and
accountability for:
– Science requirements change control
– System architecture and system engineering [happened late in Gemini]
– Total program budget
•
The NSF’s willingness to “go the extra mile” to maintain partnership
– showing flexibility when partners hit financial troubles, pump-priming
initiatives (PIO, Internet-II)
– Note: How America Does It, Foreign Affairs, 1997, Sept/Oct., p.13-27
“Great powers remain great if they promote their own interests by serving
those of others”
39
Current and Future Challenges
•
Groundbased projects are increasingly more complex and
expensive
–
–
–
–
Capital investment in ESO-VLT ~ $1.2Billion DM’s
Capital investment in ALMA will be ~ $700M - $800M
30m GSMT will require ~ $500M capital, ~ $40M/year operations
100m OWL will require ~ $1,000M capital, ~ $80M/year operations
•
These are the required ‘particle accelerators’, and ‘space
missions’ of modern groundbased astronomy
•
Numbers of this scale require ‘a project culture’ at the NSF
– Responding to global challenges of this scale cannot be “PI driven”
– Requires long-term budgetary and program plans (and inter-Agency
coordination)
– Requires strategic leadership
•
However NSF is gaining considerable experience with complex
international partnerships and larger projects….
40