Transcript MAGIQ Overview - California Institute of Technology

NGAO:
Cost Comparison with First Light TMT AO
Peter Wizinowich, Richard Dekany, Don Gavel
with input & review by Brent Ellerbroek
SSC Meeting
November 3, 2008
Presentation Sequence
•
•
•
•
•
•
SDR Reviewer comments leading to this cost comparison
NGAO SDR Cost Estimate & Methodology
Cost Comparison Goal, Products & Approach
High-level Summary of Results
Cost Comparison
Conclusion
Conclusion Preview:
- We & TMT agree that NGAO is traceably less
expensive than the 1st light TMT AO system & we
understand why
- Larger NGAO contingency needed in some areas
- Quote needed for laser & will be obtained soon
2
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).
3
Response to SDR Reviewer Comments
•
“We will develop another level of cost estimation during preliminary
design.”
– During system design, we considered project costs composed of hundreds
of tasks and specific procurements
– Reviewers noted “the budget book showed some pages not complete or
no estimates for the words in the task”. Our choice to produce cost sheets
for each WBS in each of 4 project phases resulted in blank sheets
•
e.g., no subsystem work during the delivery & commissioning phase
– During PD, we will revise the basis of estimate to move more items from
engineering judgment and analogy to direct vendor quote basis
– Reviewers felt that the laser procurement needs more time & should start
much earlier. We agree.
•
Requested next level of cost information for TMT NFIRAOS project to
better understand the reasons for the cost estimate differences
– This brings us to this presentation …
4
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
5
Cost Comparison Goal, Products & Approach
•
Goal of Comparison:
– Increase confidence in the NGAO cost estimate
•
Products
– Updated cost estimation data base to take advantage of comparison information
– Cost comparison presentation (this presentation)
•
Approach
– Identify differences between systems
– Identify differences in assumptions
– Identify similarities & differences in effort & procurement estimates, &
resolve/justify these differences
– As appropriate update the NGAO cost estimate
– Identify other support for NGAO estimates
– Respond to reviewer sense that “methodology good, but not fully executed”
•
“NFIRAOS” used as shorthand for the full TMT 1st light AO configuration
– Updates to TMT cost estimate since 2006 (globally < 5%) not incorporated
6
Cost Comparisons
(in FY08 $ as reported at the SDR)
NGAO Cost Estimate Comparisons
100
1st Gen 30m AO
90
80
60
2nd Gen 8-10m AO
50
40
30
1st Gen 8-10m AO
Upgrades
20
10
RA
O
S
NF
I
AO
NG
S
G
EM
G
PI
LG
S
K2
PA
LM
30
00
W
FC
0
NG
FY08 $M
70
7
Major Differences between NFIRAOS & NGAO
•
30 m versus 10 m
– ~ 3x physical size of AO system
– 3x smaller image  more sensitive to image motion & vibrations
– 3x more perspective elongation  more laser power for same performance
&/or better detectors
– 9x LGS focus change with zenith angle (1.4 m from zenith to 65)
– Physical paths for laser beam transport much longer
•
New versus existing telescope
–
–
–
–
•
Interfaces and observatory software not as well known for TMT
TMT, NFIRAOS & Instrument I&T could be overlapping
2nd (or 3rd) Keck AO system versus 1st TMT AO system
Need to be conservative for TMT first light system
Architecture & Technologies
– Different lasers (new laser suppliers have emerged since TMT 2006 CoDR)
– MCAO versus MOAO (2 large high order DMs vs 1 lower order DM + MEMS; &
different I&T issues)
– NFIRAOS cooled to -30C versus -15C for NGAO
8
Major Differences between NFIRAOS & NGAO
NGAO (below) roughly
to NFIRAOS (left) scale
9x4x3m
(blue) box
3.8 m
9
High-level Results of Cost Comparison
• NGAO $42.2M SDR estimate is 48% of NFIRAOS $88.2M
CoDR estimate
– NGAO $34.5M without contingency is 52% of NFIRAOS $66.7M
– All in FY08 $
• Cost differences attributed to the following major factors:
Largest items in $46M difference
Category
$M
Contingency
13.8
Laser Procurement
9.4
Labor Rates
6.5
Component Development
4.7
DM & Tip/Tilt Procurement
4.5
RTC System
3.9
LGS WFS
2.7
+/- other items
Total =
45.5
Conclusions:
Modest contingency
increase likely needed
Need quote for new laser
No significant adjustments
required - differences
largely understood
10
Cost Category Comparison
Category
NFIRAOS
NGAO
NFIRAOS-NGAO
NFIRAOS/NGAO
•
Labor
hours
$k
203164
20535
231944
16045
-28781
4490
0.88
1.28
Non-Labor
Travel
$k
# Trips
$k
45151
380
972
16804
549
1681
28347
-169
-709
2.69
0.69
0.58
Sub-total
$k
66660
34530
32130
1.93
Contingency
$k
%
21530
32%
7697
22%
13834
10%
2.80
1.45
Total
$k
88191
42227
45964
2.09
All costs in FY08 dollars
– NFIRAOS costs have been inflated by 4%/year for 2 years
•
NFIRAOS cost estimate is 2.1x NGAO
– $32.1M difference without contingency ($46.0M with contingency)
•
Major difference is in non-labor (e.g., procurements)
– Factor of 2.7 or $28.3M, but less TMT work is performed “in-house”.
