1. WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics Build to Cost Concept Review: Introductions & Charge to the Review Committee Taft Armandroff, Hilton Lewis March 18, 2009

2. 2 Introductions Reviewers: –Brent Ellerbroek (TMT) –Mike Liu (UH) –Jerry Nelson (UCSC) Directors –Taft Armandroff –Mike Bolte –Tom Soifer for Shri Kulkarni –Hilton Lewis SSC co-chair –Chris Martin NGAO Team

3. 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 by the Directors & presented at the Nov. 3, 2008 SSC meeting

4. 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 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

5. 5 Agenda 9:00 Introductions & Charge 9:15-14:30 Review Presentation with 10:15 break & 12:30 Lunch 14:45Review Panel Discussion & Report Drafting 16:45Draft Report from Panel 17:15End

6. WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics: Build to Cost Concept Review Peter Wizinowich, Sean Adkins, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max & the NGAO Team March 18, 2009

7. 7 Presentation Sequence / Schedule 9:15B2C Guidelines & Cost Reduction Approach (PW) 9:25Science Priorities (CM) 9:45Cost Estimate Starting Point (PW) 10:15Break 10:30AO Design Changes (PW, RD, DG) 11:40Science Impact (CM) 11:50Science Instrument Design Changes & Cost Estimate (SA) 12:30Lunch 13:30Revised Cost Estimate (PW) 14:00Assessment of Review Deliverables & Success Criteria (PW) 14:15Questions & Discussion 14:45End

8. Build-to-Cost Guidelines & Cost Reduction Approach

9. 9 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

10. 10 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

11. 11 Cost Reduction Approach Review & update the science priorities Review other changes to the estimate (e.g. NFIRAOS cost comparison) Update the cost estimate in then-year $ Present & evaluate the recommended cost reductions –As architectural changes –As a whole including performance predictions Present revised cost estimate Revisit review success criteria & deliverables We believe the criteria have been successfully met

12. Science Priorities

13. 13 Key Science Drivers 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.

14. 14 Science Priority Input: SDR Report 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 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.” –“… 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.”

15. 15 Science Priority Input: 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) at the science & high sensitivity

16. 16 Science Implications of no Multiplexed d-IFU Galaxy Assembly and Star Formation History –Reduced observing efficiency Single target observed at a time Calibrations (e.g., sky, telluric, PSF) may require dedicated observing sequences –Decreases overall statistics for understanding processes of galaxy formation and evolution Can be supplemented with complementary HST & JWST results at higher z General Relativity in the Galactic Center –Decreased efficiency in radial velocity measurements (fewer stars observed at once) Can gain back some of efficiency hit with a single on-axis IFU that has higher sensitivity (especially for galaxy assembly) & larger FOV (especially for GC) 16

17. 17 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, ≥ 20” FOV & simple coronagraph 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 imaging capability to ~ 800 nm Required for higher angular resolution science 6.Visible IFU capability to ~ 800 nm 7.Deployable multi-IFS instrument (removed from plan) –Ranked as low priority by Keck SSP 2008 & represents a significant cost 8.Visible imager & IFU to shorter Included in B2C Excluded

18. Cost Estimate Starting Point

19. 19 NGAO System Architecture Key AO Elements: Configurable laser tomography Closed loop LGS AO Closed loop LGS AO for low order correction over a wide field Narrow field MOAO Narrow field MOAO (open loop) for high Strehl science, NIR TT correction & ensquared energy X

20. 20 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

21. 21 Cost Estimate to Completion (FY08 $k) WBS WBS TitlePDDDFSDD&C Base Cost Contin- gency Total ($k) 2Management 8741,2321,5946574,3563184,674 3Systems Eng 8111,0044781932,4854012,886 4AO System Dev 7302,2089,742312,6833,84916,533 5Laser System Dev 2851,9476,6191288,9801,93510,915 6Science Operations 1667566461,5682331,801 7Tel. & Summit Eng. 954241,049191,5873441,932 8Telescope I&T 461061141,9442,2115252,735 9Ops Transition 14205557066091750 Sub-Totals ($k) 3,0217,69720,7973,01534,5307,69742,227 11% 7% 39% 26% 4% 5% 6% 2% 100%

