Top Banner
NGAO Team Meeting NGAO Team Meeting Management Management Peter Wizinowich Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009 March 19, 2009
29

NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

Jan 15, 2016

Download

Documents

Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

NGAO Team MeetingNGAO Team MeetingManagementManagement

Peter WizinowichPeter Wizinowich

March 19, 2009March 19, 2009

Page 2: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

2

Presentation Sequence / Schedule

• Build-to-Cost (B2C) Review Results• B2C Design Changes• Preliminary Design Status vs SDR Plan

– Why?

• Next Steps

Page 3: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

Good Job!!

B2C study has been an extremely efficient, cooperative, and productive response to the SSC’s request

1st Draft B2C Reviewer Report

Page 4: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

4

Compelling Science

• Preserved science cases seem very compelling• Committee finds elimination in wide-field, d-IFU capability tolerable• Science cost/benefits analysis shows that B2C changes preserve

(and sometimes improve) excellence of narrow-field science

Page 5: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

5

Credible Technical Approach• Technical approach is a sound simplification of SDR concept• Science instrument concept now needs to catch up• We would like to understand…

– Cost of additional instrument feeds– Cost tradeoff between combined and separate imager + IFS– More detailed study of imager capabilities and requirements (multiple plate scale?)– Potential performance (and future upgrades) for shorter wavelengths below 800 nm– Cost of implementing a fixed pupil mode

Page 6: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

6

Credible Contingency

• Good bottoms-up approach to computing contingency• Committee recognizes some persistent uncertainties

– Laser operating in a variable gravity environment (pending results of ESO Preliminary design studies)

– MEMS (pending demonstration of 64x64 device)– RTC? (recommend revisiting NFIRAOS comparison

• Functional contingency options should be developed if cost contingency remains uncertain

– Develop a risk register, with decision points, and track it at each review– Possible examples include laser power, order of MEMS, phased introduction of tip/tilt

sensors and PAS lasers

• Lab Integration / Test Schedule may also need greater contingency (pending development of schedule)

Page 7: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

7

Unsolicited Advice• Phased approach should be considered for the PDR

– Can sky coverage capability be phased?– Can Strehl ratio (e.g. laser power) be phased?

• Can a unique science phase space be defined for KNGAO relative to TMT (not JWST)?

• More importantly, KNGAO is ready to proceed to PDR completion at the $60M cap

Page 8: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

8

NGAO System ArchitectureKey AO Elements:• Configurable laser Configurable laser tomographytomography• Closed loop LGS AOClosed 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

Page 9: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

9

Revised NGAO System ArchitectureKey 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 reflected2. Cooled AO enclosure smaller3. Lasers on elevation ring4. Combined imager/IFU instrument & no OSIRIS5. Only one TWFS

Page 10: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

10

AO Design Changes Summary

A. Architectural changes allowed by no deployable multi-IFS instrument1. LGS asterism & WFS architecture

2. Narrow field relay location

B. New design choices that don’t impact the requirements1. Laser location

2. AO optics cooling enclosure

C. Design choices with modest science implications1. 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

Page 11: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

11

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

Page 12: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

12

AO Optics Relay & Switchyard• 150” dia SDR FOV reduced to 120” with new assumptions

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

FSM

Fold down K-mirror

LOWFS Boxes

OAP1OAP2

100 mm Woofer DM

25mm tweeter DM

Switchyard mirrorOAP3

OAP4

Science Instrument

NGS WFS

LGS WFS

Page 13: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

13

Revised Cost EstimateIncluding all proposed cost reductions & new cost estimates:

• Inflation assumption = 2.0% in FY09 & 3.5%/yr in FY10 to 15

NGAO System FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 TotalSystem Design 739 495 1234Preliminary Design 214 1240 1492 2946Detailed Design 1600 5500 978 8078Full Scale Development 400 500 7415 8715 5262 22293Delivery & Commissioning 1764 1825 3589Contingency (24%) 466 1741 3014 3119 611 8951

NGAO Total = 739 709 1240 3958 6000 10134 11729 10145 2436 47090IFS Design 51 229 78 358Imager and IFS Instrument 123 443 4284 4264 486 12 9613Contingency (10/30%) 17 67 1309 1279 146 4 2822

