Taft Armandroff, Hilton Lewis March 18, 2009

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

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

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

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

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. 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. 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. Key Science Drivers Five key science drivers were developed for the NGAO SDR (KAON 455): • 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 • We will discuss how our recommended cost reductions impact this science.

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. 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. 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. Flowdown of Science Priorities(resultant NGAO Perspective) Based on the SDR science cases, SDR panel report & Keck Strategic Plan: • 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 • NIR Imager with low wavefront error, high sensitivity, ≥ 20” FOV & simple coronagraph • Required for all key science cases. • Large sky coverage • Priority for all key science cases. • NIR IFU with high angular resolution, high sensitivity & larger format • Required for galaxy assembly, AGN, GC & minor planet key science cases • Visible imaging capability to ~ 800 nm • Required for higher angular resolution science • Visible IFU capability to ~ 800 nm • Deployable multi-IFS instrument (removed from plan) • Ranked as low priority by Keck SSP 2008 & represents a significant cost • Visible imager & IFU to shorter  Included in B2C Excluded

18. Cost EstimateStarting Point

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

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. Cost Estimate to Completion (FY08 $k)

22. 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).

23. Results of NFIRAOS Cost Comparison (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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. Starting Cost Estimate Total cost • 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 NGAO labor only

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

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

30. 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

31. 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

32. LGS Architecture (A1) • Absence of multiple d-IFS allowed us to rethink the LGS asterism • 1st architecture result: a fixed, fewer LGS asterism (4 vs 6) to provide tomographic correction over the narrow science field • 2nd: no tomographic correction is provided over the wide field. • 3 point & shoot LGS used in single beacon AO systems for each tip-tilt NGS • 3rd: 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)

33. Performance Analysis Assumptions • 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%: r0 = 14 cm, 0 = 2.15” • 50.0%: r0 = 16 cm, 0 = 2.7” • 62.5%: r0 = 18 cm, 0 = 2.9” • 87.5%: r0 = 22 cm, 0 = 4.0” • Launch facility & LGS return • All LGS are center launched • Uplink tip-tilt on each LGS • 100 ph/cm2/sec/W in mesosphere (“SOR-like”) • 3E9 atoms/cm2 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

34. Justification for Assumptions • 100 ph/cm2/sec/W in mesosphere • 150 ph/cm2/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/cm2 Na density • Based on Maui LIDAR measurements Measured Predicted Median 4.3x109 cm-2 3x109 cm-2

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

36. 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

37. 50W + median Na density Wavefront Error versus Laser Power 50W in science asterism

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

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

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

41. Performance versus Seeing Median 87.5% 37.5%

42. Optimum # of Subapertures

43. 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

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

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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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 New SDR

50. Reduced Wide Field Relay FOV (C1) Science Instrument LOWFS Boxes NGS WFS 25mm tweeter DM OAP4 LGS WFS OAP3 Switchyard mirror 100 mm Woofer DM K-mirror OAP1 OAP2 • 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% Visible Imager focal plane OAP4 FSM NGS WFS TWFS focal plane OAP3 FSM NIR Imager focal plane Tweeter DM Fold down OAP2 LGS WFS focal plane OAP1, upper level 140 mm Woofer DM K-mirror rotator, upper level LOWFS/dIFS focal plane