22. 22 Cost Estimate to Completion (FY08 $k) Phase Labor (PY) Cost Estimate (FY08 $k) % of NGAO Budget Labor Non- Labor Travel Sub- Total Contin -gency Total Preliminary Design 21.02,5822162243,0224583,4798% Detailed Design 43.65,5161,8273547,6971,4039,10022% Full Scale Develop 50.55,66114,51062620,7975,23426,03162% Delivery/Commission 22.42,2872504783,0156023,6179% Total = 13816,04516,8041,68134,5317,69742,227100% % = 46%49%5%100%22%122%

23. 23 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).

24. 24 Results of NFIRAOS Cost Comparison (KAON 625)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

25. 25 Science Instrument Cost Estimates The science instruments are only at a proposal level –Estimate of $3M (FY06 $) each for NIR imager and Visible imager in NGAO proposal (June 2006) –NIR & visible imager estimates updated by Adkins –Estimate of $14M (FY06 $) for deployable multi-IFS in NGAO proposal (June 2006) This is not included in the starting cost estimate –No estimate available for NIR IFS when the build-to-cost process began We did have the Nov/08 ATI proposal for the design costs of a near-IR IFS Just assumed $5M total for the starting point

26. 26 Contingency NGAO budget at SDR included 22% contingency –$7.7M on a base of $34.5M in FY08 $ –$9.1M on a base of $40.2M in then-year $ Increased contingency based on NFIRAOS cost comparison –$0.68M for laser to increase laser contingency from 19 to 30% –Additional $0.45M to increase overall contingency from 22 to 25% Instruments only at proposal level –Assume 30% contingency

27. 27 Starting Cost Estimate Start from SDR cost estimate + additional contingency (per NFIRAOS cost comparison) + updated NIR & visible imager cost estimates (no instrument designs yet) - deployable multi-IFU ($14M FY06 estimate; $17M in then-year $) + fixed NIR IFU (very rough estimate)+ 3.5% inflation/year

28. 28 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 –Critical to produce viable funding/management plan during preliminary design NGAO system labor profile is flat after initial ramp-up –$19.4M in then-year $ or 47% of NGAO system budget –~ 40,000 hours/year from FY10 to FY14 or ~ 20 FTEs Total cost NGAO labor only

29. AO Design Changes to Support Build-to-Cost

30. 30 AO Design Changes Summary A.Architectural changes allowed by no deployable multi-IFS instrument 1.LGS asterism & WFS architecture 2.Narrow field relay location B.New design choices that don’t impact the requirements 1.Laser location 2.AO optics cooling enclosure C.Design choices with modest science implications 1.Reduced field of view for the wide field relay (120” vs 150” dia.) 2.Direct pick-off of TT stars 3.Truth wavefront sensor (one visible instead of 1 vis & 1 NIR) 4.Reduced priority on NGS AO science –Fixed sodium dichroic, no ADC for NGS WFS & fewer NGS WFS subaperture scales (2 vs 3) 5.No ADC implemented for LOWFS (but design for mechanical fit) 6.OSIRIS role replaced by new IFS

31. 31 Science Instrument Design Changes NGAO Proposal had three science instruments ($20M in FY06 $) –Deployable multi IFS instrument –NIR imager –Visible imager For the SDR we included OSIRIS integration with NGAO Science instrument design changes that impact the science capabilities –No deployable multi IFS instrument –Addition of single channel NIR IFS –Removal of OSIRIS (science capabilities covered by NIR IFS) –No visible imager –Extension of NIR imager & IFS to 800 nm

32. 32 Revised NGAO System Architecture Key Changes: 1. No wide field science instrument  Fixed narrow field tomography TT sharpening with single LGS AO 75W instead of 100W Narrow field relay not reflected 2. Cooled AO enclosure smaller 3. Lasers on elevation ring 4. Combined imager/IFU instrument & no OSIRIS 5. Only one TWFS

33. 33 LGS Architecture (A1) 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 –Also performance analysis defined # of subapertures (only 1 lenslet array)

