1. NGAO System Design Phase Update Peter Wizinowich, Rich Dekany, Don Gavel, Claire Max for NGAO Team SSC Meeting January 24, 2007

2. 2 Presentation Sequence SSC Co-Chair Questions Management Update A.Management Structure B.Systems Engineering Management Plan C.Documentation & Coordination D.Instruments Working Group E.Project Report #1 Technical Update –Science Requirements –Performance Budgets –Trade Studies Summary

3. 3 SSC Co-Chair Questions All of the following questions are addressed in the Systems Engineering Management Plan (summarized in the following Management update slides): 1.What is the product of this study phase? Following Keck development process (see System Design phase deliverables on slide 6). Includes conceptual design (with options), initial cost estimate & management plan for remaining project. Instrument concepts developed to proposal level (precursor to their System Design phase). 2.Are any intermediate reviews planned? Frequent internal product reviews, including cost reviews in Aug & Dec. SDR at end of this phase (3/31/08). Project reports provided prior to each SSC meeting. 3.Who is doing what, and what % of time is each person devoting to NGAO? Details in project plan. High level summary of key personnel on slide 10. 4.What are the major goals/milestones of this phase? See milestones on slide 9.

4. 4 SSC Co-Chair Questions 5.What are the big issues and how are they being addressed? Big picture: Cost, schedule & performance + structuring the program to suit the funding. Science & engineering team working closely with management to produce a compelling & realistic vision. Near term: Science community input & team ramp-up. Engaging scientists in science case requirements & performance budgets. Freeing personnel from other responsibilities. 6.What is the timescale for this phase and when can the SSC expect a full report? See schedule on slide 15. 7.What is the relationship between the NGAO team and the AOWG –AOWG – Bouchez, Dekany, Koo, Larkin, Liu (co-chair), Macintosh, Marchis, Matthews, Max (co-chair) + Ellis (rotating on) –The AOWG was a very active participant in the NGAO proposal. –Max, Liu & Marchis are leading the science case requirements –AOWG last met 8/06. 8.Comparison of NGAO versus planned AO performance of current generation. Why should we believe new models? –Addressed in the performance budgets section.

5. 5 A. Management Structure Proposal approved at Jun/06 SSC & Board meetings WMKO, UCO & COO Directors subsequently established an Executive Committee (EC) to manage System Design phase: Wizinowich-WMKO (chair), Dekany-Caltech, Gavel-UCSC, Max- UCSC, CFAO (project scientist)

6. 6 B. Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) SEMP submitted to Directors at end of Sept/06 –Verbal approval received to proceed –Budget approval being finalized System design started Oct/06 –Completion planned for mid-FY08 Products of this study phase (Q1) - System design phase deliverables –System Requirements Document - Science & Observatory requirements & flow down to system requirements –System Design Manual – Performance budgets, functional requirements, system & subsystem architectures –SEMP – For remaining NGAO phases –System Design Report – Summary for System Design Review

7. 7 B. SEMP: Approach 1.Initial focus on requirements & performance budgets to ensure that we understand largest levers on the design 2.Initial attempt at defining the AO system architecture & the functional requirements for the major systems 3.In parallel with 1 & 2 perform trade studies to better understand the appropriate design choices 4.A process of iteration and refinement will lead to the final version of the AO architecture & major systems requirements Includes continued development of performance budgets & functional requirements 5.Develop cost estimates & plans for remainder of NGAO project Science Requirements Technical Implications Initial Concept Performance Assessment

8. 8 B. SEMP: Budget WBSName Cost ($k) FY07FY08Total 1Management7449123 2System Requirements1193122 3System Design56090650 4Systems Engineering Management Plan 5 7984 Travel/Procurements402060 Contingency (part of overall Observatory contingency)1094104 Total ($k) =8083351143 Institute Work (hours) FY07FY08Total COO28367023589 UCSC29918453926 WMKO535518527360 Students18500 Total =13032339916725 $163k increase in cost of labor since proposal, due to distributed project nature Total work same as in original proposal

