NFIRAOS Cost Comparison

NGAO:NGAO:Cost Comparison with First Light TMT AOCost Comparison with First Light TMT AO

Peter Wizinowich, Richard Dekany, Don GavelPeter Wizinowich, Richard Dekany, Don Gavelwith input & review by Brent Ellerbroekwith input & review by Brent Ellerbroek

SSC MeetingSSC MeetingNovember 3, 2008November 3, 2008

2

Presentation Sequence• SDR Reviewer comments leading to this cost comparison• NGAO SDR Cost Estimate & Methodology • Cost Comparison Goal, Products & Approach• High-level Summary of Results• Cost Comparison• Conclusion

Conclusion Preview:- We & TMT agree that NGAO is traceably less expensive than the 1st light TMT AO system & we understand why- Larger NGAO contingency needed in some areas- Quote needed for laser & will be obtained soon

3

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).

4

Response to SDR Reviewer Comments• “We will develop another level of cost estimation during preliminary

design.” – During system design, we considered project costs composed of hundreds

of tasks and specific procurements– Reviewers noted “the budget book showed some pages not complete or

no estimates for the words in the task”. Our choice to produce cost sheets for each WBS in each of 4 project phases resulted in blank sheets

• e.g., no subsystem work during the delivery & commissioning phase – During PD, we will revise the basis of estimate to move more items from

engineering judgment and analogy to direct vendor quote basis– Reviewers felt that the laser procurement needs more time & should start

much earlier. We agree.• Requested next level of cost information for TMT NFIRAOS project to

better understand the reasons for the cost estimate differences– This brings us to this presentation …

5

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

6

Cost Comparison Goal, Products & Approach• Goal of Comparison:

– Increase confidence in the NGAO cost estimate• Products

– Updated cost estimation data base to take advantage of comparison information– Cost comparison presentation (this presentation)

• Approach– Identify differences between systems– Identify differences in assumptions– Identify similarities & differences in effort & procurement estimates, &

resolve/justify these differences– As appropriate update the NGAO cost estimate– Identify other support for NGAO estimates– Respond to reviewer sense that “methodology good, but not fully executed”

• “NFIRAOS” used as shorthand for the full TMT 1st light AO configuration– Updates to TMT cost estimate since 2006 (globally < 5%) not incorporated

7

Cost Comparisons(in FY08 $ as reported at the SDR)

NGAO Cost Estimate Comparisons

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

NGWFC

PALM3000

K2 LGS

GPI

GEMSNGAO

NFIRAOS

FY08

$M

Upgrades1st Gen 8-10m AO

2nd Gen 8-10m AO

1st Gen 30m AO

8

Major Differences between NFIRAOS & NGAO• 30 m versus 10 m

– ~ 3x physical size of AO system– 3x smaller image more sensitive to image motion & vibrations – 3x more perspective elongation more laser power for same performance

&/or better detectors– 9x LGS focus change with zenith angle (1.4 m from zenith to 65)– Physical paths for laser beam transport much longer

• New versus existing telescope– Interfaces and observatory software not as well known for TMT– TMT, NFIRAOS & Instrument I&T could be overlapping– 2nd (or 3rd) Keck AO system versus 1st TMT AO system– Need to be conservative for TMT first light system

• Architecture & Technologies– Different lasers (new laser suppliers have emerged since TMT 2006 CoDR)– MCAO versus MOAO (2 large high order DMs vs 1 lower order DM + MEMS; &

different I&T issues)– NFIRAOS cooled to -30C versus -15C for NGAO

9

Major Differences between NFIRAOS & NGAO

9 x 4 x 3 m(blue) box

NGAO (below) roughlyto NFIRAOS (left) scale

3.8 m

10

High-level Results of Cost Comparison

• NGAO $42.2M SDR estimate is 48% of NFIRAOS $88.2M CoDR estimate– NGAO $34.5M without contingency is 52% of NFIRAOS $66.7M – All in FY08 $

• Cost differences attributed to the following major factors:

Category $MContingency 13.8

Laser Procurement 9.4Labor Rates 6.5

Component Development 4.7DM & Tip/Tilt Procurement 4.5

RTC System 3.9LGS WFS 2.7

+/- other itemsTotal = 45.5

Largest items in $46M differenceModest contingency increase likely needed

No significant adjustments required - differences largely understood

Conclusions:

Need quote for new laser

11

Cost Category Comparison

• All costs in FY08 dollars– NFIRAOS costs have been inflated by 4%/year for 2 years

• NFIRAOS cost estimate is 2.1x NGAO– $32.1M difference without contingency ($46.0M with contingency)

• Major difference is in non-labor (e.g., procurements)– Factor of 2.7 or $28.3M, but less TMT work is performed “in-house”.