34. 34 Performance Analysis Assumptions Launch facility & LGS return –All LGS are center launched –Uplink tip-tilt on each LGS –100 ph/cm 2 /sec/W in mesosphere (“SOR-like”) –3E9 atoms/cm 2 Na density –0.75 laser transmission –0.896 atmosphere trans (zenith) LGS WFS –0.39 throughput (tel + AO) –4x4 pixels/subaperture –CCID56 (1.6 e - RON, 400 cnt/s, 0.80 QE, 0.2 pix chg diff) –“3+1” optimized integ. time –PNS optimized integ. Time –60” radius FoR for PNS LOWFS –0.32 throughput –2 TT + 1 TTFA –Single LGS AO sharpened –J+H band –No ADC (Design change C5) –32x32 MEMS DM –H2RG (4.5 e -, 0.85 QE at J) –60” rad FoR (Design change C1) Seeing Conditions –37.5%: r 0 = 14 cm,  0 = 2.15” –50.0%: r 0 = 16 cm,  0 = 2.7” –62.5%: r 0 = 18 cm,  0 = 2.9” –87.5%: r 0 = 22 cm,  0 = 4.0”

35. 35 Justification for Assumptions 100 ph/cm 2 /sec/W in mesosphere –150 ph/cm 2 /sec/W shown at SOR Power at laser output –Prediction lower for Hawaii By sin  where  = angle between geo-magnetic field & beam direction (62  at SOR, 37  at HI) 3E9 atoms/cm 2 Na density –Based on Maui LIDAR measurements Measured Predicted Median 4.3x10 9 cm -2 3x10 9 cm -2

36. 36 Throughput optimized for each Light Path AO Environment Enclosure Window: Broad-band AR coated Common path (Laser + Tip/Tilt Guidestars + science): “Holy Grail” enhanced Silver coating IR Science paths: Gold reflective coatings

37. 37 Coating choices optimize throughput to each Sensor 37 Science Path IR Tip/Tilt Sensor Path LGS Wavefront Sensor Path

38. 38 Performance Analysis Science Cases The following parameters were used to define the key science driver cases for the performance analysis

39. 39 Tomography Error versus Field Position Many alternative asterisms evaluated Selected 10”-radius “3+1” fixed asterism with 50W total –Best performance & considered lowest performance risk option –Remaining 25W in 3 point & shoot lasers Max. science field radius

40. 40 Wavefront Error versus Laser Power 50W in science asterism 50W + median Na density

41. 41 Strehl Ratio versus Laser Power 50W in science asterism

42. 42 Performance versus Sky Coverage 1d Tilt Error (mas) % EE (70 mas) K-band b = 30  % EE (41 mas)

43. 43 Performance versus Sky Coverage Z-band b = 30  % EE (17 mas) % EE (33 mas)

44. 44 Performance versus Sky Coverage H-band b = 10  Strehl

45. 45 Performance versus Sky Coverage Z-band b = 30  Strehl

46. 46 Performance versus Seeing Median 37.5% 87.5%

47. 47 Optimum # of Subapertures

48. 48 Optimum # of Subapertures

49. 49 Optimum # of Subapertures Conclusion: A single scale across pupil works well (N = 64 assumed for costing) 3E9 Na, Opt Subaps 3E9 Na, N = 64 1E9 Na, Opt Subaps 1E9 Na, N = 64

50. 50 Off-axis Performance Median seeing Max. IFU radius Max. imager radius Imaging radius requirement

51. 51 Off-axis Performance Median seeing Max. imager radius

52. 52 Performance Analysis Summary “3+1” science asterism + 3 point & shoot lasers has excellent performance for narrow field science Overall performance comparable to estimates at SDR –Assumptions different than at SDR (e.g. we are now using lower Na density & sodium return values) –Analysis tool/inputs have evolved (e.g. lower tomography error, higher atmospheric transmission off zenith & higher throughput) –Lower total laser power but smaller tomography volume –Most importantly performance optimized for on-axis science

53. 53 Narrow Field Relay Location (A2) At SDR the location of the multiple deployable IFS & LOWFS required that the narrow field relay be in reflection off a choice of dichroics Narrow field relay now in transmission Allows option of not using a dichroic in front of the LOWFS –Saves cost of dichroics & switcher –Higher throughput to LOWFS & science instruments

