Title: WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics: Build to Cost Concept Review
1WMKO Next Generation Adaptive OpticsBuild to
Cost Concept Review
- Peter Wizinowich et al.
- March 20, 2009
- February 5, 2009 DRAFT
2Presentation 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
3Introductions
- Reviewers
- Brent Ellerbroek (TMT)
- Mike Liu (UH)
- Jerry Nelson (UCSC)
- Directors
- NGAO Senior Management Team
4Build-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
5The 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
6Review 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
7Review 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
8Cost 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
9Science Priorities (from the NGAO SDR)
- Five key science drivers were developed for the
NGAO SDR (KAON 455) - 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
- We will discuss how our recommended cost
reductions impact this science.
10Science Priorities (from the SDR Panel)
- 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 review panel recommends proceeding with the
Preliminary Design phase because of the appealing
science cases of NGAO and time constraints for
the competition. - 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 - 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.
11Science 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
12Flowdown of Science Priorities(resultant NGAO
Perspective)
- Based on the SDR science cases, SDR panel report
Keck Strategic Plan - 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 - NIR Imager with low wavefront error high
sensitivity. - Required for all key science cases.
- Large sky coverage.
- Priority for all key science cases.
- NIR IFU with high angular resolution, high
sensitivity larger format. - Required for galaxy assembly, AGN, GC minor
planet key science cases - Visible imager to 850 nm.
- Required for higher angular resolution science
AGN science - Visible IFU
- Deployable multi-IFS instrument (removed from
plan) - Ranked as low priority by Keck SSP 2008
represents a significant cost - Visible imager to shorter ?
Included in B2C Excluded
13Results 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
14Starting 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
15Starting 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.
Also insert labor plot?
16Cost 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
17Cost 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
18Cost 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
19Cost Reductions Laser Beacons
Cost Implications
20Cost Reductions Science Instruments
21Cost Reductions Opto-mechanical
22Cost 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
23Revised Cost Estimate
- Assuming all cost reductions can be achieved
24Review 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
25Review 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
26Conclusions