WBS 3.3 Laser Facility Jim Bell, Jason Chin, Erik Johansson, Chris Neyman, Viswa Velur Design Meeting (Team meeting #10) Sept 17 th, 2007.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
National Research Council Canada Conseil national de recherches Canada Observing Efficiency and Reliability of Gemini South MCAO Glen Herriot Herzberg.
Advertisements

Trade Study Report: Fixed vs. Variable LGS Asterism V. Velur Caltech Optical Observatories Pasadena, CA V. Velur Caltech Optical Observatories Pasadena,
NGAO Controls Team Meeting August 29, 2008 Erik Johansson.
NGAO System Design Review Response Peter Wizinowich, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max for NGAO Team SSC Meeting June 18, 2008.
1 NGAO Instrumentation Studies Overview By Sean Adkins November 14, 2006.
NGAO Control Systems Group Status, Plans & Issues NGAO Team Meeting August 19, 2008 Erik Johansson Jimmy Johnson, Doug Morrison, Ed Wetherell.
Functional Requirements Status and Plans Christopher Neyman W. M. Keck Observatory Viswa Velur California Institute of Technology Keck NGAO Team Meeting.
LGS Project Meeting February 1, 2006 Agenda 1.IPT status updates: Laser facility, AO optomechanics, AO software (Bouchez, Roberts, Trinh; 30 min) 2.Sum-Frequency.
NGAO System Design: AO System (WBS 3.2) & Laser Facility (WBS 3.3) Design Inputs & Outputs Peter Wizinowich NGAO Team Meeting #9 August 24, 2007.
Lecture 13 Revision IMS Systems Analysis and Design.
Managing the Information Technology Resource Jerry N. Luftman
NGAO Meeting #3 Introduction NGAO Meeting #3 Peter Wizinowich December 13, 2006.
WFS Preliminary design phase report I V. Velur, J. Bell, A. Moore, C. Neyman Design Meeting (Team meeting #10) Sept 17 th, 2007.
NGAO Alignment Plan See KAON 719 P. Wizinowich. 2 Introduction KAON 719 is intended to define & describe the alignments that will need to be performed.
WBS 3.3 Laser Facility Jim Bell, Jason Chin, Erik Johansson, Chris Neyman, Viswa Velur Design Meeting (Team meeting #11) November 05, 2007.
WBS & AO Controls Jason Chin, Don Gavel, Erik Johansson, Mark Reinig Design Meeting (Team meeting #10) Sept 17 th, 2007.
NGAO Management Update Peter Wizinowich NGAO Meeting #11 November 5, 2007.
WBS 3.3 Laser Facility Jim Bell, Jason Chin, Erik Johansson, Chris Neyman, Viswa Velur Laser Architecture Meeting Oct 1 st, 2007.
NGAO System Design Phase Management Report - Replan NGAO Meeting #6 Peter Wizinowich April 25, 2007.
NGAO Status R. Dekany January 31, Next Generation AO at Keck Nearing completion of 18 months System Design phase –Science requirements and initial.
NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich May 26, 2009.
NGAO System Design Phase System & Functional Requirements Documents NGAO Meeting #6 Peter Wizinowich April 25, 2007.
SQM - 1DCS - ANULECTURE Software Quality Management Software Quality Management Processes V & V of Critical Software & Systems Ian Hirst.
Design Team Report: Laser Facility Chris Neyman Jim Bell, Erik Johansson, Jason Chin W. M. Keck Observatory Viswa Velur Caltech Optical Observatories Keck.
Encouraging “System Level” Thinking Christopher Neyman, Erik Johansson, David Le Mignant W. M. Keck Observatory Viswa Velur California Institute of Technology.
System Architecture WBS 3.1 Mid-Year Replan Richard Dekany NGAO Team Meeting #6 April 25-26, 2007 UCSC.
Functional Requirements Status and Plans Christopher Neyman & Erik Johansson W. M. Keck Observatory Viswa Velur California Institute of Technology Keck.
NGAO Meeting #5 Introduction NGAO Meeting #5 Peter Wizinowich March 7, 2007.
WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics: Build to Cost Concept Review Peter Wizinowich et al. December 2, 2008 DRAFT.
Functional Requirements for NGAO Christopher Neyman W. M. Keck Observatory NGAO Team Meeting #9 August 24, 2007.
WBS Non-RTC Controls Erik Johansson, Jason Chin, Don Gavel, Marc Reinig Oct 31 th, 2007.
Trade Study Report: NGAO versus Keck AO Upgrade NGAO Meeting #5 Peter Wizinowich March 7, 2007.
Trying to connect WBSs with people and phases Relevant questions to my work: How the re 8 -planning will affect the work in progress? Priorities to capture.
Design Team Report: AO Operational Tools (aka Acquisition and Diagnostics) Christopher Neyman W. M. Keck Observatory (for the Operational tools team) Keck.
NGAO Controls Team Kickoff Meeting August 5, 2008 Erik Johansson.
Course Instructor: Aisha Azeem
What is Business Analysis Planning & Monitoring?
S/W Project Management
Systems Analysis – Analyzing Requirements.  Analyzing requirement stage identifies user information needs and new systems requirements  IS dev team.
1 Shawlands Academy Higher Computing Software Development Unit.
This document is proprietary to Project Consulting Group, Inc. and contains confidential information which is solely the property of Project Consulting.
CS 360 Lecture 3.  The software process is a structured set of activities required to develop a software system.  Fundamental Assumption:  Good software.
LIGO-G M May 31-June 2, 2006 Input Optics (IO) Cost and Schedule Breakout Presentation NSF Review of Advanced LIGO Project David Reitze UF.
Software Engineering Management Lecture 1 The Software Process.
1 The Software Development Process  Systems analysis  Systems design  Implementation  Testing  Documentation  Evaluation  Maintenance.
Project Life Cycle.
Ch 4 - Learning Objectives Scope Management You should be able to: n Discuss the relationship between scope and project failure n Describe how strategic.
Request for Proposal (RFP)
Chapter 6: THE EIGHT STEP PROCESS FOCUS: This chapter provides a description of the application of customer-driven project management.
AURA New Initiatives Office. GSMT SWG Meeting L. Stepp, July 30, 2002 NSF Science Working Group Support Available from AURA NIO Available Personnel Current.
February 20, 2006 Nodal Architecture Overview Jeyant Tamby 20 Feb 2006.
Solar Probe Plus A NASA Mission to Touch the Sun March 2015 Instrument Suite Name Presenter's Name.
1 Global Design Effort: Controls & LLRF Controls & LLRF Working Group: Tuesday Session (29 May 07) John Carwardine Kay Rehlich.
SRR and PDR Charter & Review Team Linda Pacini (GSFC) Review Chair.
Keck Next Generation AO Next Generation Adaptive Optics Meeting #2 Caltech November 14, 2006 P. Wizinowich for NGAO Executive Committee.
Software Development Process CS 360 Lecture 3. Software Process The software process is a structured set of activities required to develop a software.
Project Management Requirements Prof. Ralph Locurcio, PE Dr. Troy Nguyen, PE.
SwCDR (Peer) Review 1 UCB MAVEN Particles and Fields Flight Software Critical Design Review Peter R. Harvey.
SOFTWARE PROJECT MANAGEMENT
6/6/ SOFTWARE LIFE CYCLE OVERVIEW Professor Ron Kenett Tel Aviv University School of Engineering.
Request for Proposal (RFP) In response to the RFP – the first step is to prepare a proposal 1. Review Customer Requirements and come up with candidate.
Develop Schedule is the Process of analyzing activity sequences, durations, resource requirements, and schedule constraints to create the project schedule.
Camera PDR/CD1 Planning 19 September 2008
Science Priorities and Implications of Potential Cost Savings Ideas
Laser(s) for Keck Observatory’s Next Generation AO (NGAO) System
Request for Proposal (RFP)
CLINICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM
PSS verification and validation
Software Testing Lifecycle Practice
<Your Team # > Your Team Name Here
Presentation transcript:

WBS 3.3 Laser Facility Jim Bell, Jason Chin, Erik Johansson, Chris Neyman, Viswa Velur Design Meeting (Team meeting #10) Sept 17 th, 2007

2 Agenda Approach to Laser Facility WBS 3.3. Phasing of these subsystem deliveries and inputs Deliverables and products from subsystems (WBS to 3.3.6) Laser Facility 3.3 internal interfaces and external interfaces. Solicit inputs from members. Laser Down Selection Criteria to assist with determining system architecture.

3 Approach Difficulty with designing without a basic architecture for the laser architecture. Laser architectures and locations affect the enclosures, safety system, and how the beam is transported to a centrally projected launch telescope and the motion control related to the laser control system. The selection of the laser is an important decision not just with design impact, but with a sizable financial impact. Similar to the AO architecture product, some emphasis is needed to provide an architecture with sufficient detail to drive the sub WBS. Team does not believe the laser decision can be made at this stage; but a product of this WBS is to generate more information to assist with the laser selection.

4 Phasing WBS System Architecture –Generation of down select criteria and using them to provide a system architecture with sufficient information to drive other WBS sub elements. –WBS (3.3.2) Generation of Laser Enclosure Requirements and Concepts –WBS (3.3.4) Generation of Laser Launch Facilities –WBS (3.3.3) Laser Requirements and comparison of laser architecture with LMCTI and SOR. –WBS (3.3.5) Generation of Safety System and Concepts –WBS (3.3.6) Laser Control System; dependency on

5 WBS Deliverables Laser System Architecture (80 hours) VV –Provide down selection criteria –Report of laser facility architecture's Layout of system architecture(s) Not expecting to point to one laser (LMCTI or SOR). Possibly points to a laser on the elevation ring and/or a laser on the nasmyth platform. Pros and Cons of the architecture(s) Determine feasibility of the architecture(s) –Provide inputs for subsequent WBS to

6 WBS Deliverables Laser Enclosure (80hrs) J. Bell –Conceptual 3D model of the enclosure completed in Solidworks showing spaces for: Laser and laser transport optics, Supports, Electronics, Environmental equipment and controls –Design report will include A first assessment of high risk items including requirement for higher reliability due to limited access. Interfaces to the enclosure including laser beam and infrastructures (power, glycol, pneumatics, etc.); Safety Concerns Estimated weight and weight distribution; effects on azimuth wrap –List of suitable vendors for proposed equipment –Preliminary cost analysis. –Inputs to the preliminary design phase WBS. –Updates and inputs to appropriate sections of FRD version 2, and System Design Manual.