54. 54 Laser Location (B1) Likely availability of new lasers allowed a new design choice –Lasers on elevation moving part of telescope (previously Nasmyth)  higher throughput & no need for tracking beam transport system

55. 55 AO Optics Cooling Enclosure (B2) At SDR assumed that we would cool the entire AO enclosure including science instruments New approach: cool as little as possible beyond the science path –Science instrument front face forms a seal to cooled enclosure Cooled Volume SDR New

56. 56 Reduced Wide Field Relay FOV (C1) Plot shows performance impact of FOV diameter –Impact of 120” dia negligible for sky coverage < 50% at all galactic latitudes Negligible for all b Negligible for b < 50 

57. 57 Reduced Wide Field Relay FOV (C1) 150” dia SDR FOV reduced to 120” with new assumptions Allows a smaller image rotator + smaller wide field relay optics Allows a smaller DM – 100 mm instead of 140 mm  higher performance tip-tilt platform  Wide field relay scaled down by 100/140 ~70% OAP1, upper level K-mirror rotator, upper level 140 mm Woofer DM LGS WFS focal plane OAP2 Tweeter DM OAP3 OAP4 LOWFS/dIFS focal plane NIR Imager focal plane NGS WFS TWFS focal plane Visible Imager focal plane FSM Fold down K-mirror LOWFS Boxes OAP1 OAP2 100 mm Woofer DM 25mm tweeter DM Switchyard mirror OAP3 OAP4 Science Instrument NGS WFS LGS WFS

58. 58 Direct LOWFS Pick-offs (C2) At SDR pickoffs for TT stars in front of d-IFS & after dichroic that fed narrow field relay  no interference New design: direct pickoff of each TT star –no dichroic to split light between LOWFS & science instruments  Pickoffs can vignette science field & can’t use science target for LOWFS  Higher throughput to LOWFS & science instruments dIFS and Tip/Tilt sensors Dichroic changer Narrow field science instrument Narrow field science AO relay

59. 59 One Truth Wavefront Sensor (C3) At SDR had a NIR Truth WFS (TWFS) in one of the LOWFS units & a visible TWFS in the narrow field relay New design: 1 TWFS - a visible TWFS in one of the LOWFS. Rationale: –Location: low probably of finding a star in the narrow field –Calibration: Calibrate TWFS for science camera; MEMS impact well defined –Wavelength: Shouldn’t impact performance

60. 60 Reduced NGS AO Science Priority (C4) Fixed sodium dichroic, no ADC & fewer lenslets (2 vs 3) Rationale (besides need to cut costs): –NGS vs LGS regime for NGAO NGS only provides an advantage for science next to very bright NGS Backup science on nights with > 1 mag cirrus extinction NGS science has not been a strong driver –NGS AO regime for NGAO vs Keck I Higher Strehl NGS AO science on bright targets Higher sensitivity NGS AO science at K-band on similar magnitude targets Other NGS AO science may be better done with K1 NGS AO K1 NGS AO probably offers more availability –Reduced capabilities straightforward to implement as future upgrades if motivated by the science

61. 61 OSIRIS role replaced by new IFS (C6) Carefully reviewed OSIRIS role –In consultation with Larkin & McLean Determined that a new IFS was required by science requirements –Higher sensitivity, higher spatial resolution & larger FOV needed Minor science benefit to having both new IFS & OSIRIS –Perhaps some plate scales –Perhaps some multiplexing if new IFS deployable (extra cost) More overall science benefit to continuing to use OSIRIS on K1 NGAO cost savings & design freedom in not having to implement OSIRIS

62. 62 Design Impact in other Areas Motion control degrees of freedom reduced by 37% –AO devices reduced from 126 to 77 –Laser devices from 89 to 59 Tomography computation reduced by ~ factor of 10 ~ ratio of tomography volumes = (120”/40”) 2 Optical switchyard reduced dramatically –Reduced from 7 to 3 mechanisms –Dichroics reduced from 8 to 2

