+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Taft Armandroff, Hilton Lewis March 18, 2009

Taft Armandroff, Hilton Lewis March 18, 2009

Date post: 04-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: fatima-ortega
View: 23 times
Download: 2 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics Build to Cost Concept Review: Introductions & Charge to the Review Committee. Taft Armandroff, Hilton Lewis March 18, 2009. Introductions. Reviewers: Brent Ellerbroek (TMT) Mike Liu (UH) Jerry Nelson (UCSC) Directors Taft Armandroff Mike Bolte - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Popular Tags:
98
WMKO Next Generation Adaptive WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics Optics Build to Cost Concept Review: Build to Cost Concept Review: Introductions & Introductions & Charge to the Review Committee Charge to the Review Committee Taft Armandroff, Hilton Lewis Taft Armandroff, Hilton Lewis March 18, 2009 March 18, 2009
Transcript

WMKO Next Generation Adaptive OpticsWMKO Next Generation Adaptive OpticsBuild to Cost Concept Review:Build to Cost Concept Review:

Introductions & Introductions & Charge to the Review CommitteeCharge to the Review Committee

Taft Armandroff, Hilton LewisTaft Armandroff, Hilton Lewis

March 18, 2009March 18, 2009

2

Introductions

• Reviewers:– Brent Ellerbroek (TMT)– Mike Liu (UH)– Jerry Nelson (UCSC)

• Directors– Taft Armandroff– Mike Bolte– Tom Soifer for Shri

Kulkarni– Hilton Lewis

• SSC co-chair– Chris Martin

• NGAO Team

3

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 by the Directors & presented at the Nov. 3, 2008 SSC meeting

4

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

5

Agenda

9:00 Introductions & Charge

9:15-14:30 Review Presentation

with 10:15 break & 12:30 Lunch

14:45 Review Panel Discussion & Report Drafting

16:45 Draft Report from Panel

17:15 End

WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics:WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics:Build to Cost Concept ReviewBuild to Cost Concept Review

Peter Wizinowich, Sean Adkins, Rich Dekany, Peter Wizinowich, Sean Adkins, Rich Dekany,

Don Gavel, Claire Max & the NGAO TeamDon Gavel, Claire Max & the NGAO Team

March 18, 2009March 18, 2009

7

Presentation Sequence / Schedule

9:15 B2C Guidelines & Cost Reduction Approach (PW)

9:25 Science Priorities (CM)

9:45 Cost Estimate Starting Point (PW)

10:15 Break

10:30 AO Design Changes (PW, RD, DG)

11:40 Science Impact (CM)

11:50 Science Instrument Design Changes & Cost Estimate (SA)

12:30 Lunch

13:30 Revised Cost Estimate (PW)

14:00 Assessment of Review Deliverables & Success Criteria (PW)

14:15 Questions & Discussion

14:45 End

Build-to-Cost Guidelines & Build-to-Cost Guidelines & Cost Reduction ApproachCost Reduction Approach

9

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

10

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

11

Cost Reduction Approach

• Review & update the science priorities• Review other changes to the estimate (e.g. NFIRAOS cost

comparison)• Update the cost estimate in then-year $• Present & evaluate the recommended cost reductions

– As architectural changes– As a whole including performance predictions

• Present revised cost estimate• Revisit review success criteria & deliverables

We believe the criteria have been successfully met

Science PrioritiesScience Priorities

13

Key Science Drivers

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.

14

Science Priority Input: SDR Report

From the SDR review panel report (KAON 588) executive summary:• The panel supported the science cases

– “The NGAO Science cases are mature, well developed and provide enough confidence that the science … will be unique within the current landscape.”

• 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.”– “… 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 – “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.”

15

Science Priority Input: 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) at the science & high sensitivity

16

Science Implications of no Multiplexed d-IFU

• Galaxy Assembly and Star Formation History– Reduced observing efficiency

• Single target observed at a time

• Calibrations (e.g., sky, telluric, PSF) may require dedicated observing sequences

– Decreases overall statistics for understanding processes of galaxy formation and evolution

• Can be supplemented with complementary HST & JWST results at higher z

• General Relativity in the Galactic Center– Decreased efficiency in radial velocity measurements (fewer stars

observed at once)

• Can gain back some of efficiency hit with a single on-axis IFU that has higher sensitivity (especially for galaxy assembly) & larger FOV (especially for GC)

16

17

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, ≥ 20” FOV & simple coronagraph• 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 imaging capability to ~ 800 nm• Required for higher angular resolution science

6. Visible IFU capability to ~ 800 nm7. Deployable multi-IFS instrument (removed from plan)

– Ranked as low priority by Keck SSP 2008 & represents a significant cost

8. Visible imager & IFU to shorter

Included in B2CExcluded

Cost EstimateCost EstimateStarting PointStarting Point

19

NGAO System ArchitectureKey AO Elements:• Configurable laser Configurable laser tomographytomography• Closed loop LGS AOClosed loop LGS AO for low order correction over a wide field• Narrow field MOAO Narrow field MOAO (open loop) for high Strehl science, NIR TT correction & ensquared energy

X

20

Cost Estimation Methodology (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

22

Cost Estimate to Completion (FY08 $k)

PhaseLabor (PY)

Cost Estimate (FY08 $k)% of

NGAO BudgetLabor

Non-Labor

TravelSub-Total

Contin-gency

Total

Preliminary Design 21.0 2,582 216 224 3,022 458 3,479 8%

Detailed Design 43.6 5,516 1,827 354 7,697 1,403 9,100 22%

Full Scale Develop 50.5 5,661 14,510 626 20,797 5,234 26,031 62%

Delivery/Commission 22.4 2,287 250 478 3,015 602 3,617 9%

Total = 138 16,045 16,804 1,681 34,531 7,697 42,227 100%

% = 46% 49% 5% 100% 22% 122%

23

SDR Reviewer Comments

• “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).