• Other significant differences:– Factor of 1.3 or $4.5M in labor even though NGAO has 14% more labor– NFIRAOS uses 32% contingency versus 22% for NGAO

Non-Labor Sub-total Totalhours $k $k # Trips $k $k $k % $k

NFIRAOS 203164 20535 45151 380 972 66660 21530 32% 88191NGAO 231944 16045 16804 549 1681 34530 7697 22% 42227

NFIRAOS-NGAO -28781 4490 28347 -169 -709 32130 13834 10% 45964NFIRAOS/NGAO 0.88 1.28 2.69 0.69 0.58 1.93 2.80 1.45 2.09

ContingencyTravelCategory

Labor

12

Labor Rate Comparison

• NFIRAOS average rate = 1.46x NGAO– NFIRAOS average rate = $101/hr– NGAO average rate = $69/hr– Benefit rates are the same– 24% burden rate versus 19% at CIT & 0% at WMKO & UCO– NGAO uses actual CIT, UCO & WMKO rates

• 1.46x represents $6.5M of the $20.5M of NFIRAOS labor

hours $kNFIRAOS 203164 20535

NGAO 231944 16045NFIRAOS-NGAO -28781 4490NFIRAOS/NGAO 0.88 1.28

CategoryLabor

13

WBS Category Comparison

• Start by removing Component Development & Facility Modifications– NFIRAOS investment (not needed for NGAO) in polar coordinate CCDs &

readout electronics to address perspective elongation – NFIRAOS reserves $0.5M for NIR sensor development (NGAO to use

available detectors)– NGAO modifications to telescope facility (not needed for NFIRAOS) for new

AO system & laser, & to remove old systems

> $1M > 5 wy

NFIRAOS NGAOManagement 0 354 -354 0.0System Eng 0 265 -265 0.0AO System 10667 4757 5910 2.2RTC System 11669 2551 9119 4.6Laser System 2474 1554 920 1.6Laser 15575 5691 9884 2.7Operation Tools 30 39 -9 0.8I&T 58 791 -733 0.1

Subtotal = 40473 16001 24472 2.5Component Dev 4678 0 4678Facility Mods 0 803 -803 0.0

Total = 45151 16804 28347 2.69

CategoryNon-Labor ($k) NFIRAOS -

NGAONFIRAOS /

NGAO NFIRAOS NGAO23979 42310 -18331 0.631538 25506 6032 1.262924 56527 6398 1.16396 16819 -10423 0.443988 15041 28947 2.9

0 3440 -3440 0.015975 18295 -2320 0.918364 37050 -18686 0.5203164 214987 -11824 0.9

0 0 00 16957 -16957 0.0

203164 231944 -40604 0.88

Labor (hrs) NFIRAOS - NGAO

NFIRAOS / NGAO

14

AO System Comparison

• Sorted by non-labor cost difference• Cost of many items, especially LGS WFS & Optics, impacted by

different scales of TMT & Keck• Equipment & source simulators represent different philosophies

– NFIRAOS equipment includes high resolution test WFS, jigs & fixtures, & a turbulence generator versus NGAO alignment tools

NFIRAOS NGAO NFIRAOS NGAOLGS WFS 3721 1618 2102 2.3 16200 7450 8750 2.2Low order WFS 2785 1007 1778 2.8 0 9520 -9520 0.0Equipment 1142 1 1141 5693 1695 3998 3.4Source simulators 896 135 761 6.6 3488 1865 1623 1.9Optics 1324 624 699 2.1 9161 14340 -5179 0.6Acquisition camera 223 69 154 3.2 1690 578 1113 2.9NGS WFS / TWFS 247 237 9 1.0 5042 3384 1658 1.5Support structure 107 113 -6 0.9 4050 1920 2130 2.1TT mitigation 0 52 -52 0 3180 -3180Device control 116 282 -166 0.4 11960 12075 -115 1.0Enclosure 107 618 -511 0.2 5640 520 5120 10.8