63. Impact on Science Requirements

64. 64 Impact on ability to meet Science Requirements Key Science DriverSCRD RequirementPerformance of B2C Galaxy Assembly (JHK bands) EE  50% in 70 mas for sky cov = 30% (JHK) EE > 70% in 70 mas for sky cov  90% (K band) Nearby AGNs (Z band for Ca triplet) EE  50% in 1/2 grav sphere of influence EE  25% in 33 mas  M BH  10 7 M sun @ Virgo cluster (17.6 Mpc ) General Relativity at the Galactic Center (K band) 100  as astrometric accuracy  5” from GC Need to quantify. Already very close to meeting this requirement with KII AO. Extrasolar planets around old field brown dwarfs (H band) Contrast ratio  H > 10 at 0.2” from H=14 star (2 M J at 4 AU, d* = 20 pc) Meets requirements (determined by static errors) Multiplicity of minor planets (Z or J bands) Contrast ratio  J > 5.5 at 0.5” from J < 16 asteroid Meets requirements: WFE = 170 nm is sufficient √ √ √ √ √

65. 65 B2C Design Changes: only modest effect on meeting science requirements Galaxy Assembly: B2C exceeds SDR requirements Nearby AGNs: B2C doesn’t meet EE requirement (didn’t meet at SDR either). Still in interesting regime for BH mass measurements (M BH  10 7 M sun @ Virgo cluster). Need to review & more clearly define requirement. General Relativity at the Galactic Center: Key variables (e.g. differential tilt jitter, geometric distortion in AO & instrument, differential atmospheric refraction) not strongly affected by laser power. Confusion only slightly worse than SDR design. Extrasolar planets around old field brown dwarfs: contrast ratio not affected by B2C design changes. Static errors dominate. Multiplicity of minor planets: Meets SDR requirements √ √ √ √ √

66. 66 NGAO comparison to JWST & TMT Higher spatial resolution for imaging & spectroscopy than JWST –JWST much more sensitive at K. NGAO more sensitive at J & between OH lines at H Lots of NGAO science possible in 5 years prior to TMT 1st science –Key community resource in support of TMT science (do at Keck 1 st if can) –Could push to shorter or multi-object IFS or … as TMT arrives on scene NGAO could perform long term studies (e.g., synoptic, GC astrometry)

67. 67 NGAO comparison to JWST Evaluation of key science cases:

68. 68 NGAO comparison to TMT NGAO & NFIRAOS wavefront errors are ~ the same (162 vs 174 nm rms) –Similar Strehls but higher spatial resolution for TMT –Similar spatial resolution for IFU science but higher sensitivity for TMT

69. Science Instruments to Support Build-to-Cost

70. 70 NGAO Science Instrumentation Background Approach to design/build to cost Changes to Instrumentation Baseline capabilities

71. 71 Background NGAO science requirements established a need for certain capabilities in the SD phase –Imaging ~700 nm to 2.4  m high contrast coronagraph –Integral field spectroscopy in near-IR and visible spatially resolved spectroscopy for kinematics and radial velocities high sensitivity high angular resolution spatial sampling R ~ 3000 to 5000 (as required for OH suppression and key diagnostic lines) Improved efficiency –larger FOV –multi-object capability –At SDR two imagers and an integral field spectrograph (IFS) on narrow field high Strehl AO relay (IFS might be OSIRIS) 6 channel deployable IFS on the moderate field AO relay with MOAO in each channel –Build to cost forces a narrowing of scope, significant reduction in number and capabilities for science instruments –May only be able to afford one science instrument

72. 72 Approach to design/build to cost 1.Be sure instrument capabilities are well matched to key science requirements –Galaxy assembly & star formation history –Nearby Active Galactic Nuclei –Measurements of GR effects in the Galactic Center –Imaging & characterization of extrasolar planets around nearby stars –Multiplicity of minor planets 2.Match instrument capabilities to AO system – maximize benefit of improved capabilities for science gains 3.Understand which requirements drive cost 4.Resist the temptation to add features 5.Maximize heritage from previous instruments 6.Exploit redundancies in compatible platforms – e.g. Near-IR imager and Near-IR IFS 7.Evaluate ways to break the normal visible/near-IR paradigm of using different detectors

