1. WMKO Next Generation Adaptive Optics: Build to Cost Concept Review Peter Wizinowich et al. December 2, 2008 DRAFT

2. 2 Presentation Sequence Build-to-Cost Guidelines Build to Cost Concept Review Success Criteria Conclusion

3. 3 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

4. 4 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

5. 5 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 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

6. 6 Starting Point ~$80M in then-year dollars: NGAO estimate at SDR, including system design (SD), ~ $53M (then- year $) –AO facility SD complete as of Apr/08 & preliminary design begun –SD phase actuals $1.234M in then-year $ –SDR estimate to complete AO facility = $42.227M in FY08 $, including contingency –Converted to then-year $ assuming 4% inflation/year & the development schedule proposed at SDR Science instrument estimate at proposal ~ $27M (then-year $) –Science instruments cost estimates, in FY06 $, made in Jun/06 proposal $14M for ~6 unit deployable near-IR integral field instrument $3M each for near-IR and visible imagers –Instrument designs were not part of the NGAO SDR deliverables Some modest work was performed on instrument conceptual designs during the NGAO system design

7. 7 Science Priorities The following prioritized list of NGAO core science requirements was developed with the build-to-cost guidelines in mind & with input from our science community: 1.High sensitivity & sky coverage with 50% EE in < 70 mas (driven by high-z galaxies) 2.Strehl > 20% at 850 nm (driven by black holes in nearby galaxies – need kinematics) 3.Astrometric accuracy < 100 uas at K-band for SO-2 (driven by GC) 4.Backup NGS mode (no worse than K2 NGS) 5.IFU multiplicity is below a line This is not the correct list yet, but simply what CM/EM initially presented at our Sept/08 team meeting Missing items: high performance IR imaging case, J-band science, priority on high sensitivity for single NIR IFU, priority on sky coverage for all types of science, priority & performance for NGS backup mode, priority on high contrast. Priority 2 should be an EE requirement if for BH in AGNs. Need to look at science drivers also.

8. 8 Science Requirement Descopes The following science requirement descopes were identified based on the science priorities in order to allow for cost savings: Provide a single on-axis near-IR IFU instead of the multi-unit deployable IFU Reduce the high contrast science requirements –Target set 1 (nearby, low mass brown dwarf case) remains a requirement, target set 2 becomes a goal Implications: 40 or 48 actuators across the pupil may be adequate for dealing with static telescope aberrations A coronagraph is not needed for the visible imager

9. 9 Cost Drivers Evaluated