24

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

25

Science Instrument Cost Estimates

• The science instruments are only at a proposal level– Estimate of $3M (FY06 $) each for NIR imager and Visible imager

in NGAO proposal (June 2006)– NIR & visible imager estimates updated by Adkins– Estimate of $14M (FY06 $) for deployable multi-IFS in NGAO

proposal (June 2006)• This is not included in the starting cost estimate

– No estimate available for NIR IFS when the build-to-cost process began• We did have the Nov/08 ATI proposal for the design costs of a near-IR

IFS• Just assumed $5M total for the starting point

26

Contingency

• NGAO budget at SDR included 22% contingency– $7.7M on a base of $34.5M in FY08 $– $9.1M on a base of $40.2M in then-year $

• Increased contingency based on NFIRAOS cost comparison– $0.68M for laser to increase laser contingency from 19 to 30%– Additional $0.45M to increase overall contingency from 22 to 25%

• Instruments only at proposal level– Assume 30% contingency

27

Starting Cost EstimateStart from SDR cost estimate

+ additional contingency (per NFIRAOS cost comparison)

+ updated NIR & visible imager cost estimates (no instrument designs yet)

- deployable multi-IFU ($14M FY06 estimate; $17M in then-year $)

+ fixed NIR IFU (very rough estimate) + 3.5% inflation/year

NGAO System FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 TotalSystem Design 739 495 1234Preliminary Design 214 1800 1144 3158Detailed Design 1600 5500 1426 8526Full Scale Development 5966 11115 7669 24750Delivery & Commissioning 1853 1918 3771Contingency (22%) 490 3111 2798 2300 383 9082Added Contingency (25% total) 300 400 445 1145

NGAO Total = 739 709 1800 3234 5500 10504 14213 12223 2745 51667NIR Imager 200 482 907 1044 978 157 3769NIR IFU 50 240 606 1300 1400 1404 5000Visible Imager 499 1161 948 879 162 3650Contingency (30%) 50 300 600 1000 1775 3725

NGAO Instrument Total = 250 772 2312 4105 4326 4216 162 16144Overall Total = 739 709 2050 4006 7812 14609 18539 16438 2908 67810

Plan (Then-Year $k)Actuals ($k)

28

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

– Critical to produce viable funding/management plan during preliminary design

• NGAO system labor profile is flat after initial ramp-up– $19.4M in then-year $ or 47%

of NGAO system budget

– ~ 40,000 hours/year from FY10 to FY14 or ~ 20 FTEs

NGAO Spending Profile

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Fiscal Year

Th

en-Y

ear

$k

System

Instruments

Total

NGAO System Labor $ Spending Profile (without contingency)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Fiscal Year

Th

en

-Year

$k

Total cost

NGAO labor only

AO Design Changes AO Design Changes to Support Build-to-Costto Support Build-to-Cost

30

AO Design Changes Summary

A. Architectural changes allowed by no deployable multi-IFS instrument1. LGS asterism & WFS architecture

2. Narrow field relay location

B. New design choices that don’t impact the requirements1. Laser location

2. AO optics cooling enclosure

C. Design choices with modest science implications1. Reduced field of view for the wide field relay (120” vs 150” dia.)

2. Direct pick-off of TT stars

3. Truth wavefront sensor (one visible instead of 1 vis & 1 NIR)

4. Reduced priority on NGS AO science– Fixed sodium dichroic, no ADC for NGS WFS & fewer NGS WFS subaperture

scales (2 vs 3)

5. No ADC implemented for LOWFS (but design for mechanical fit)

6. OSIRIS role replaced by new IFS

31

Science Instrument Design Changes

• NGAO Proposal had three science instruments ($20M in FY06 $)– Deployable multi IFS instrument

– NIR imager

– Visible imager

• For the SDR we included OSIRIS integration with NGAO• Science instrument design changes that impact the science

capabilities– No deployable multi IFS instrument

– Addition of single channel NIR IFS

– Removal of OSIRIS (science capabilities covered by NIR IFS)

– No visible imager

– Extension of NIR imager & IFS to 800 nm

32

Revised NGAO System ArchitectureKey Changes:1. No wide field science instrument • Fixed narrow field tomography• TT sharpening with single LGS AO• 75W instead of 100W• Narrow field relay not reflected2. Cooled AO enclosure smaller3. Lasers on elevation ring4. Combined imager/IFU instrument & no OSIRIS5. Only one TWFS

33

LGS Architecture (A1)• 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

– Also performance analysis defined # of subapertures (only 1 lenslet array)

34

Performance Analysis Assumptions• Launch facility & LGS return

– All LGS are center launched– Uplink tip-tilt on each LGS– 100 ph/cm2/sec/W in mesosphere

(“SOR-like”)– 3E9 atoms/cm2 Na density– 0.75 laser transmission– 0.896 atmosphere trans (zenith)

• LGS WFS– 0.39 throughput (tel + AO)– 4x4 pixels/subaperture– CCID56 (1.6 e- RON, 400 cnt/s, 0.80

QE, 0.2 pix chg diff)

– “3+1” optimized integ. time– PNS optimized integ. Time– 60” radius FoR for PNS

• LOWFS– 0.32 throughput

– 2 TT + 1 TTFA

– Single LGS AO sharpened

– J+H band– No ADC (Design change C5)

– 32x32 MEMS DM– H2RG (4.5 e-, 0.85 QE at J)

– 60” rad FoR (Design change C1)

• Seeing Conditions– 37.5%: r0 = 14 cm, 0 = 2.15”

– 50.0%: r0 = 16 cm, 0 = 2.7”

– 62.5%: r0 = 18 cm, 0 = 2.9”

– 87.5%: r0 = 22 cm, 0 = 4.0”

35

Justification for Assumptions• 100 ph/cm2/sec/W in mesosphere

– 150 ph/cm2/sec/W shown at SOR• Power at laser output

– Prediction lower for Hawaii• By sin where = angle between

geo-magnetic field & beam direction (62 at SOR, 37 at HI)