73. 73 Changes to Instrumentation No deployable IFS One broadband imager One new IFS Address cost drivers

74. 74 NGAO Imaging Capability Broadband –z, Y, J, H, K (0.818 to 2.4 µm) –photometric filters for each band plus narrowband filters similar to NIRC2 Single plate scale –selected to optimally sample the diffraction limit, e.g. 2( /D) or 8.5 mas at 0.818 µm FOV –34.8" x 34.8" with 8.5 mas plate scale Simple coronagraph Throughput ≥ 60% over full wavelength range Sky background limited performance

75. 75 Issues for Wavelength Coverage NGAO offers extended wavelength coverage –Significant performance below 1 µm, Strehl ~20% at 800 nm Substrate removed HgCdTe detectors work well below 1 µm –~20% lower QE than a thick substrate CCD –Non-destructive readout takes care of higher read noise of IR array

76. 76 NGAO IFS Capability Narrowband –z, Y, J, H, K (0.818 to 2.4 µm) –~5% band pass per filter, number as required to cover each wave band Spectroscopy –R ~4,000 –High efficiency e.g. multiple gratings working in a single order Spatial sampling (3 scales maximum) 10 mas e.g. 2( /D) at 1  m 50 to 75 mas, selected to match 50% ensquared energy of NGAO Intermediate scale (20 or 35 mas) to balance FOV/sensitivity trade off FOV on axis –4" x 4" at 50 mas sampling –possible rectangular FOV (1" x 3") at a smaller spatial sampling Throughput ≥ 40% over full wavelength range Detector limited performance

77. 77 Narrowband Science Extra-galactic –IFS will be used for targets with known redshifts Therefore 5% bandpass sufficient? 5% spans Hα and NII lines for example –4 narrowband (5%) filters will cover the K-band –Excitation temperatures Need at least 4 lines Can expect to get 2 or more in each filter Can optimize center wavelength to maximize this Practical to use 2 or more exposures to get enough lines –Imaging spectrograph allows you to detect, and discount image motion for better photometric matching of spectra –Need to have enough FOV to ensure you cover the whole object in each exposure Exoplanet detection –Broadband filters available with narrow FOV ~1" x 1"

78. 78 Narrowband Science Nearby AGN (Black Holes) –Galaxy kinematics CO bandhead 4 to 5% wide (OSIRIS Kn5 filter) Brackett gamma, H_2 emission lines (OSIRIS Kn3 filter) –Remain in that passband to z = 0.03 Same arguments on practicality of non-simultaneous spectra apply –Central Black Hole Narrowband adequate for measuring black hole mass (only 1 line) ~1“ diameter FOV Galactic Center (e.g. GR effects) –Narrowband acceptable for RV measurements –Being used now –Want better SNR Throughput Higher angular resolution to reduce stellar confusion, but keep present FOVs –Could use more FOV

79. 79 IFS/Imager Product Structures Some clear commonalities –Single instrument eliminates having 2 of everything in green (Same design, 2 detectors) (Customized, common base)

80. Science Instrument Cost Estimate

81. 81 Cost Drivers Imager –Wavefront error contribution ≤ 25 nm –Number of filters (18) –FOV and sampling motivates selection of Hawaii-4RG will be cheaper on a per pixel basis than Hawaii-2RG but still more total $ IFS –Wavefront error contribution ≤ 25 nm –Imager slicer 96 x 96 samples low wavefront error minimal crosstalk –Multiple selectable gratings (3 to 5) to maximize efficiency

82. 82 Cost Estimate Combined cost for imager and IFS –Same dewar & fore-optics –Shared filter wheels –Different detectors, camera –IFS has slicer, collimator, gratings –Imager has coronagraph –Blended labor rates –3.5% inflation

83. 83 Support of Cost Estimate Detailed WBS and effort estimates –highlighted rows are new designs –IFS camera and collimator procurements include detailed design by subcontractor –remaining major mechanical and electronic WBS elements are design re-use –Software includes new data reduction tools for IFS