7 WBS Deliverables Laser (20 hrs. after re-plan, Requesting 40 hrs.) V. Velur –A heuristic scaling law for the photon returns based on extrapolation/ past experience will be formulated. –A report summarizing the amount of laser power that will result in the necessary return will be presented for the 2 possible lasers (LMCTI vs SOR; will add fiber laser if there is time). All the effects, assumptions, and the premise for the scaling law including how the Na-return changes with spot size and laser power for each laser considered. –Update of requirements and compliance of the two lasers for FRD 2.0 (laser section). Justification for the hours: 10 hrs for scaling, 8 hrs. for laser power calculation and 22 hrs for the document and applying scaling to varying spot sizes and laser powers. And determine compliance with respect to requirements.

8 WBS Deliverables Laser Launch Facility, Laser Beam Transport, Laser Pointing and Diagnostics (200 hrs.) V. Velur –Report on the conceptual designs. To include a layout/block diagram as well as description of the interfaces within and outside of the Laser Facility. Concepts for Laser beam transport optics dependent on location of laser. Concepts to generate nine laser beacons from a single or multiple lasers; provide losses with pros and cons of the designs. Concepts for pointing and steering of laser beams on sky, includes uplink tip/tilt and maintaining asterism fixed on sky. –Launch Telescope Optical requirements. Modeling to determine feasibility as well as volume to fit into the telescope. –List of diagnostics for BTO and LLT; laser power, beam stability, spectral profile, M 2 measurements, and near and far field profiles. –Review and upgrade FRD requirements from version 1.0 to 2.0.

9 WBS Deliverables Safety System (40 hrs) J. Chin –Use as much as possible from K1 LGS AO Safety System Requirements. Changes will likely be those related to system architecture. Basic safety concerns apply. –A layout of the safety system with description of the individual subsystems. The layout will include where subsystem components will be located; dependency on the laser. –Draft on how the conceptual design will meet the possible laser architectures. –Draft of an ICD describing possible interfaces between the subsystems internal and external to 3.3. –An updated version of the FRD v2.0.

10 WBS Deliverables Laser System SW (80 hrs) Erik J. –A revised WBS dictionary definition for this task. –An overall SW architecture design covering the main laser sequencer; command, control and status interfaces to the various AO subsystems (the observing sequence, AO sequence, etc.); the motion control system; calibration and diagnostics. This design will be done in collaboration with the WBS tasks for Science operations ( , , ) The laser system (3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4) The controls teams (3.2.4, 3.2.5) –A top-level block diagram showing the overall SW architecture for its main subsystems. –A top-level data-flow diagram, showing data paths, descriptions, sizes, and expected data rates. –A draft of an ICD for interfaces to laser SW; block level context diagram showing laser SW components connectivity to AO system; high-level description of the command, control, and status interfaces and functions of the laser sequencer. –A top-level description of all the laser component SW modules. –A revision of the functional requirements pertaining to the laser SW. –A report summarizing all the above items.

11 WBS Deliverables Laser System Electronics (70 hrs) Erik J. –A layout of the laser subsystems and their locations. –A block diagram of the laser control system –Block diagrams of the sub systems, to include: Laser control –Basic laser system control –Wavelength and mode control; detuning for Rayleigh background estimation Motion control –Beam transport; including beam injection. –Launch system –UTT Calibration and diagnostics Environmental system for laser and personnel Interfaces to the laser safety system –ICD Draft –Update to FRD 2.0

12 Block Diagram of External Interfaces

13 Block Diagram of Internal Interfaces

14 How to make NGAO’s multimillion dollar decision? Generation of criteria and priorities in guiding the architecture selection process –Photon return per beacon (the photon return/watt isn’t as useful) - how well it can optically pump the Na layer? –$$ price for producing a single beacon (bang for the buck) –Laser size, location (and ruggedness), BTO throughput. –Operational cost, maintenance costs (replacement diodes may be ~$1M!), failure modes (slow or catastrophic?) –Laser reliability, system complexity. –Upgradeability. –Beam quality, spot size limitation imposed by the laser. –SNR (fratricide and background may be lesser for pulsed lasers) –How well do we understand the laser format and vouch for the Na return (this is important when considering new laser formats). –How well the laser technology is adaptable to techniques (like 2 color Na pumping, Multi-color LGS to get rid of the tilt indeterminacy).

15 Previously criteria for subsystem evaluation