• 3E9 atoms/cm2 Na density– Based on Maui LIDAR

measurements

Measured

Predicted

Median 4.3x109 cm-2

3x109 cm-2

38

Performance Analysis Science Cases• The following parameters were used to define the key science driver

cases for the performance analysis

Galaxy Assembly

Nearby AGNs

Galactic Center

Exo-planets Minor Planets

Zenith angle 30 30 50 30 30

Guide stars Field stars Field stars IRS 7,9,12N Field stars Field starsGuide star color M M M MOff-axis evaluation radius 1" 1" 2" 0" 0"Required sky coverage 30% 30% n/a 30% 30%Galactic latitude 30 30 n/a 10 30

Science filter K Z K H Z60s (image)900 (spectra)

120sMax science exposure 1800s 900s 300s

39

Tomography Error versus Field Position• Many alternative asterisms evaluated• Selected 10”-radius “3+1” fixed asterism with 50W total

– Best performance & considered lowest performance risk option– Remaining 25W in 3 point & shoot lasers

Max. science field radius

40

Wavefront Error versus Laser Power

50W in science asterism

50W +median Na

density

41

Strehl Ratio versus Laser Power

50W in science asterism

42

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

H-b

and

Ensq

uare

d En

ergy

1-D

Tip

-Tilt

Err

or, R

MS

(mas

)

Sky Fraction

EE70mas and Tip-Tilt Error vs. % Sky Coveragefor Galaxy Assembly case, median seeing

Tip-Tilt Error

EE 70 mas

EE 41 mas

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Z-ba

nd E

nsqu

ared

Ene

rgy

1-D

Tip

-Tilt

Err

or, R

MS

(mas

)

Sky Fraction

EE70mas and Tip-Tilt Error vs. % Sky Coveragefor Nearby AGN case, median seeing

Tip-Tilt Error

EE 33 mas

EE 17 mas

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

H-b

and

Stre

hl R

atio

1-D

Tip

-Tilt

Err

or, R

MS

(mas

)

Sky Fraction

Strehl Ratio and Tip-Tilt Error vs. % Sky Coverage for Exoplanets case, median seeing

Tip-Tilt Error

Strehl Ratio

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Z-ba

nd S

treh

l Rati

o

1-D

Tip

-Tilt

Err

or, R

MS

(mas

)

Sky Fraction

Strehl Ratio and Tip-Tilt Error vs. % Sky Coverage for Minor Planets case, median seeing

Tip-Tilt Error

Strehl Ratio

Performance versus Sky Coverage

1d Tilt Error (mas)

% EE (70 mas)

K-bandb = 30

% EE (41 mas)

45

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

H-b

and

Ensq

uare

d En

ergy

1-D

Tip

-Tilt

Err

or, R

MS

(mas

)

Sky Fraction

EE70mas and Tip-Tilt Error vs. % Sky Coveragefor Galaxy Assembly case, median seeing

Tip-Tilt Error

EE 70 mas

EE 41 mas

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Z-ba

nd E

nsqu

ared

Ene

rgy

1-D

Tip

-Tilt

Err

or, R

MS

(mas

)

Sky Fraction

EE70mas and Tip-Tilt Error vs. % Sky Coveragefor Nearby AGN case, median seeing

Tip-Tilt Error

EE 33 mas

EE 17 mas

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

H-b

and

Stre

hl R

atio

1-D

Tip

-Tilt

Err

or, R

MS

(mas

)

Sky Fraction

Strehl Ratio and Tip-Tilt Error vs. % Sky Coverage for Exoplanets case, median seeing

Tip-Tilt Error

Strehl Ratio

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Z-ba

nd S

treh

l Rati

o

1-D

Tip

-Tilt

Err

or, R

MS

(mas

)

Sky Fraction

Strehl Ratio and Tip-Tilt Error vs. % Sky Coverage for Minor Planets case, median seeing

Tip-Tilt Error

Strehl Ratio

Performance versus Sky Coverage

Z-bandb = 30

Strehl

46

Performance versus Seeing

Median

37.5%

87.5%

47

Optimum # of Subapertures

49

Optimum # of Subapertures

Conclusion: A single scale across pupil works well

(N = 64 assumed for costing)

3E9 Na, Opt Subaps

3E9 Na, N = 64

1E9 Na, Opt Subaps

1E9 Na, N = 64

50

Off-axis Performance

Median seeing

Max. IFU radius

Max. imager radius

Imaging radius requirement

51

Off-axis Performance

Median seeing

Max. imager radius

52

Performance Analysis Summary• “3+1” science asterism + 3 point & shoot lasers has excellent

performance for narrow field science• Overall performance comparable to estimates at SDR

– Assumptions different than at SDR (e.g. we are now using lower Na density & sodium return values)

– Analysis tool/inputs have evolved (e.g. lower tomography error, higher atmospheric transmission off zenith & higher throughput)

– Lower total laser power but smaller tomography volume

– Most importantly performance optimized for on-axis science

High order wavefront error (nm)

TT error (mas)

Effective wavefront error (nm)

Ensquared energy

(, X mas)

Effective WFE at

SDR (nm)

Ensquared energy at

SDRGal Center imaging (1" off-axis) 188 1.4 189 184Exoplanets 162 3.3 171 157Minor Planets 162 4.3 177 175Galaxy Assembly 162 7 204 71% (K, 70) 257 55% (K, 70)Nearby AGN 162 5 182 24% (Z, 34)

53

Narrow Field Relay Location (A2)• At SDR the location of the multiple deployable IFS & LOWFS required

that the narrow field relay be in reflection off a choice of dichroics• Narrow field relay now in transmission• Allows option of not using a dichroic in front of the LOWFS

– Saves cost of dichroics & switcher

– Higher throughput to LOWFS & science instruments

54

Laser Location (B1)• Likely availability of new lasers allowed a new design choice

– Lasers on elevation moving part of telescope (previously Nasmyth) higher throughput & no need for tracking beam transport system

55

AO Optics Cooling Enclosure (B2)• At SDR assumed that we would cool the entire AO enclosure

including science instruments• New approach: cool as little as possible beyond the science path