9. 9 MILESTONEDATEDESCRIPTION SD SEMP Approved10/9/06 Approval of plan by Directors SD phase contracts in place10/27/06 Contracts issued to Caltech & UCSC for the system design phase Science Requirements Summary v1.010/27/06 Initial Release of Science Requirements as input to trade studies & performance budgeting System Requirements Document v1.012/8/06 Initial release with emphasis on the science requirements Performance Budgets Summary v1.02/27/07 1st round of all performance budgets complete & documented System Requirements Doc v2.03/22/07 2nd release Trade Studies Complete5/25/07 All trade studies complete & documented (as a series of KAONs) System Requirements Doc v3.07/12/07 3rd release of System Requirements System Design Manual v1.08/31/07 1st release of System Design Manual Technical Risk Analysis v1.011/13/07 1st round of project risk analysis complete & documented Cost Review Complete11/30/07 Project cost estimates complete, documented & internally reviewed System Design Manual v2.01/8/07 2nd release System Design Review Package Distributed3/4/08 SDR documents sent to reviewers System Design Review3/31/08 SDR meeting SDR Report & Project Planning Presentation at SSC meeting 4/14/08 Final SD phase report including results of SDR & project plans B. SEMP: Milestones

10. 10 B. SEMP: Team NameInstitute%NGAO-relevant Expertise BouchezCOO11AO systems & science DekanyCOO33EC; AO systems & mgmt MooreCOO31Instruments VelurCOO38Lasers & wavefront sensors (mechanical) BaumanUCSC21Optics GavelUCSC33EC; AO systems & mgmt MaxUCSC22EC Science Team chair PostdocUCSC46AO science AdkinsWMKO15Instruments & Project Mgmt ChinWMKO18Electronics FlickerWMKO38AO Modeling JohanssonWMKO18AO Control (software & electronics) Le MignantWMKO15AO science operations MeguroWMKO13Mechanical NeymanWMKO67AO systems WizinowichWMKO36EC chair; AO systems & mgmt Represents 84% of the work force.

11. 11 C. Documentation & Coordination NGAO Twiki site at http://www.oir.caltech.edu/twiki_oir/bin/view.cgi/Keck/NGAO/WebHome http://www.oir.caltech.edu/twiki_oir/bin/view.cgi/Keck/NGAO/WebHome Includes collections for –Team meetings Agendas & documents posted in advance; action items posted & followed up –Executive committee Planning & tracking documents EC weekly meeting minutes –Work packages Table of WBS elements, planning sheets & products –Performance budgets Meeting summaries & products –Science team

12. 12 D. Instruments Working Group Instruments Working Group (IWG) being formed for NGAO System Design Phase –Focused on instrumentation related matters Instrument specialist perspective for NGAO Resource for AO system design team on instrumentation issues –Organization (6 to 8 members) 3 to 4 funded from current NGAO plan –Responsible for most of technical work related to NGAO instrumentation WBS –Sean Adkins (IWG chair, overall systems, detectors, electronics & interfaces) –Anna Moore (instrument generalist, optical & mechanical) –James Larkin/UCLA IR Lab staff members (instrument design, optical & mechanical, cryogenics experience) –TBD software engineer 3 to 4 TBD volunteers from NGAO science team –Primary contacts with science team for instrument related science requirements Regular meetings will be held involving the entire group Additional assistance & advice will be sought from the diverse base of the collective instrumentation & technical resources at UC & CIT

13. 13 E. Project Report #1 Directors’ requested written project reports prior to each SSC meeting 1 st report submitted to Directors on Jan. 19 http://www.oir.caltech.edu/twiki_oir/bin/view.cgi/Keck/NGAO/SystemDesignPhasePlanning Good progress made on initiating NGAO System Design phase & on building up an effective team Emphasis to date, as planned, on understanding the major design drivers through a process of iteratively developing the science case requirements & the performance budgets Work has begun on a number of trade studies in support of the performance budgets & the future design choices

