Transcript Draft B2C Report

WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics:
Build to Cost Concept Review
Peter Wizinowich et al.
December 2, 2008 DRAFT
Presentation Sequence
• Build-to-Cost Guidelines
• Build to Cost Concept Review Success Criteria
• Conclusion
2
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
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 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
•
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
Starting Point
~$80M in then-year dollars:
• NGAO estimate at SDR, including system design (SD), ~ $53M (thenyear $)
– AO facility SD complete as of Apr/08 & preliminary design begun
– SD phase actuals $1.234M in then-year $
– SDR estimate to complete AO facility = $42.227M in FY08 $, including
contingency
– Converted to then-year $ assuming 4% inflation/year & the development
schedule proposed at SDR
•
Science instrument estimate at proposal ~ $27M (then-year $)
– Science instruments cost estimates, in FY06 $, made in Jun/06
proposal
• $14M for ~6 unit deployable near-IR integral field instrument
• $3M each for near-IR and visible imagers
– Instrument designs were not part of the NGAO SDR deliverables
• Some modest work was performed on instrument conceptual designs
during the NGAO system design
6
Science Priorities
The following prioritized list of NGAO core science requirements was
developed with the build-to-cost guidelines in mind & with input from
our science community:
1. High sensitivity & sky coverage with 50% EE in < 70 mas (driven by
high-z galaxies)
2. Strehl > 20% at 850 nm (driven by black holes in nearby galaxies –
need kinematics)
3. Astrometric accuracy < 100 uas at K-band for SO-2 (driven by GC)
4. Backup NGS mode (no worse than K2 NGS)
5. IFU multiplicity is below a line
This is not the correct list yet, but simply what CM/EM initially
presented at our Sept/08 team meeting
Missing items: high performance IR imaging case, J-band science, priority on high
sensitivity for single NIR IFU, priority on sky coverage for all types of science, priority &
performance for NGS backup mode, priority on high contrast. Priority 2 should be an EE
requirement if for BH in AGNs. Need to look at science drivers also.
7
Science Requirement Descopes
The following science requirement descopes were identified based on the
science priorities in order to allow for cost savings:
• Provide a single on-axis near-IR IFU instead of the multi-unit
deployable IFU
• Reduce the high contrast science requirements
– Target set 1 (nearby, low mass brown dwarf case) remains a requirement,
target set 2 becomes a goal
Implications:
• 40 or 48 actuators across the pupil may be adequate for dealing with static
telescope aberrations
• A coronagraph is not needed for the visible imager
8
Cost Drivers Evaluated
9