•
Other significant differences:
– Factor of 1.3 or $4.5M in labor even though NGAO has 14% more labor
– NFIRAOS uses 32% contingency versus 22% for NGAO
11
Labor Rate Comparison
Category
NFIRAOS
NGAO
NFIRAOS-NGAO
NFIRAOS/NGAO
•
NFIRAOS average rate = 1.46x NGAO
–
–
–
–
–
•
Labor
hours
$k
203164
20535
231944
16045
-28781
4490
0.88
1.28
NFIRAOS average rate = $101/hr
NGAO average rate = $69/hr
Benefit rates are the same
24% burden rate versus 19% at CIT & 0% at WMKO & UCO
NGAO uses actual CIT, UCO & WMKO rates
1.46x represents $6.5M of the $20.5M of NFIRAOS labor
12
> $1M
WBS Category Comparison
Non-Labor ($k)
Category
NFIRAOS NGAO
Management
0
354
System Eng
0
265
AO System
10667
4757
RTC System
11669
2551
Laser System
2474
1554
Laser
15575
5691
Operation Tools
30
39
I&T
58
791
Subtotal = 40473
16001
Component Dev
4678
0
Facility Mods
0
803
Total = 45151
16804
•
NFIRAOS - NFIRAOS /
NGAO
NGAO
-354
0.0
-265
0.0
5910
2.2
9119
4.6
920
1.6
9884
2.7
-9
0.8
-733
0.1
24472
2.5
4678
-803
0.0
28347
2.69
Labor (hrs)
NFIRAOS NGAO
23979
42310
31538
25506
62924
56527
6396
16819
43988
15041
0
3440
15975
18295
18364
37050
203164
214987
0
0
0
16957
203164
231944
> 5 wy
NFIRAOS - NFIRAOS /
NGAO
NGAO
-18331
0.6
6032
1.2
6398
1.1
-10423
0.4
28947
2.9
-3440
0.0
-2320
0.9
-18686
0.5
-11824
0.9
0
-16957
0.0
-40604
0.88
Start by removing Component Development & Facility Modifications
– NFIRAOS investment (not needed for NGAO) in polar coordinate CCDs &
readout electronics to address perspective elongation
– NFIRAOS reserves $0.5M for NIR sensor development (NGAO to use
available detectors)
– NGAO modifications to telescope facility (not needed for NFIRAOS) for new
AO system & laser, & to remove old systems
13
AO System Comparison
NFIRAOS NFIRAOS
Non-labor ($k)
AO Components NFIRAOS NGAO
- NGAO / NGAO
LGS WFS
3721
1618
2102
2.3
Low order WFS
2785
1007
1778
2.8
Equipment
1142
1
1141
Source simulators
896
135
761
6.6
Optics
1324
624
699
2.1
Acquisition camera
223
69
154
3.2
NGS WFS / TWFS
247
237
9
1.0
Support structure
107
113
-6
0.9
TT mitigation
0
52
-52
Device control
116
282
-166
0.4
Enclosure
107
618
-511
0.2
Total =
10667
4757
5910
2.2
•
•
•
NFIRAOS NFIRAOS
Labor (hrs)
NFIRAOS NGAO
- NGAO / NGAO
16200
7450
8750
2.2
0
9520 -9520
0.0
5693
1695
3998
3.4
3488
1865
1623
1.9
9161
14340 -5179
0.6
1690
578
1113
2.9
5042
3384
1658
1.5
4050
1920
2130
2.1
0
3180 -3180
11960
12075
-115
1.0
5640
520
5120
10.8
62924
56527
6398
1.1
Sorted by non-labor cost difference
Cost of many items, especially LGS WFS & Optics, impacted by
different scales of TMT & Keck
Equipment & source simulators represent different philosophies
– NFIRAOS equipment includes high resolution test WFS, jigs & fixtures, &
a turbulence generator versus NGAO alignment tools
14
LGS WFS Assemblies
Each lens is ~ 0.4m in
diameter
Six zoom assemblies;
18 mechanisms
Entire ass’ly is
~ 0.5 x 0.5 m
Category
Non-labor (FY08)
Labor
Package size
WFS channels
Lenslet arrays
CCD
Camera
Mechanisms
Travel Range