14. 14 E. Project Report #1 #MILESTONEDATEDESCRIPTIONSTATUS 1 SD SEMP Approved 10/9/06Approval of this plan by the Directors. SEMP released to Directors on 9/29/06. Verbal approval received. Written approval requested 2 SD phase contracts in place 10/27/06Contracts issued to Caltech & UCSC for the system design phase. $50k initial contracts issued on 12/20 3 Science Case Requirements Summary v1.0 Release 10/27/06Initial Release as input to trade studies & performance budgeting V1.0 to be completed in Jan/07 4 System Requirements Document v1.0 Release 12/8/06Initial release of System Requirements with emphasis on science requirements V1.0 to be completed in Jan/07 5 Performance Budgets Summary v1.0 Release 2/27/071 st round of all performance budgets complete & documented Good progress 6 System Requirements Doc v2.0 Release 3/22/072 nd release of System Requirements Document Not started yet 7 Trade Studies Complete 5/25/07All trade studies complete (Keck Adaptive Optics Notes) Good progress

15. 15 E. Project Report #1

16. 16 E. Project Report #1 Budget $772k budgeted for FY07 in 5-year plan $110k spent in 1 st quarter –Low due to slower than planned ramp up of personnel –Average of 4.3 FTEs Summary Good technical progress as you will see in the following slides Team and management processes now largely in place Expect the teams rate of progress to be close to the rate in the plan during the 2 nd quarter

17. 17 E. Project Report #1 Products include the following KAONs: –415 TMT site monitoring data (restricted access) –416 Atmospheric sodium density from Keck LGS photometry –417 Sodium abundance data from MAUI Mesosphere –419 LGS brightness predictions vs results –420 Accessing the MK TMT seeing & weather data –427 Variable versus fixed LGS asterism –428 Implications & Requirements for Interferometry with NGAO –429 LGS asterism geometry & size –452 MOAO versus MCAO trade study report –455 Science Case Requirements Document –456 System Requirements Document

18. Science Case Requirements & System Requirements Max, Ghez, Law, Liu, Lu, Macintosh, Marchis, Steidel Neyman, Wizinowich

19. 19 Science Requirements Process Approach: –Start from significant science case development in proposal –Analyze limited set of these key science cases in order to understand and document the requirements on NGAO + Instruments –Begin with cases that stress AO design the most in multiple directions –Progress to include more science cases –Iterate 4 times with AO & instrument requirements For each case, discuss –Science goals, proposed observations, AO performance requirements, instrument requirements

20. 20 Science Requirements & Performance Budget Process

21. 21 Science Case Requirements Document Release 1 Contents JWST and ALMA capabilities Future AO capabilities of other observatories Key science cases and what they stress most: –Multiplicity, size, shape of minor planets High contrast, wavefront error, visible light performance –Planetary & brown dwarf companions to low mass stars High contrast –General relativistic effects in the Galactic Center Astrometry and radial velocity accuracy –Assembly and star formation history of high z galaxies Lower backgrounds, multiple deployable IFUs, sky coverage

22. 22 JWST capabilities Cryogenic 6.5-m space telescope, launch in 2013 Higher faint-source sensitivity than Keck NGAO, due to low backgrounds Not diffraction limited below K band –Primary mirror spec –NIRCAM px scale 0.035”, NIRSpec px scale 0.1” Areas where Keck NGAO would complement JWST 1.Spectroscopy @ spatial resolution better than 0.1”, = 0.6 - 2 μm 2.Imaging @ spatial resolution better than 0.07”, = 0.6 - 2 μm 3.Multi-IFU spectroscopy

23. 23 Key science requirements: Multiplicity, size, shape of minor planets Minor planet formation history and interiors by accurate measurements of size, shape, companions Small, on-axis imaging field ( ≤ 3 arc sec) Relative photometry to 5%, astrometry ≤ 5 mas, wavefront error ≤ 170 nm, contrast  H  5.5 at 0.5 arc sec Instruments: –Imaging: visible and near-IR –Near IR IFU spectroscopy: 1.5 arc sec field; still need to specify spectral resolution Observing modes: non-sidereal tracking, <10 minute overhead switching between targets, consider queue or flexible scheduling Asteroid Sylvia and moons