– Science instrument front face forms a seal to cooled enclosure

Cooled Volume

SDR New

57

Reduced Wide Field Relay FOV (C1)• 150” dia SDR FOV reduced to 120” with new assumptions• Allows a smaller image rotator + smaller wide field relay optics• Allows a smaller DM – 100 mm instead of 140 mm

higher performance tip-tilt platform Wide field relay scaled down by 100/140 ~70%

OAP1, upper level

K-mirror rotator, upper level

140 mm Woofer DM

LGS WFS focal plane

OAP2

Tweeter DM

OAP3

OAP4

LOWFS/dIFS focal plane

NIR Imager focal plane

NGS WFS TWFS focal

plane

Visible Imager focal plane

FSM

FSM

Fold down K-mirror

LOWFS Boxes

OAP1OAP2

100 mm Woofer DM

25mm tweeter DM

Switchyard mirrorOAP3

OAP4

Science Instrument

NGS WFS

LGS WFS

58

Direct LOWFS Pick-offs (C2)• At SDR pickoffs for TT stars in front of d-IFS & after dichroic that fed

narrow field relay no interference• New design: direct pickoff of each TT star

– no dichroic to split light between LOWFS & science instruments

Pickoffs can vignette science field & can’t use science target for LOWFS

Higher throughput to LOWFS & science instruments

dIFS anddIFS andTip/Tilt sensorsTip/Tilt sensors

Dichroic changer

Narrow field Narrow field science science

instrumentinstrument

Narrow field Narrow field science AO relayscience AO relay

59

One Truth Wavefront Sensor (C3)• At SDR had a NIR Truth WFS (TWFS) in one of the LOWFS units & a

visible TWFS in the narrow field relay• New design: 1 TWFS - a visible TWFS in one of the LOWFS.

Rationale: – Location: low probably of finding a star in the narrow field

– Calibration: Calibrate TWFS for science camera; MEMS impact well defined

– Wavelength: Shouldn’t impact performance

60

Reduced NGS AO Science Priority (C4)

• Fixed sodium dichroic, no ADC & fewer lenslets (2 vs 3)• Rationale (besides need to cut costs):

– NGS vs LGS regime for NGAO• NGS only provides an advantage for science next to very bright NGS• Backup science on nights with > 1 mag cirrus extinction• NGS science has not been a strong driver

– NGS AO regime for NGAO vs Keck I• Higher Strehl NGS AO science on bright targets • Higher sensitivity NGS AO science at K-band on similar magnitude

targets• Other NGS AO science may be better done with K1 NGS AO• K1 NGS AO probably offers more availability

– Reduced capabilities straightforward to implement as future upgrades if motivated by the science

61

OSIRIS role replaced by new IFS (C6)• Carefully reviewed OSIRIS role

– In consultation with Larkin & McLean• Determined that a new IFS was required by science

requirements– Higher sensitivity, higher spatial resolution & larger FOV needed

• Minor science benefit to having both new IFS & OSIRIS– Perhaps some plate scales– Perhaps some multiplexing if new IFS deployable (extra cost)

• More overall science benefit to continuing to use OSIRIS on K1

• NGAO cost savings & design freedom in not having to implement OSIRIS

62

Design Impact in other Areas• Motion control degrees of freedom reduced by 37%

– AO devices reduced from 126 to 77– Laser devices from 89 to 59

• Tomography computation reduced by ~ factor of 10~ ratio of tomography volumes = (120”/40”)2

• Optical switchyard reduced dramatically– Reduced from 7 to 3 mechanisms – Dichroics reduced from 8 to 2

Impact on Science RequirementsImpact on Science Requirements

64

Impact on ability to meet Science Requirements

Key Science Driver SCRD Requirement Performance of B2C

Galaxy Assembly(JHK bands)

EE 50% in 70 mas for sky cov = 30% (JHK)

EE > 70% in 70 mas for sky cov 90% (K band)

Nearby AGNs(Z band for Ca triplet)

EE 50% in 1/2 grav sphere of influence

EE 25% in 33 mas MBH 107 Msun @ Virgo cluster (17.6 Mpc )

General Relativity at the Galactic Center(K band)

100 as astrometric accuracy 5” from GC

Need to quantify. Already very close to meeting this requirement with KII AO.

Extrasolar planets around old field brown dwarfs (H band)

Contrast ratio H > 10 at 0.2” from H=14 star (2 MJ at 4 AU, d* = 20 pc)

Meets requirements (determined by static errors)

Multiplicity of minor planets (Z or J bands)

Contrast ratio J > 5.5 at 0.5” from J < 16 asteroid

Meets requirements: WFE = 170 nm is sufficient

65

B2C Design Changes: only modest effect on meeting science requirements

• Galaxy Assembly: B2C exceeds SDR requirements

• Nearby AGNs: B2C doesn’t meet EE requirement (didn’t meet at SDR either). Still in interesting regime for BH mass measurements (MBH 107 Msun @ Virgo cluster). Need to review & more clearly define requirement.

• General Relativity at the Galactic Center: Key variables (e.g. differential tilt jitter, geometric distortion in AO & instrument, differential atmospheric refraction) not strongly affected by laser power. Confusion only slightly worse than SDR design.

• Extrasolar planets around old field brown dwarfs: contrast ratio not affected by B2C design changes. Static errors dominate.