Heritage
NFIRAOS
$3.7M
16,200 hrs
~3m
6 zoom-optics channels with
separating periscopes
30 mm diameter
Custom radial-format CCD
Custom controller
18
130 - 590 mm
Significant new optical challenges
NGAO
$1.6M
7,450 hrs
~ 0.5 m
9 optically simple channels
4 mm diameter
CCID56 (modest advance)
Commercial SciMeasure camera
45
1 to 150 mm
Considerable Keck AO heritage
15
Note: NFIRAOS PDR design corrects each WFS individually
 > ~ $1M savings in lens costs compared with aspheric CoDR design
Wavefront Correctors Comparison
Category
Correctors
Non-labor
($k)
1714
73x73 DM
1943
Cabling
53
Amps & HV
1298
TT platform
952
Total =
5960
NFIRAOS - NFIRAOS
Labor (hrs)
NFIRAOS NGAO
NGAO
/ NGAO
NFIRAOS
3620
3040
580
1.2
61x61 DM
Non-labor
($k)
NGAO
20x20 DM
515
MEMS64
412
4x MEMS32
309
DM TT platform
206
MEMS TT platform
41
Total =
1483
• MCAO vs MOAO
• NFIRAOS DMs need to be developed
• NGAO DMs are commercially available
– ROM for MEMS64 (being developed for GPI)
• Estimates based on quotes
18
RTC Comparison
Category
RTC
•
•
Non-labor
Non-labor
NFIRAOS - NFIRAOS
Labor (hrs)
($k)
($k)
NFIRAOS
NGAO
NFIRAOS NGAO
NGAO
/ NGAO
3130
13779 -10649
0.23
RTC design
2163 RTC vendor
480
RTC construct
3245 FPGAs
375
PSF RT boards
54 Interface boards
168
RTC disk array
248 Equipment
45
Total =
5710
Total =
1067
Similar complexity & parallel processing approaches
NFIRAOS assumes $5.4M RTC contract based on quote
– Includes ~ 6.9 work-years at industrial rates
•
NGAO assumes mostly in-house development
– Includes 6 extra work-years of labor vs NFIRAOS
– NGAO hardware is based on quotes
•
Need to add PSF RT boards ($100k should meet NGAO needs)
– Vendor quotes to be obtained prior to PDR to better anchor our estimate
•
Less complex systems for comparison:
– NGWFC $2M, including $0.72M Microgate (3 RTC systems) subcontract
– Gemini MCAO RTC subcontract was $0.88M
– GPI $0.65M; PALM-3000 $0.60M
19
Laser Procurement Comparison
Laser
Procurement
Laser
NFIRAOS NFIRAOS
Non-labor ($k)
NFIRAOS NGAO
- NGAO / NGAO
15575
5691
9884
2.7
NFIRAOS NFIRAOS
Labor (hrs)
NFIRAOS NGAO
- NGAO / NGAO
0
3440 -3440
0.0
• Laser Differences
– NFIRAOS assumes 3x 50W LMCT lasers quote
• $6M design & $8.4M construction in FY06
• Reduced by ~ $1-2M at PDR by assuming fixed gravity vector
– NGAO assumes 2x 50W SOR-type lasers
• NGAO estimate based on our previous experience trying to set up a
company to build SOR-type lasers for Gemini & Keck
– FASORtronics recently set up to commercialize this laser
• We are participating in ESO’s call for laser preliminary designs
– ROMs will be available within a month
– A fixed price quote will be available at PDR (Aug/09)
• The SDR reviewers questioned whether 100W would be adequate for
the highest order correction
– After re-assessment we believe that 100W has sufficient margin by a
20
factor of at least 1.5
Laser System Comparison
Laser System
NFIRAOS NFIRAOS
Non-labor ($k)
Components
NFIRAOS NGAO
- NGAO / NGAO
Enclosure
699
51
648
13.6
Launch facility