NGAO Instrument Total = 192 739 5670 5544 632 15 0 12793Overall Total = 739 709 1432 4697 11670 15678 12361 10161 2436 59883

Actuals ($k) Plan (Then-Year $k)

Page 14: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

14

Revised Cost Estimate AO Labor HoursIncluding all proposed cost reductions & new cost estimates:

Labor OnlyNGAO System FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Total

Preliminary Design 2335 15000 15872 33207Detailed Design 12495 40000 19529 72024Full Scale Development 20000 40000 20336 80336Delivery & Commissioning 16306 16306 32612

NGAO Total = 2335 15000 28367 40000 39529 40000 36642 16306 218179

Actuals (hrs) Plan (hrs)

NGAO Labor (excluding instruments)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15

Fiscal Year

La

bo

r H

ou

rs

Page 15: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

15

Cost Changes by WBShrs PY Labor Non-labor Travel Conting Total

4 AO System Development4.1 AO Enclosure 0 0.0 0 0 150 0 27 177

4.2.1 AO Support Structure 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.2.2 Rotator 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.2.3 Optical Relays 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.2.4 Optical Switchyard 2544 1.4 0 149 191 0 102 4424.2.5 LGS Wavefront Sensor Assembly 994 0.6 0 66 327 0 170 5624.2.6 NGS WFS / TWFS Assembly 952 0.5 0 55 80 0 30 1654.2.7 Low Order Wavefront Sensor Assembly 0 0.0 0 0 55 0 24 794.2.8 Tip/Tilt Vibration Mitigation 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.2.9 Acquisition Cameras 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.2.10 Atmospheric Dispersion Correctors 864 0.5 0 42 0 0 11 534.3.1 Simulator 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.3.2 System Alignment Tools 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.3.3 Atmospheric Profiler 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.4.1 AO Controls Infrastructure 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.4.2 AO Sequencer 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.4.3 Motion Control SW 1500 0.8 0 80 0 0 30 1104.4.4 Device Control SW 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.4.5 Motion Control Electronics 0 0.0 0 0 74 0 28 1024.4.6 Non-RTC Electronics 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.4.7 Lab I&T System 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.4.8 Acquisition, Guiding, and Offloading Control0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 04.5.1 Real-time Control Processor 0 0.0 0 0 126 0 35 1624.5.2 DM's and Tip/Tilt Stages 0 0.0 0 0 -225 0 -45 -270

4.6 AO System Lab I&T 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LaborTrips

$k

B2

C2+A1C3,C4C3

C4,C5+

A1,C2

A1,C2

A1C1, MEMS

Use largest change as an example of cost spreadsheet

Page 16: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

16

Cost Changes by WBS

hrs PY Labor Non-labor Travel Conting Total7 Telescope & Summit Engineering

7.1 Telescope Performance 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 07.2 Infrastructure Mods for AO 316 0.2 0 17 150 0 43 2117.3 Infrastructure Mods for Laser 358 0.2 0 19 19 0 8 467.4 OSIRIS Modifications 1200 0.7 0 90 46 0 17 1537.5 Interferometer and OHANA Mods 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LaborTrips

$k

hrs PY Labor Non-labor Travel Conting Total5 Laser System Development

5.1 Laser Enclosure 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 05.2 Laser 1526 0.8 8 144 -26 31 -614 -4655.3 Laser Launch Facility 0 0.0 0 0 146 0 47 1935.4 Laser Safety Systems 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 05.5 Laser System Control 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 05.6 Laser System Lab I&T 400 0.2 0 24 20 0 12 56

LaborTrips

$k

A1

B2

Page 17: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

17

Preliminary Design Status vs SDR Plan

• $3479k PD phase budget– $455k FY08, $2000k FY09, $1024k FY10, includes $449k of contingency– 36,000 work hours

• Through Feb. ~21% complete vs 46% expected to be complete in SDR plan – This does not include science instrument design

• Through Jan. we have spent $437k or 14% of budget excluding contingency versus 18% of work completed