• Multiplicity of minor planets: Meets SDR requirements√

66

NGAO comparison to JWST & TMT• Higher spatial resolution for imaging & spectroscopy than JWST

– JWST much more sensitive at K. NGAO more sensitive at J & between OH lines at H

• Lots of NGAO science possible in 5 years prior to TMT 1st science– Key community resource in support of TMT science (do at Keck 1st if can)

– Could push to shorter or multi-object IFS or … as TMT arrives on scene

• NGAO could perform long term studies (e.g., synoptic, GC astrometry)WMKO NGAO JWST

Diffraction-limit (mas) at 2 m 41 63Diffraction-limit (mas) at 1 m 20 limited by samplingSensitivity 1x ~200x at 2 mImager NGAO Imager NIRCam IRIS Imager IRMS

Detector H4RG 4x H2RG H4RG H2RGWavelength range (m) 0.8-2.4 0.6-2.35 0.8-2.5 0.8-2.5Sampling (mas/pixel) 8.5 31.7 4 60FOV (arcsec) 35 130 15 120

Spectrometer NGAO IFS NIRSpec IRIS IFS IRMSDetector H4RG 2x H2RG H4RG H2RGWavelength range (m) 0.8-2.4 0.6-2.35 0.8-2.5 0.8-2.5

Spectral Resolution R~4000

R~100 & ~1000 multi-object modesR~3000 IFU or long-

slit modes

Two image slicers; R~4000

R=3270 (0.24" slit)R=4660

(0.16" slit)Spatial Resolution (mas) 10, ~25 & ~60 ~100 4 to 50 160

FOV (arcsec) 0.8, 2 & 4200 FOR

4 slit; 3x3 IFU up to 3 120 FORProjected 1st science paper ~2015 ~2014

TMT NFIRAOS147

~2020

~80x

67

NGAO comparison to JWSTEvaluation of key science cases:

Key Science Case JWST & NGAO

Galaxy Assembly (JHK)

JWST much more sensitive at K.NGAO sensitivity higher between OH lines at H.NGAO sensitivity higher for imaging & spectroscopy at J.NGAO wins in spatial resolution at all .NGAO provides higher spectral resolution.

Nearby AGNs (Z) Only NGAO provides needed spatial resolution (especially at Ca triplet).

General Relativity at Galactic Center (K)

Only NGAO provides needed spatial resolution (especially important to reduce confusion limit).Long term monitoring may be inappropriate for JWST.

Extrasolar Planets around old Field Brown Dwarfs (H)

Only NGAO provides needed spatial resolution.JWST coronagraph optimized for 3-5 m, >1"; NGAO competitive ≤2 m, <1".

Multiplicity of Minor Planets (Z or J) Only NGAO provides needed spatial resolution.

68

NGAO comparison to TMT• NGAO & NFIRAOS wavefront errors are ~ the same (162 vs 174 nm rms)

– Similar Strehls but higher spatial resolution for TMT

– Similar spatial resolution for IFU science but higher sensitivity for TMTKey Science Case TMT & NGAO

Galaxy Assembly (JHK)

NGAO & TMT have the same spatial resolution with ~20 & 50 mas IFUs, but TMT has higher sensitivity.NGAO may do most of Z < 2.5-3 targets either before TMT or because of scarce TMT time.

Nearby AGNs (Z)NGAO will screen most important targets. With 3x higher spatial resolution TMT will detect smaller black holes.

General Relativity at Galactic Center (K)

TMT wins in spatial resolution, sensitivity less important. Significant value in continuing NGAO astrometry into TMT era (MCAO field stability concern; Keck access easier).NGAO synoptic advantage.

Extrasolar Planets around old Field Brown Dwarfs (H)

TMT spatial resolution an advantage.Control of static wavefront errors & PSF characterization will be critical (NGAO will have 5 year head start on experience).NGAO synoptic advantage.

Multiplicity of Minor Planets (Z or J)

TMT spatial resolution an advantage; NGAO could move to shorter . Much of this science may be done before TMT?NGAO synoptic advantage.

Science Instruments Science Instruments to Support Build-to-Costto Support Build-to-Cost

70

NGAO Science Instrumentation

• Background• Approach to design/build to cost• Changes to Instrumentation• Baseline capabilities

71

Background• NGAO science requirements established a need for certain capabilities in

the SD phase– Imaging

• ~700 nm to 2.4 m• high contrast coronagraph

– Integral field spectroscopy in near-IR and visible• spatially resolved spectroscopy for kinematics and radial velocities• high sensitivity• high angular resolution spatial sampling• R ~ 3000 to 5000 (as required for OH suppression and key diagnostic lines)• Improved efficiency

– larger FOV– multi-object capability

– At SDR • two imagers and an integral field spectrograph (IFS) on narrow field high Strehl AO

relay (IFS might be OSIRIS)• 6 channel deployable IFS on the moderate field AO relay with MOAO in each channel

– Build to cost forces a narrowing of scope, significant reduction in number and capabilities for science instruments

– May only be able to afford one science instrument

72

Approach to design/build to cost1. Be sure instrument capabilities are well matched to key science

requirements– Galaxy assembly & star formation history– Nearby Active Galactic Nuclei– Measurements of GR effects in the Galactic Center– Imaging & characterization of extrasolar planets around nearby stars– Multiplicity of minor planets

2. Match instrument capabilities to AO system – maximize benefit of improved capabilities for science gains

3. Understand which requirements drive cost4. Resist the temptation to add features5. Maximize heritage from previous instruments6. Exploit redundancies in compatible platforms – e.g. Near-IR imager and

Near-IR IFS7. Evaluate ways to break the normal visible/near-IR paradigm of using

different detectors

73

Changes to Instrumentation

• No deployable IFS• One broadband imager• One new IFS• Address cost drivers

74

NGAO Imaging Capability

• Broadband– z, Y, J, H, K (0.818 to 2.4 µm)

– photometric filters for each band plus narrowband filters similar to NIRC2

• Single plate scale– selected to optimally sample the diffraction limit, e.g. 2(/D) or 8.5 mas

at 0.818 µm

• FOV– 34.8" x 34.8" with 8.5 mas plate scale

• Simple coronagraph• Throughput ≥ 60% over full wavelength range• Sky background limited performance

75

Issues for Wavelength Coverage

• NGAO offers extended wavelength coverage– Significant performance below 1 µm, Strehl ~20% at 800 nm

• Substrate removed HgCdTe detectors work well below 1 µm– ~20% lower QE than a thick substrate CCD

– Non-destructive readout takes care of higher read noise of IR array

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3

Wavelength, m

Tra

ns

mis

sio

n, %

NGAO near-IR

NGAO visible

NGAO rl

NGAO i'

NGAO z'

NGAO z spec

K Y J H

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

Wavelength, m

Tra

nsm

issi

on

, %

LBNL QE H2RG QE

Teledyne min. spec. for substrate removed H2RG

76

NGAO IFS Capability• Narrowband

– z, Y, J, H, K (0.818 to 2.4 µm)– ~5% band pass per filter, number as required to cover each wave band