84. 84 Significant Design Re-use Designs suitable for re-use with straightforward modifications –MOSFIRE dewar and internal structure –MOSFIRE filter wheels –Detector head and focus mechanism –MOSFIRE low level servers –MOSFIRE global servers –MOSFIRE GUI base Designs with strong heritage –MOSFIRE Lyot stop mechanism –OSIRIS scale changer –MOSFIRE lens and mirror mountings for cryogenic environment –OSIRIS/MOSFIRE cooling system, vacuum system, electronics

85. 85 Limited Number of New Designs IFS design based on OSIRIS –85 x 85 lenslets, 200  m pitch, 17 mm x 17 mm overall OSIRIS 64 x 64 lenslets, 250  m pitch, 16 mm x 16 mm overall Very similar collimator aperture –Larger camera, Hawaii-4RG with 15  m pixels OSIRIS Hawaii-2, 18  m pixels Camera focal plane 1.6 times OSIRIS in each dimension Multiple gratings to optimize efficiency –Not a novel approach, SINFONI uses multiple gratings Imager very straightforward design –Narrow field AO relay at f/46 with 40" FOV makes imager optics easier

86. 86 Cost Comparisons OSIRIS –Full cost in 2005 dollars $5.63M –In 2009 dollars $6.6M –OSIRIS has IFS and imager –New IFS and imager have larger FOVs; FY09 cost estimate $11.8M Specific high cost components: –OSIRIS collimator and camera $1M in 2009 dollars Budget is $2.1M for NGAO IFS –OSIRIS lenslet array $70K in 2009 dollars Budget is $150K for NGAO IFS NIRC2 –Full cost in 2001 dollars $5.9M –In 2009 dollars $8M –NIRC2 has three plate scales, and spectroscopic capability –Many more features than the NGAO imager

87. 87 MOSFIRE comparison MOSFIRE costs are as built costs in 2009 dollars NGAO imager cost estimates are in 2009 dollars MOSFIRE optics for 6.8' FOV cost ~$1.2M

88. 88 TMT IRIS Cost Comparison IRIS estimate = $17.6M in FY09 $, excluding 23% contingency Major differences from NGAO instrument –On-instrument WFS $4M –Materials only costs: Two kinds of slicer: mirror & lenslet, & 2 scale changer mechanisms ~$1.2M More difficult TMAs ~$1M Imager optical path is separate including filters & pupil masks ~$0.6M Instrument rotator ~$0.3M –IRIS/TMT interfaces more complex –NGAO instrument reuses previous designs IRIS cost without OIWFS & additional features ~$10.5M versus $10M for NGAO instrument

89. Revised Cost Estimate

90. 90 Revised Cost Estimate Including all proposed cost reductions & new cost estimates: Inflation assumption = 2.0% in FY09 & 3.5%/yr in FY10 to 15

91. 91 Revised Cost Estimate AO Labor Hours Including all proposed cost reductions & new cost estimates:

92. 92 Revised AO Cost Estimate by Phase B2C Estimate SDR – B2C Estimate

93. 93 Revised Cost Estimate by WBS B2C Estimate SDR – B2C Estimate

94. 94 Cost Increases since SDR Cost of MEMS ($425k total) –Estimate has increased from $75 to $150/actuator based on recent quotes Laser cost estimate –Nominally the laser power decrease from 100 to 75W should have reduced the SDR laser procurement cost estimate by ~ $1M –However, we have not reduced our SDR cost We have transferred some $ from labor to non-labor –Initial rough estimates from the ESO laser preliminary design contracts are consistent with the $5.7M budgeted for laser procurement –Recall that laser contingency has been increased to 30%

95. 95 Other Post-SDR Changes considered in B2C B2C estimate includes NSF MRI proposal budget for K2 center launch telescope –Early phased implementation of NGAO with nearer-term K2 science benefits –Essentially identical launch telescope to one received for K1 LGS Evaluated to meet NGAO requirements –Launch telescope cost based on quote –Reason for FSD dollars in FY10/11 B2C estimate also includes NSF ATI proposal budget for IFS design study Solution for MASS/DIMM implementation –TMT donated equipment being implemented by CFHT/UH