24. 24 Key Science Requirements: Planetary & brown dwarf companions to low mass stars Faintness of low-mass stars, brown dwarfs, and the youngest stars make them excellent NGAO targets Small imaging field ≤ 5 arc sec Relative photometry to 5%, astrometry to PSF FWHM/10, contrast  H = 13 at 1 arc sec Instruments: –Imaging 0.9 - 2.4 microns –Single near IR IFU spectroscopy, still need to specify spectral resolution Observing modes: coronagraph needed

25. 25 Key Science Requirements: General relativistic effects in the Galactic Center Measure General Relativistic prograde precession of stellar orbits in Galactic Center Requires astrometric precision of 100  as (now 250  as) and radial velocity precision to 10 km/sec (now 20 km/sec) K band, wavefront error ≤ 170 nm Imaging field 10 x 10 arc sec Near IR IFU spectra, R ≥ 4000, FOV ≥ 1” x 1”, need IR ADC Need to evaluate optimal spectral resolution

26. 26 Key Science Requirements: Assembly and star formation history of high z galaxies Redshifts 1.5 ≤ z ≤ 2.5: most active star formation, form bulges & disks –Optical lines such as H  are shifted into near IR Density 2 - 20 / sq arc sec  6 to 12 IFUs in field of regard J, H, K bands IFU fields ~ 1 x 3 arc sec for sky subtraction, 50 mas spaxels, R = 3000 - 4000, EE > 50% within 50 mas for optimal tip-tilt stars Low backgrounds: AO system < 10-20% of (sky + telescope) Need to evaluate which high-z science could be done with higher backgrounds

27. 27 Science requirements summary to date Wavefront error 170 nm or better –Need sensitivity study to see how science would fare if wavefront error were 200 nm Relative photometry to 5% Contrast  H  5.5 at 0.5 arc sec,  H  13 at 1 arc sec Astrometry: companions to 5 mas, Galactic Center to 100  as. Need near-IR ADC. K-band backgrounds : AO system + IFU < 10-20% of (sky + telescope) –Need sensitivity study to see how high-z science would fare at higher background levels Not yet found a compelling science case for a large contiguous field (i.e., MCAO)

28. 28 Instruments & observing mode requirements, to date Instruments: –Refining the requirements developed for the proposal –On-axis near-IR imager, field ~ 10 x 10 arc sec, coronagraph –On-axis visible imager (to 0.6 or 0.7  m), field ~ 3 x 3 arc sec, coronagraph? –Near IR deployable IFU: 6 - 12 channels, field of regard TBD Field of view ~ 1 x 3 arc sec 50 mas spaxels, EE > 50% within 50 mas for optimal tip-tilt stars Still need to evaluate optimum spectral resolution Observing modes: –Non-sidereal tracking, <10 minute overhead switching between targets, consider queue or flexible scheduling

29. NGAO Performance Budget Development Dekany, Ghez, Marchis, Max, Liu, Gavel, Flicker, Wizinowich, Cameron, Lu, Britton, Macintosh, Neyman, Ireland, Olsen, Bouchez, Law, Bauman, Le Mignant, Johansson, Chin

30. 30 Developing Science-based Performance Budgets Systems engineering will consider all of the following budgets –Model assumptions –Model/tool validation –Wavefront error vs. sky coverage for 5-7 science cases –Photometric precision in crowded and sparse stellar fields –Astrometric accuracy at the GC and in sparse fields –High-contrast for diffuse debris disks and compact companions –Polarimetric precisionfor high-contrast observations –Transmission/background/SNRfor several science cases –Observing efficiency –Observing uptime

31. 31 Performance Budget Development Goals Produce a technical report –Describing the major drivers, including experimentally supportive information, quantitative background, and potential simulation results Produce a numerical engineering tool to support future design iterations –Emphasizing abstracted quantitative scaling laws and interdependencies Support science requirements development –Capturing the experience of the science team and reflecting quantitative underpinning to current limitations