• Spectroscopy– R ~4,000– High efficiency e.g. multiple gratings working in a single order

• Spatial sampling (3 scales maximum)• 10 mas e.g. 2(/D) at 1 m • 50 to 75 mas, selected to match 50% ensquared energy of NGAO• Intermediate scale (20 or 35 mas) to balance FOV/sensitivity trade off

• FOV on axis– 4" x 4" at 50 mas sampling– possible rectangular FOV (1" x 3") at a smaller spatial sampling

• Throughput ≥ 40% over full wavelength range• Detector limited performance

77

Narrowband Science

• Extra-galactic– IFS will be used for targets with known redshifts

• Therefore 5% bandpass sufficient?• 5% spans Hα and NII lines for example

– 4 narrowband (5%) filters will cover the K-band

– Excitation temperatures• Need at least 4 lines• Can expect to get 2 or more in each filter• Can optimize center wavelength to maximize this• Practical to use 2 or more exposures to get enough lines

– Imaging spectrograph allows you to detect, and discount image motion for better photometric matching of spectra

– Need to have enough FOV to ensure you cover the whole object in each exposure

• Exoplanet detection– Broadband filters available with narrow FOV ~1" x 1"

78

Narrowband Science• Nearby AGN (Black Holes)

– Galaxy kinematics• CO bandhead 4 to 5% wide (OSIRIS Kn5 filter)• Brackett gamma, H_2 emission lines (OSIRIS Kn3 filter)

– Remain in that passband to z = 0.03

• Same arguments on practicality of non-simultaneous spectra apply

– Central Black Hole• Narrowband adequate for measuring black hole mass (only 1 line) • ~1“ diameter FOV

• Galactic Center (e.g. GR effects)– Narrowband acceptable for RV measurements– Being used now– Want better SNR

• Throughput• Higher angular resolution to reduce stellar confusion, but keep present FOVs

– Could use more FOV

79

IFS/Imager Product Structures

• Some clear commonalities– Single

instrument eliminates having 2 of everything in green

(Same design, 2 detectors)

(Customized, common base)

Science Instrument Cost EstimateScience Instrument Cost Estimate

81

Cost Drivers

• Imager– Wavefront error contribution ≤ 25 nm

– Number of filters (18)

– FOV and sampling motivates selection of Hawaii-4RG• will be cheaper on a per pixel basis than Hawaii-2RG but still more total $

• IFS– Wavefront error contribution ≤ 25 nm

– Imager slicer• 96 x 96 samples• low wavefront error• minimal crosstalk

– Multiple selectable gratings (3 to 5) to maximize efficiency

82

Cost Estimate• Combined cost for imager and IFS

– Same dewar & fore-optics

– Shared filter wheels

– Different detectors, camera

– IFS has slicer, collimator, gratings

– Imager has coronagraph

– Blended labor rates

– 3.5% inflation

83

Support of Cost Estimate

• Detailed WBS and effort estimates– highlighted rows are new

designs

– IFS camera and collimator procurements include detailed design by subcontractor

– remaining major mechanical and electronic WBS elements are design re-use

– Software includes new data reduction tools for IFS

84

Significant Design Re-use

• Designs suitable for re-use with straightforward modifications– MOSFIRE dewar and internal structure

– MOSFIRE filter wheels

– Detector head and focus mechanism

– MOSFIRE low level servers

– MOSFIRE global servers

– MOSFIRE GUI base

• Designs with strong heritage– MOSFIRE Lyot stop mechanism

– OSIRIS scale changer

– MOSFIRE lens and mirror mountings for cryogenic environment

– OSIRIS/MOSFIRE cooling system, vacuum system, electronics

85

Limited Number of New Designs

• IFS design based on OSIRIS– 85 x 85 lenslets, 200 m pitch, 17 mm x 17 mm overall

• OSIRIS 64 x 64 lenslets, 250 m pitch, 16 mm x 16 mm overall• Very similar collimator aperture

– Larger camera, Hawaii-4RG with 15 m pixels• OSIRIS Hawaii-2, 18 m pixels• Camera focal plane 1.6 times OSIRIS in each dimension

• Multiple gratings to optimize efficiency– Not a novel approach, SINFONI uses multiple gratings

• Imager very straightforward design– Narrow field AO relay at f/46 with 40" FOV makes imager optics easier

86

Cost Comparisons• OSIRIS

– Full cost in 2005 dollars $5.63M– In 2009 dollars $6.6M– OSIRIS has IFS and imager– New IFS and imager have larger FOVs; FY09 cost estimate $11.8M

• Specific high cost components:– OSIRIS collimator and camera $1M in 2009 dollars

• Budget is $2.1M for NGAO IFS

– OSIRIS lenslet array $70K in 2009 dollars• Budget is $150K for NGAO IFS

• NIRC2– Full cost in 2001 dollars $5.9M– In 2009 dollars $8M– NIRC2 has three plate scales, and spectroscopic capability– Many more features than the NGAO imager

87

MOSFIRE comparison

• MOSFIRE costs are as built costs in 2009 dollars

• NGAO imager cost estimates are in 2009 dollars

• MOSFIRE optics for 6.8' FOV cost ~$1.2M

88

TMT IRIS Cost Comparison

• IRIS estimate = $17.6M in FY09 $, excluding 23% contingency• Major differences from NGAO instrument

– On-instrument WFS $4M

– Materials only costs:• Two kinds of slicer: mirror & lenslet, & 2 scale changer mechanisms ~$1.2M• More difficult TMAs ~$1M• Imager optical path is separate including filters & pupil masks ~$0.6M• Instrument rotator ~$0.3M

– IRIS/TMT interfaces more complex

– NGAO instrument reuses previous designs

• IRIS cost without OIWFS & additional features ~$10.5M versus $10M for NGAO instrument

Revised Cost EstimateRevised Cost Estimate

90

Revised Cost EstimateIncluding all proposed cost reductions & new cost estimates:

