1 / 17

Extremely Large Telescope Design Study

Extremely Large Telescope Design Study. OPTICON BOARD MEETING 11-12 October 2004. ELT Design Study Proposal. Objective: Generic developments towards a European ELT Preparatory work for design & construction Will give ELT Top level requirements Ensure Academic & Industrial synergy

kiele
Télécharger la présentation

Extremely Large Telescope Design Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Extremely Large Telescope Design Study OPTICON BOARD MEETING 11-12 October 2004

  2. ELT Design Study Proposal • Objective: Generic developments towards a European ELT • Preparatory work for design & construction • Will give ELT Top level requirements • Ensure Academic & Industrial synergy • Proposal • 39 partners, 47 Work Packages • 42 M€ total, 22 M€ requested to EC • Timescale 2005-2008

  3. Matrix structure Participants (39) WP/Task (47) A B C ... Z 1 2 3 4 5 … 46 47 WP budget WP budget WP budget WP consol. tool Part.budget Part.budget Part.budget Budget prep. tool

  4. Project Organization

  5. Shares, in % of total estimated budget ESO

  6. Work Breakdown Structure No Title Lead / Deputy Budget EC Request 01000 Management ESO / LUND 1,299 1,147 02000 Science requirements INAF / Oxford 227 79 04000 Wavefront Control ESO / Grantecan 8,652 4,485 05000 Optical fabrication ESO / UCL 4,590 2,344 06000 Mechanics ESO / t.b.d. 2,918 1,741 07000 Control ESO / Starlink 2,138 1,105 08000 Enclosure & infrastructure Grantecan / ESO 2,717 1,343 09000 Adaptive Optics INAF / ESO 11,513 4,816 10000 Observatory & science ops. ESO / UKATC 498 249 11000 Instrumentation UKATC / Leiden / 2,455 1,310 INSU / Galway 12000 Site characterization LUAN / IAC / ESO 2,521 1,410 13000 Integrated modelling LUND / ESO 2,160 2,029 TOTAL k€41,686 22,058

  7. Engineering WP - Overview No Title Topics Breadboard / Prototype 01000Project Management[includes project engineering] 04000Wavefront ControlPhasing, actuators, metrology,APE, WEB (wind)PSF properties, high contrast Imaging, error budgeting 05000Optical fabricationSiC mirrors, Al mirrors, coatings8 x 1-m SiC segments 06000MechanicsComposite materials, Maglev,Friction Drive BBFriction drives 07000ControlSupport to other WP (APE, WEB) 08000InfrastructureEnclosure concepts, renewable energies, Infrastructure, wind tunnel 09000Adaptive OpticsWFE on 100-m scale, AO unitsDM prototypesdesigns, large DM, novel concepts,algorithms, simulations 10000Science OperationSystem operations 11000InstrumentationPoint designs, concepts, ADC 12000Site StudiesSite parameters, measurements,[site testing equipment]modeling, large scale atmosphere 13000System modellingIntegrated modelling tools

  8. SCOPE : Compare the performance of 3 types of wavefront sensors : Curvature Mach-Zehnder Pyramid Test an active optics system which corrects at the same time segment misalignments, telescope misalignments, and deformations of thin meniscus mirrors. Test the control software for an active optics system with several different wavefront sensors. APE

  9. WEB WEB

  10. Silicon Carbide prototypes • 8 x 1-m class, different overcoatings • 4 blanks already at ESO • Explore over-coating & figuring,check for bimetallic effects • Huge Advantages • Stiffer, lighter, better thermo-mechanicalproperties (than glass) • Higher control bandwidth (position) • Hardness • Lighter, stiffer telescope structure • ~20 years of development, space-qualified • potentially cost-effective if appropriate design • BUT • Needs qualification for segmented apertures

  11. Friction drive breadboard Mandatory – Hydraulic pads / tracks not an option !

  12. Extremely Large Telescope Design Study PROPOSAL UPDATE

  13. Cutting down • (mandatory) Goal:  keep objectives despite only 8(.5) M€ EC funding • Strategic thinking • Play on complementarities with other existing studies • Focus activities tightly; reduce number of alternative approaches • Take time pressure into account, give time to time … • Cost reduction on SMEs: little room for maneuver • EC matching funds by partners, not by WPs  freed EC funds re-distributed within single partner’s activities  or through re-organization of the distribution of tasks • Incorporate new (self-financing) partners ? • Other sources of funding ?

  14. Options • Two extreme situations: • Apply 50-50 rule  16 M€ total project cost • Keep participants 19.6 M€ commitment 19.6 + 8 = 27.6 M€ total project 1. impossible to achieve objectives, 2. quite optimistic somewhere in between • Baseline: significant de-scoping, significant cuts • Variant A: assumes a new partner (e.g. AURA?) on a self-financing basis. • Variant B: assumes some activities are transferred to a separate funding scheme (e.g. PPARC?)

  15. Other options • Variant A: • Take-over by new partner on a self-financing basis: e.g. AURA taking over SiC activities  529 k€ • Could reduce baseline pain, but time scale problem • Variant B: • Some tasks under separate funding scheme, e.g. PPARC/Spain, but time scale problem + uncertainty • Examples • 04800 WEB incl. control system • 05200 Optical finishing and edge control • 06400 Breadboard friction drive • 08300 Wind studies • 11000 Instrumentation (designs, ADC) • Require some re-organization; may imply “drop outs”

  16. 1 (top-down) 7 4 Iteration mechanism Guidelines & directives WP budget iteration Draft scope of work WP scope iteration (Annex I to contract) Compile WPs, participants / EC contrib. WP budget iteration Check impact on participants, WP scope iteration Check with EC WPs re-organization Update scope of work Update directives Compile 2nd iteration Compile participants / EC contributions WP budget iteration Get participants feedback WP scope iteration Final guidelines & directives WPs re-organization Final update of WPs / scope of work Get participants approval Submit to EC 2 (feedback) 3 We are here 5 (feedback) WP Managers Project Office 6 8 (feedback) 9 Dec. ‘05

  17. Status • 1st Iteration feedback received from WP Managers • “Raw” data after 1st iteration • Relatively little de-scoping (t.b.c.), i.e. the WP managers “resist” (good if not always helpful) • Relies on extra PPARC (+ 1.114 M€) & Spain (+ 1.836 M€) funds 1st not sure – 2nd very uncertain (in-kind contribution ) • Total project reduced to 35 M€ (higher than hoped for) • EC request reduced to 13.3 M€ (as expected from 1st iteration) • Requested commitments of participants increased by 2.7 M€Major increases: IAC, ESO, UK participants Significant decreases: INAF, INSU-CRAL, FOGALE (SME) • No buffer left for more de-scoping while keeping objectives  It will be tough …

More Related