• Why?– Unplanned tasks that have required management attention

• NFIRAOS cost comparison

• B2C guidance

• MRI & ATI proposals

• Addition of science instruments

– Personnel availability (only X of planned Y hrs spent)• Departing or unavailable personnel (DLM, RF, JZ, MB)

• Less senior management than planned

– Unclear direction in some areas• Primarily because of B2C

Page 18: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

18

Act

uals

thr

ough

F

eb/0

9

Page 19: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

19

Pla

n th

roug

h F

eb/0

9

Page 20: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

20

Next Steps

• Revise & complete requirements (SCRD, SRD & FRD)– FRD process defined in next presentation

• Produce a plan to get from now to the PDR– Identify priorities & milestones– Incorporate instrument design– Include commitments from personnel & their management– Begin with revision we had produced in Aug/08 prior to new B2C direction (MS

project plan & KAON)

• Manage the plan (post B2C review)– Ensure tasks are defined & agreed on– Systems engineering team needs to manage requirements & interfaces, & address

systems issues to ensure tasks & process are well defined– Task leads & teams need to manage their task to produce deliverables, meet

requirements on schedule & within budget – TSIP monthly reports to monitor progress & identify issues (technical, schedule,

budget)– Bi-monthly team video meetings with some face-to-face working meetings

Page 21: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

22

Preliminary Design Objectives & Deliverables 1

• Science Case Requirements Document• Observing Operations Concept Document• System Requirements Document• Functional Requirements & Interface Control Document(s)

– AO system, laser system, science operations tools, science instruments

– Managed within Contour database

• Preliminary Design Manual (the document to read to understand the design & performance of the NGAO facility – will start by generating TOC at sufficient level to define deliverables)

– Flowdown of requirements to design

– Solidworks & Zemax model(s)

– Software design (RTC, non-RTC & science ops tools)

– Performance Budget Reports (wavefront, EE, astrometry, contrast, …)

– Science Performance Analysis Report

• Science Instrument Design Manual

Page 22: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

23

Preliminary Design Objectives & Deliverables 2

• Risk Assessment & Management Report• Systems Engineering Management Plan

– Project plan to completion, including a detailed schedule & budget

– Phased implementation option(s)

– Cost estimation

– Justification for any procurements during DD

Page 23: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

24

NGAO SDR PD MilestonesYear Month NGAO Project Milestone

2008 May Preliminary Design phase begins

2008 October Functional Requirements PD Release 1

2009 March Operations Concept Document Release 1

2009 April External Interface Document Release 1

2009 February Internal Interface Document Release 1

2009 May Software & Controls Architectures PD complete

2009 May LGS WFS Assembly PD complete

2009 June Laser vendor identified & contract ready

2009 June Optical relay/switchyard PD complete

2009 September RTC Processing Requirements complete

2009 November Laser Launch Facility PD complete

2009 December LOWFS Assembly PD complete

2010 February Preliminary Design Review

April/09

April/09

April/10?

Jan/10

Page 24: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

25

New NGAO PD Milestones?Milestone

2008 May 2008 May Preliminary Design phase begins2008 November NFIRAOS Cost Comparison2009 March Build-to-Cost Review

2009 March 2009 March Operations Concept Document Release 12009 April Laser Risk Reduction Contracts Issued

2008 October 2009 May Requirements PD Release 12009 Feb & Apr 2009 May Interface Document Release 12009 May 2009 June Software & Controls Architectures PD complete 2009 June 2009 July Optical relay/switchyard PD complete2009 May 2009 August LGS WFS Assembly PD complete 2009 September 2009 September RTC Processing Requirements complete

2009 December Laser Preliminary Designs complete2009 December 2010 January LOWFS Assembly PD complete2009 November 2010 February Laser Launch Facility PD complete

2010 February NGAO IFU SD & Imager PD complete2010 February 2010 April Preliminary Design Review

SDR Plan Replan Dates?

Page 25: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

26

Instrument Development

• Imager and IFS for ~800 nm to 2.4 µm

Page 26: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

27

Imager PD Phase

Page 27: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

28

Imager PD Phase

Page 28: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

29

Imager PD Phase

Page 29: NGAO Team Meeting Management Peter Wizinowich March 19, 2009.

30

IFS SD Phase