• Inflation assumption = 2.0% in FY09 & 3.5%/yr in FY10 to 15

NGAO System FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 TotalSystem Design 739 495 1234Preliminary Design 214 1240 1492 2946Detailed Design 1600 5500 978 8078Full Scale Development 400 500 7415 8715 5262 22293Delivery & Commissioning 1764 1825 3589Contingency (24%) 466 1741 3014 3119 611 8951

NGAO Total = 739 709 1240 3958 6000 10134 11729 10145 2436 47090IFS Design 51 229 78 358Imager and IFS Instrument 123 443 4284 4264 486 12 9613Contingency (10/30%) 17 67 1309 1279 146 4 2822

NGAO Instrument Total = 192 739 5670 5544 632 15 0 12793Overall Total = 739 709 1432 4697 11670 15678 12361 10161 2436 59883

Actuals ($k) Plan (Then-Year $k)

91

Revised Cost Estimate AO Labor HoursIncluding all proposed cost reductions & new cost estimates:

Labor OnlyNGAO System FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Total

Preliminary Design 2335 15000 15872 33207Detailed Design 12495 40000 19529 72024Full Scale Development 20000 40000 20336 80336Delivery & Commissioning 16306 16306 32612

NGAO Total = 2335 15000 28367 40000 39529 40000 36642 16306 218179

Actuals (hrs) Plan (hrs)

NGAO Labor (excluding instruments)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Fiscal Year

La

bo

r H

ou

rs

92

Revised AO Cost Estimate by Phase

LaborNon-Labor Travel

Sub-total

Contin-gency Total

Preliminary Design 18 2495 134 214 2843 441 3284 8%Detailed Design 40 5261 1817 336 7414 1540 8953 22%Full Scale Development 45 5227 13360 596 19183 5150 24333 61%Delivery & Commissioning 18 2184 250 478 2912 611 3522 9%

Total = 121 15166 15562 1623 32352 7742 40093 100%% = 47% 48% 5% 100% 24%

Labor (PY)

% of NGAO BudgetPhase

Revised Cost Estimate (FY08 $)

LaborNon-Labor Travel

Sub-total

Contin-gency Total

Preliminary Design 1 86 82 10 178 17 195 9%Detailed Design 4 255 10 18 283 -137 147 7%Full Scale Development 6 434 1150 30 1614 84 1698 80%Delivery & Commissioning 4 103 0 0 103 -9 95 4%

Total = 14 879 1241 58 2179 -45 2134 100%% = 40% 57% 3% 100% -2%

PhaseLabor (PY)

Cost Estimate Reduction (FY08 $) % of Reduc-

tion

B2C Estimate

SDR – B2C Estimate

93

Revised Cost Estimate by WBS

PD DD FSD D&CBase Cost

Contin-gency Total

Management 837 1202 1539 657 4235 309 4544 11% 7%Systems Engineering 702 1004 478 193 2377 395 2773 7% 17%AO System 704 2067 8739 3 11514 3437 14950 37% 30%Laser System 285 1891 6335 128 8640 2491 11131 28% 29%Science Operations 166 746 640 0 1552 231 1783 4% 15%Telescope & Summit Eng. 87 378 783 0 1247 275 1522 4% 22%Telescope I&T 46 106 114 1860 2127 513 2640 7% 24%Operations Transition 14 20 555 70 660 91 750 2% 14%

Sub-Totals = 2843 7414 19183 2912 32352 7742 40093 100% 24%

% Contin-gency

Revised Cost Estimate (FY08 $)

WBS Title

% of NGAO Budget

PD DD FSD D&CBase Cost

Contin-gency Total

Management 36 30 54 0 120 10 130 6%Systems Engineering 108 0 0 0 108 5 113 5%AO System 25 141 1003 0 1169 412 1582 74%Laser System 0 56 284 0 339 -556 -217 -10%Science Operations 0 10 6 0 16 2 18 1%Telescope & Summit Eng. 8 46 266 19 340 69 409 19%Telescope I&T 0 0 0 84 84 12 96 4%Operations Transition 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Sub-Totals = 178 283 1613 102 2177 -46 2131 100%

WBS Title

Cost Estimate Reduction (FY08 $) % of Reduc-

tion

B2C Estimate

SDR – B2C Estimate

94

Cost Increases since SDR

• Cost of MEMS ($425k total)– Estimate has increased from $75 to $150/actuator based on recent

quotes

• Laser cost estimate– Nominally the laser power decrease from 100 to 75W should have

reduced the SDR laser procurement cost estimate by ~ $1M– However, we have not reduced our SDR cost

• We have transferred some $ from labor to non-labor

– Initial rough estimates from the ESO laser preliminary design contracts are consistent with the $5.7M budgeted for laser procurement

– Recall that laser contingency has been increased to 30%

95

Other Post-SDR Changes considered in B2C

• B2C estimate includes NSF MRI proposal budget for K2 center launch telescope– Early phased implementation of NGAO with nearer-term K2

science benefits– Essentially identical launch telescope to one received for K1 LGS

• Evaluated to meet NGAO requirements

– Launch telescope cost based on quote– Reason for FSD dollars in FY10/11

• B2C estimate also includes NSF ATI proposal budget for IFS design study

• Solution for MASS/DIMM implementation– TMT donated equipment being implemented by CFHT/UH

96

AO Contingency & Risk

• Overall contingency has increased from 22.6% to 24.2% – Due to increased laser contingency– Contingency has not been increased on any other WBS– Contingency has not been decreased due to the reduced complexity

• Risk has been significantly reduced in a number of areas– Laser

• Collaboration with ESO, GMT, TMT & AURA on laser preliminary designs• ESO providing 250 kEuros each to 2 companies for preliminary designs• WMKO/GMT/TMT/AURA providing 125 kEuros each to the same companies

for additional risk reduction (using $300k of AURA funding)• All information will be shared with all under NDAs• ESO will procure 4x 25W lasers• WMKO could potentially order with ESO or TMT to reduce costs