96. 96 AO Contingency & Risk Overall contingency has increased from 22.6% to 24.2% –Due to increased laser contingency –Contingency has not been increased on any other WBS –Contingency has not been decreased due to the reduced complexity Risk has been significantly reduced in a number of areas –Laser Collaboration with ESO, GMT, TMT & AURA on laser preliminary designs ESO providing 250 kEuros each to 2 companies for preliminary designs WMKO/GMT/TMT/AURA providing 125 kEuros each to the same companies for additional risk reduction (using $300k of AURA funding) All information will be shared with all under NDAs ESO will procure 4x 25W lasers WMKO could potentially order with ESO or TMT to reduce costs –Complexity All of the design changes move us in the direction of a less complex system Simpler subsystems (e.g., LGS WFS, launch facility, motion control, RTC, etc.) Significantly reduced complexity for I&T

97. 97 Approach to NGAO Cost Changes Started with SDR cost estimate summary spreadsheet –Summary includes labor, travel, non-labor & contingency for 85 WBS elements in each of 4 phases (PD, DD, FSD, DC) Referenced initial cost sheet to understand cost impact of each design change Each cost change is highlighted (red) in cost estimate summary, a comment has been added & a corresponding equation put in the cell –Contingency is automatically updated using the original rate Used actual hardware costs from initial cost sheets wherever possible –If available used labor associated with a specific task in a cost sheet Performed check with cost sheet estimator in some cases Tried to be conservative with labor reductions –Especially conservative in PD phase since PD phase still evolving

98. 98 Cost Changes by WBS B2 C2+ A1 C3,C4 C3 C4,C5+ A1,C2 A1 C1, MEMS Use largest change as an example of cost spreadsheetcost spreadsheet

99. 99 Revised Cost Estimate by WBS

100. 100 Cost Changes by WBS A1 B2

101. 101 Revised Cost Estimate by WBS

102. Assessment of Build-to-Cost Review Deliverables & Success Criteria + Conclusions

103. 103 Review Deliverables Summary (1 of 3) Revisions to the science cases & requirements, & the scientific impact –Galaxy assembly science case & requirements need to be modified for a single IFU instead of multiple deployable IFUs Scientific impact of no multi d-IFUs viewed as acceptable (low priority in Keck SSP 2008 & single, higher performance IFU part of B2C) –Only minor impacts on all other science cases Major design changes –Major design changes discussed in this presentation –Design changes documented in KAON 642KAON 642 –Performance impact of design changes documented in KAON 644

104. 104 Review Deliverables Summary (2 of 3) Major cost changes –Major cost changes discussed in this presentation –All cost changes documented with comments & equations in cost book summary spreadsheet by WBS and phase Viewed as better tool than cost book for tracking changes –Decision not to update cost book until PDR costing phase Summary cost spreadsheet will be used as input to the PDR costing Major schedule changes –No major schedule changes assumed 2 month slip in milestones assumed for cost estimate –New plan needs to be developed as part of preliminary design Preliminary design phase replan is a high priority post this review

105. 105 Review Deliverables Summary (3 of 3) Contingency changes –Reviewed contingency as part of NFIRAOS cost comparison Laser, & potentially RTC, increase identified as needed –Laser contingency increased to 30% –Other bottom-up contingency estimates viewed as sufficient especially given reduction in complexity with design changes

106. 106 Review Success Criteria Assessment The revised science cases & requirements continue to provide a compelling case for building NGAO –NGAO continues to be compelling scientifically We have a credible technical approach to producing an NGAO facility within the cost cap and in a timely fashion –We believe that we have a very credible technical approach to producing the facility within the cost cap & in a timely fashion –Beyond the criteria for this review we need to work on producing a realistic funding profile & project management approach We have reserved contingency consistent with the level of programmatic & technical risk –We believe that we have met this criteria

107. 107 Conclusions The build-to-cost guidance has resulted in a simpler & therefore less expensive NGAO facility with similar science performance –This has primarily been achieved at the expense of a significant science capability (e.g., the multiple deployable IFS) Pending the outcome of this review our management priorities will switch to: –Replanning & completing the preliminary design in a timely fashion –Developing a viable funding & management plan for delivering NGAO in a timely fashion as a preliminary design deliverable Thanks to all for your participation in this review!