Text of WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics Build to Cost Concept Review: Introductions & Charge to the...
WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics Build to Cost Concept Review: Introductions & Charge to the Review Committee Taft Armandroff, Hilton Lewis March 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
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
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 nm 7.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 B2C Excluded
Cost Estimate Starting Point
19 NGAO System Architecture Key AO Elements: Configurable laser tomography Closed loop LGS AO Closed 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
21 Cost Estimate to Completion (FY08 $k) WBS WBS TitlePDDDFSDD&C Base Cost Contin- gency Total ($k) 2Management 8741,2321,5946574,3563184,674 3Systems Eng 8111,0044781932,48540