1154
1340
-187
0.9
Safety systems
224
36
188
6.2
System control
397
126
271
3.1
Total =
2474
1554
920
1.6
•
NFIRAOS NFIRAOS
Labor (hrs)
NFIRAOS NGAO
- NGAO / NGAO
760
1224
-464
0.6
20496
3900 16596
5.3
5384
1812
3572
3.0
17348
8105
9243
2.1
43988
15041 28947
2.9
No major procurement differences ( > $1M)
– TMT system physically larger
•
Biggest difference is the launch facility labor
– NGAO labor based on K1 LGS launch facility
– NGAO asterism generator based on LGS WFS pick-off mechanisms
•
•
NFIRAOS estimate may be somewhat conservative (CoDR level)
NGAO may be slightly optimistic
– Not obviously missing anything after comparison to NFIRAOS
– At most could imagine adding 2 work-years to estimate
21
I&T Comparison
NFIRAOS NFIRAOS
Non-labor ($k)
I&T Non-labor
NFIRAOS NGAO
- NGAO / NGAO
AO lab I&T
0
113
-113
0.0
Laser lab I&T
17
72
-55
0.2
Laser telescope I&T
0
40
-40
0.0
AO telescope I&T
45
51
-6
0.9
Total =
62
276
-214
0.2
NFIRAOS NFIRAOS
I&T Labor (hrs)
NFIRAOS NGAO
- NGAO / NGAO
5526
8480 -2954
0.7
4664
3126
1538
1.5
2528
4838 -2310
0.5
5646
19160 -13514
0.3
18364
35604 -17240
0.5
• NGAO has more labor in all but one category than NFIRAOS
– NFIRAOS laser lab I&T includes a full off-telescope system test
– NFIRAOS tel. I&T only covers to beginning of science commissioning
• ~ 25% of NGAO AO telescope I&T is for science commissioning
• NGAO estimate takes into account past experience with a
detailed breakdown
• Possibility that we are not comparing apples to apples
– NFIRAOS may cover some under system eng. & I&T contingency
– NGAO assumes that each subsystem is complete & has met its
requirements prior to lab I&T (presumably also true for NFIRAOS)
22
Contingency
Comparison
$7.7M NGAO contingency
$22.0M NFIRAOS contingency
•
Management & System Engineering:
Contingency %
Category
NFIRAOS NGAO
Management
18%
7%
System Eng
27%
16%
AO System
36%
31%
RTC System
46%
24%
Laser System
28%
26%
Laser
26%
19%
I&T
32%
22%
Component Dev
26%
0%
Facility Mods
0%
23%
Total =
32%
22%
NFIRAOS
/ NGAO
2.5
1.7
1.2
1.9
1.1
1.4
1.4
0.0
1.45
– 22% more NGAO labor pre-contingency
– Both NGAO & NFIRAOS assume level of effort
– Keck interfaces & telescope well known + 2nd generation AO system
•
•
AO & Laser systems: Contingencies fairly close
RTC system: NFIRAOS at pre-CoDR study estimate, but have vendor quote
–
46% NGAO RTC contingency would require $300k more.
•
•
Laser: NGAO 19% contingency too low. 50% would require $2M more.
I&T: NGAO plan has ~1.7x more labor excluding science commissioning
•
Contingencies generated using the same risk evaluation methodology
–
Will evaluate whether applied adequately & consistently for NGAO
23
Conclusions
• NGAO is 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
• NFIRAOS comparison was worthwhile for determining
confidence in NGAO estimate.
– Methodology largely gave us reasonable system design estimates
• A cost review will be part of the NGAO PDR
– We will include NFIRAOS PDR estimate comparison
24