1. NGAO System Design Review Response Peter Wizinowich, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max for NGAO Team SSC Meeting June 18, 2008

2. 2 Presentation Sequence Response to SDR Panel Recommendations –Plan to address Phased Implementation & Descope Options Response to SSC Recommendations This is valuable input and we are actively using it in refining our preliminary design phase plans.

3. 3 SDR Panel Recommendations: Response Panel report documented in KAON 588 NGAO response documented in KAON 593 –Results incorporated in preliminary design replan (KAON 595) Recommendations divided into 12 categories –Complete the science cases –Requirements development –Consider L’ imaging –More performance modeling & validation –Component performance assumptions –More systems engineering –Re-evaluate benefit/cost of d-IFS –Perform science instrument conceptual designs –Complete the risk register & develop mitigation plans –Produce a staged implementation & descope plan –Re-examine the cost & develop a full schedule –Implement management structure changes

4. 4 Phased Implementation & Descope Options Proposed Approach (documented in KAON 594) –Investigate & report on the costs & schedules for the following: The SDR proposed NGAO system. A staged implementation of the SDR proposed NGAO system. –Science capabilities, performance, cost & risk will be considered in determining the optimal sequencing. Keck AO upgrades that might benefit the program or provide fallback science. A few tbd descope options. A few tbd cost savings options. –Cost estimates will be deltas relative to the existing cost estimate, modulo changes from a cost comparison to NFIRAOS. Report will be distributed prior to the Nov. SSC meeting –Would like to present the results at this meeting

5. 5 SSC Recommendations: Response Recommendations & response documented in KAON 596: accept our kudos and congratulations on the successful NGAO effort to date. –We appreciate the SSC’s support & that many SSC members attended the SDR –We look forward to working more with SSC members to ensure that NGAO meets the community’s scientific needs start planning detailed responses to points made in the review panel report. By June the SSC would like to see the schedule for delivering these responses. –Changes to the preliminary design plan are documented in KAON 595 –The plan to address the joint panel & SSC recommendation to develop an implementation plan is documented in KAON 594 (see previous slide) –Each panel recommendation will be addressed in a report as part of the preliminary design phase deliverables

6. 6 SSC Recommendations: Response better engage scientists, probably in the integrated scientific and technical case for NGAO and its instrumentation suite, where they both care more and can contribute more relative to the NGAO system itself. –We hope to engage significantly more scientists during the PD 24 astronomers contributed to the proposal & 22 to the system design science case requirements document Difficult to get time from busy scientists Would be good to get more CIT/UC faculty members engaged –We would like to strengthen & better understand the requirements for some science cases & utilize community expertise in defining science instruments –Directors plan to establish a working NGAO Science Advisory Team (SAT) –Welcome SSC input on how to move the instrument designs forward ATI has not funded the deployable integral field spectrograph system design WMKO management working on how to address/fund instrument designs WMKO instrument program manager to provide leadership

7. 7 SSC Recommendations: Response produce a plan for developing a reliable cost, including a cost floor below which the system achieved for the money spent is deemed not worth having on the Keck telescopes. –Review panel approved of our cost estimation process but were uncomfortable with the cost estimate itself especially in comparison to NFIRAOS. SDR package included a cost comparison with comparable systems TMT recently provided their detailed NFIRAOS cost estimate. We will endeavor to understand the differences, & where appropriate update our estimates, by the time of the Nov. SSC meeting. –A preliminary design level cost estimate, based on a more mature design concept and better understanding of the risks, component costs, vendor options and labor requirements, will be a product of the preliminary design. –Some cost floor information will come out of the phased implementation work. –We will consider cost as a driver & issue throughout the preliminary design.

8. 8 SSC Recommendations: Response facilitate connection of the technical trades to the science –We have been very careful to make our technical trades based on the science requirements. –We would like more active astronomer involvement in evaluating the science performance based on predicted PSFs, backgrounds, etc., & on such topics as observing sequences & interfaces. –We expect the SAT to actively contribute in this area. identify the break points in major technology areas (e.g. tomography, laser power, wavefront error, realtime control, etc.) that make NGAO a major leap over existing capabilities (either at Keck or elsewhere), and where significant break points in cost might lie in the path toward the achieving [of] the goals of NGAO –We will endeavor to identify break points during our work on a phased implementation plan.

9. 9 NGAO Papers at SPIE 08 Conference WMKO’s NGAO Facility. Wizinowich et al. KAON 597 The Science Case for the NGAO at WMKO. Max et al. Sharpening low-order NGS using patrolling LGS. Dekany et al. Concept for the Keck NGAO system. Gavel et al. Science operations for NGAO at the system design phase. Le Mignant et al. KAON 599 AO PSF reconstruction at the WMKO. Flicker et al. Low-order wavefront sensing in tomographic multibeacon AO systems. Velur et al.

10. 10 Cost Comparisons