1. WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics: Build to Cost Concept Review Peter Wizinowich et al. ~ March 20, 2009 February 5, 2009 DRAFT

2. 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. 3 Introductions Reviewers: –Brent Ellerbroek (TMT) –Mike Liu (UH) –Jerry Nelson (UCSC) Directors NGAO Senior Management Team

4. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 9 Science Priorities (from the NGAO SDR) 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.

10. 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. 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. 12 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. 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 imager to ~ 850 nm. Required for higher angular resolution science & AGN science 6.Visible IFU 7.Deployable multi-IFS instrument (removed from plan) –Ranked as low priority by Keck SSP 2008 & represents a significant cost 8.Visible imager to shorter Included in B2C Excluded

13. 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. 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. 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. 16 Cost Reductions – Laser Beacons Absence of multiple d-IFS allowed us to rethink the LGS asterism –1 st architecture result: a fixed, fewer LGS asterism (4 vs 6) to provide tomographic correction over the narrow science field –2 nd : no tomographic correction is provided over the wide field. 3 point & shoot LGS used in single beacon AO systems for each tip-tilt NGS –3 rd : 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. 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. 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. 19 Cost Reductions – Laser Beacons Cost Implications:

20. 20 Cost Reductions – Science Instruments

21. 21 Cost Reductions – Opto-mechanical

22. 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. 23 Revised Cost Estimate Assuming all cost reductions can be achieved:

24. 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. 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. 26 Conclusions