WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics: Build to Cost Concept Review - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics: Build to Cost Concept Review

Description:

However, the timely design, fabrication & deployment of NGAO are essential to ... NIR Imager with low wavefront error & high sensitivity. Required for all key ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:57
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 27
Provided by: seana6
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

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


1
WMKO Next Generation Adaptive OpticsBuild to
Cost Concept Review
  • Peter Wizinowich et al.
  • March 20, 2009
  • February 5, 2009 DRAFT

2
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

3
Introductions
  • Reviewers
  • Brent Ellerbroek (TMT)
  • Mike Liu (UH)
  • Jerry Nelson (UCSC)
  • Directors
  • NGAO Senior Management Team

4
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

5
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

6
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
7
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

8
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

9
Science 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.

10
Science 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.

11
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

12
Flowdown 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
13
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

14
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

15
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.

Also insert labor plot?
16
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

17
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
18
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

19
Cost Reductions Laser Beacons
Cost Implications
20
Cost Reductions Science Instruments
21
Cost Reductions Opto-mechanical
22
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

23
Revised Cost Estimate
  • Assuming all cost reductions can be achieved

24
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

25
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

26
Conclusions
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com