– Complexity• All of the design changes move us in the direction of a less complex system• Simpler subsystems (e.g., LGS WFS, launch facility, motion control, RTC, etc.)• Significantly reduced complexity for I&T

97

Approach to NGAO Cost Changes

• Started with SDR cost estimate summary spreadsheet– Summary includes labor, travel, non-labor & contingency for 85 WBS

elements in each of 4 phases (PD, DD, FSD, DC)

• Referenced initial cost sheet to understand cost impact of each design change

• Each cost change is highlighted (red) in cost estimate summary, a comment has been added & a corresponding equation put in the cell– Contingency is automatically updated using the original rate

• Used actual hardware costs from initial cost sheets wherever possible– If available used labor associated with a specific task in a cost sheet

• Performed check with cost sheet estimator in some cases• Tried to be conservative with labor reductions

– Especially conservative in PD phase since PD phase still evolving

98

Cost Changes by WBShrs PY Labor Non-labor Travel Conting Total

4 AO System Development4.1 AO Enclosure 0 0.0 0 0 150 0 27 177

4.2.1 AO Support Structure 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.2.2 Rotator 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.2.3 Optical Relays 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.2.4 Optical Switchyard 2544 1.4 0 149 191 0 102 4424.2.5 LGS Wavefront Sensor Assembly 994 0.6 0 66 327 0 170 5624.2.6 NGS WFS / TWFS Assembly 952 0.5 0 55 80 0 30 1654.2.7 Low Order Wavefront Sensor Assembly 0 0.0 0 0 55 0 24 794.2.8 Tip/Tilt Vibration Mitigation 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.2.9 Acquisition Cameras 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2.10 Atmospheric Dispersion Correctors 864 0.5 0 42 0 0 11 534.3.1 Simulator 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.3.2 System Alignment Tools 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.3.3 Atmospheric Profiler 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.4.1 AO Controls Infrastructure 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.4.2 AO Sequencer 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.4.3 Motion Control SW 1500 0.8 0 80 0 0 30 1104.4.4 Device Control SW 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.4.5 Motion Control Electronics 0 0.0 0 0 74 0 28 1024.4.6 Non-RTC Electronics 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.4.7 Lab I&T System 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.4.8 Acquisition, Guiding, and Offloading Control0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.5.1 Real-time Control Processor 0 0.0 0 0 126 0 35 1624.5.2 DM's and Tip/Tilt Stages 0 0.0 0 0 -225 0 -45 -270

4.6 AO System Lab I&T 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LaborTrips

$k

B2

C2+A1C3,C4C3

C4,C5+

A1,C2

A1,C2

A1C1, MEMS

Use largest change as an example of cost spreadsheet

100

Cost Changes by WBS

hrs PY Labor Non-labor Travel Conting Total7 Telescope & Summit Engineering

7.1 Telescope Performance 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 07.2 Infrastructure Mods for AO 316 0.2 0 17 150 0 43 2117.3 Infrastructure Mods for Laser 358 0.2 0 19 19 0 8 467.4 OSIRIS Modifications 1200 0.7 0 90 46 0 17 1537.5 Interferometer and OHANA Mods 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LaborTrips

$k

hrs PY Labor Non-labor Travel Conting Total5 Laser System Development

5.1 Laser Enclosure 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 05.2 Laser 1526 0.8 8 144 -26 31 -614 -4655.3 Laser Launch Facility 0 0.0 0 0 146 0 47 1935.4 Laser Safety Systems 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 05.5 Laser System Control 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 05.6 Laser System Lab I&T 400 0.2 0 24 20 0 12 56

LaborTrips

$k

A1

B2

Assessment of Build-to-Cost Review Assessment of Build-to-Cost Review Deliverables & Success CriteriaDeliverables & Success Criteria

+ Conclusions+ Conclusions

103

Review Deliverables Summary (1 of 3)

• Revisions to the science cases & requirements, & the scientific impact– Galaxy assembly science case & requirements need to be

modified for a single IFU instead of multiple deployable IFUs• Scientific impact of no multi d-IFUs viewed as acceptable (low priority

in Keck SSP 2008 & single, higher performance IFU part of B2C)

– Only minor impacts on all other science cases

• Major design changes– Major design changes discussed in this presentation– Design changes documented in KAON 642– Performance impact of design changes documented in KAON 644

104

Review Deliverables Summary (2 of 3)

• Major cost changes– Major cost changes discussed in this presentation– All cost changes documented with comments & equations in cost

book summary spreadsheet by WBS and phase• Viewed as better tool than cost book for tracking changes

– Decision not to update cost book until PDR costing phase• Summary cost spreadsheet will be used as input to the PDR costing

• Major schedule changes– No major schedule changes assumed

• 2 month slip in milestones assumed for cost estimate

– New plan needs to be developed as part of preliminary design• Preliminary design phase replan is a high priority post this review

105

Review Deliverables Summary (3 of 3)

• Contingency changes– Reviewed contingency as part of NFIRAOS cost comparison

• Laser, & potentially RTC, increase identified as needed

– Laser contingency increased to 30%– Other bottom-up contingency estimates viewed as sufficient

especially given reduction in complexity with design changes

106

Review Success Criteria Assessment

• The revised science cases & requirements continue to provide a compelling case for building NGAO– NGAO continues to be compelling scientifically

• We have a credible technical approach to producing an NGAO facility within the cost cap and in a timely fashion– We believe that we have a very credible technical approach to

producing the facility within the cost cap & in a timely fashion– Beyond the criteria for this review we need to work on producing a

realistic funding profile & project management approach

• We have reserved contingency consistent with the level of programmatic & technical risk– We believe that we have met this criteria

107

Conclusions

• The build-to-cost guidance has resulted in a simpler & therefore less expensive NGAO facility with similar science performance– This has primarily been achieved at the expense of a significant science

capability (e.g., the multiple deployable IFS)

• Pending the outcome of this review our management priorities will switch to:– Replanning & completing the preliminary design in a timely fashion– Developing a viable funding & management plan for delivering NGAO in a

timely fashion as a preliminary design deliverable

Thanks to all for your participation in this review!


Recommended