32. 32 Wavefront Error and Encircled Energy Science Cases –Maintain all cases from the June ‘06 NGAO proposal Key Drivers for initial budget –Uncertainty in tomographic reconstruction error –Uncertainty in sodium laser photoreturn from the mesosphere Per delivered Watt, as a function of different pulse formats Requires 50W class lasers to investigate non-linear optical pumping effects –Uncertainty in multi-NGS tilt tomography efficacy Not included in original budget development –Uncertainty in tip/tilt control efficacy with large tip/tilt mirrors

33. 33 Wavefront error budgets For observations of –TNO multiplicity –Galactic Center –Field galaxies –Io –Nearby AGN –Gravitational Lenses During requirements flowdown & initial design, all performance budgets will be used for rapid reevaluation of performance cost/benefit Example for LGS observation of TNO using two galactic M-dwarfs as tip/tilt stars

34. 34 Performance versus Blue Book –Delivered system & science instrument didn’t achieve some requirements –Environment different than some assumptions Why will NGAO performance estimates be better –Experience at Palomar, Lick & Keck –Better understanding of Keck environment –Performance estimation tools more complete & anchored to actual performance For effects such as multi-guide star tomography for which we don’t have real-world experience: –Based on modeling and detailed simulations Comparing & validating these tools (TMT, Gemini, COO, Keck, UCO) –Aided by lab experiments (e.g. LAO) –Undoubtedly there will be “real-world” effects that we are not yet taking into account Improving Performance Predictions

35. 35 Keck LGS AO Wavefront Error Budget

36. NGAO Trade Studies Dekany To date: Bauman, Clare, Gavel, Flicker, Kellner, Neyman, Velur

37. 37 Design Trade Studies Trade studies were initiated at the start of System Design phase We have completed or nearly completed: –Methods of mitigating laser Rayleigh backscatter –Laser guide star asterism & geometry –Multi-Object (MOAO) & Multi-Conjugate (MCAO) architectures –Variable vs fixed laser asterism on the sky –Fast tip/tilt opto-mechanical implementation options –Low order wavefront sensor type & number Additional design studies now underway include: –LGS wavefront sensor architecture & type –Science instrument re-use –Telescope static & dynamic errors –Interferometer support –Sodium return versus laser format

38. 38 Mitigating Laser Rayleigh Backscatter Evaluate impact of unwanted Rayleigh backscatter on NGAO system performance Status: –Evaluated the intensity of the Rayleigh as well as aerosol and cirrus backscatter as seen at the Keck focal plane –Surveyed the available lasers and pulse formats –Surveyed methods of blocking Rayleigh –Interim results at NGAO meeting 3 (12/13/06) Best rejection choice: appropriately pulsed laser which can have a gated return so that almost no Rayleigh background is encountered However, most powerful & promising lasers in terms of sodium return per Watt, are CW

39. 39 LGS Asterism & Geometry Find the simplest LGS asterism geometry meeting the performance budget goals –Number of guidestars –Constellation configuration –Constellation size Conclusions –Simulations of tomography generally validate the theoretical scaling laws –5 LGS constellation works ok on 20 arcsec field –7-9 LGS will be needed on 90 arcsec field KAON 429

40. 40 MCAO Hybrid MOAO Multi-Object vs Multi-Conjugate AO Understand potential risks, technical challenges, limitations, advantages & room for improvement with Multi-Object (MOAO) & Multi-Conjugate (MCAO) Calculated performance for 1, 2 & 3 DM MCAO systems & compared to small sub-field IFU or imager arms, each with a DM Conclusions: –MCAO offers a contiguous field for imaging, but a large error term. “Generalized anisoplanatism” dominates in wide-field cases –MOAO greatly reduces anisoplanatic error at cost of non-contiguous field KAON 452

41. 41 Summary Management update: –Systems Engineering Management Plan in place –Executive Committee working well together –Ramp up slower than planned, but team & processes now in place –Good technical progress is being made Technical update: –Iterations between science requirements & performance budgets are achieving our goals of understanding what is really needed –Learning what we need to from architecture trade studies –Building base for design choices & cost/benefit trades We now have the management structure, plan & enthusiastic team to produce an excellent NGAO System Design.