Total = 10667 4757 5910 2.2 62924 56527 6398 1.1

NFIRAOS / NGAO


Non-labor ($k)AO Components

NFIRAOS - NGAO

NFIRAOS / NGAO

15

LGS WFS AssembliesEach lens is ~ 0.4m in diameter

Entire ass’ly is ~ 0.5 x 0.5 m

3.1m

Six zoom assemblies; 18 mechanisms

Category NFIRAOS NGAONon-labor (FY08) $3.7M $1.6M

Labor 16,200 hrs 7,450 hrsPackage size ~ 3 m ~ 0.5 m

WFS channels6 zoom-optics channels with

separating periscopes 9 optically simple channelsLenslet arrays 30 mm diameter 4 mm diameter

CCD Custom radial-format CCD CCID56 (modest advance)Camera Custom controller Commercial SciMeasure camera

Mechanisms 18 45Travel Range 130 - 590 mm 1 to 150 mm

Heritage Significant new optical challenges Considerable Keck AO heritage

Note: NFIRAOS PDR design corrects each WFS individually > ~ $1M savings in lens costs compared with aspheric CoDR design

18

Wavefront Correctors Comparison

• MCAO vs MOAO• NFIRAOS DMs need to be developed• NGAO DMs are commercially available

– ROM for MEMS64 (being developed for GPI)

• Estimates based on quotes

NFIRAOSNon-labor

($k) NGAONon-labor

($k)61x61 DM 1714 20x20 DM 51573x73 DM 1943 MEMS64 412Cabling 53 4x MEMS32 309Amps & HV 1298 DM TT platform 206TT platform 952 MEMS TT platform 41

Total = 5960 Total = 1483

NFIRAOS NGAOCorrectors 3620 3040 580 1.2


NFIRAOS / NGAOCategory

19

RTC Comparison

• Similar complexity & parallel processing approaches • NFIRAOS assumes $5.4M RTC contract based on quote

– Includes ~ 6.9 work-years at industrial rates• NGAO assumes mostly in-house development

– Includes 6 extra work-years of labor vs NFIRAOS – NGAO hardware is based on quotes

• Need to add PSF RT boards ($100k should meet NGAO needs)– Vendor quotes to be obtained prior to PDR to better anchor our estimate

• Less complex systems for comparison:– NGWFC $2M, including $0.72M Microgate (3 RTC systems) subcontract– Gemini MCAO RTC subcontract was $0.88M– GPI $0.65M; PALM-3000 $0.60M

NFIRAOSNon-labor

($k) NGAONon-labor

($k)RTC design 2163 RTC vendor 480RTC construct 3245 FPGAs 375PSF RT boards 54 Interface boards 168RTC disk array 248 Equipment 45

Total = 5710 Total = 1067

NFIRAOS NGAORTC 3130 13779 -10649 0.23

CategoryLabor (hrs) NFIRAOS -

NGAONFIRAOS / NGAO

20

Laser Procurement Comparison

• Laser Differences– NFIRAOS assumes 3x 50W LMCT lasers quote

• $6M design & $8.4M construction in FY06• Reduced by ~ $1-2M at PDR by assuming fixed gravity vector

– NGAO assumes 2x 50W SOR-type lasers• NGAO estimate based on our previous experience trying to set up a company to build SOR-

type lasers for Gemini & Keck– FASORtronics recently set up to commercialize this laser

• We are participating in ESO’s call for laser preliminary designs– ROMs will be available within a month– A fixed price quote will be available at PDR (Aug/09)

• The SDR reviewers questioned whether 100W would be adequate for the highest order correction

– After re-assessment we believe that 100W has sufficient margin by a factor of at least 1.5

NFIRAOS NGAO NFIRAOS NGAOLaser 15575 5691 9884 2.7 0 3440 -3440 0.0

Laser Procurement

Non-labor ($k) NFIRAOS - NGAO

NFIRAOS / NGAO


NFIRAOS / NGAO

21

Laser System Comparison

• No major procurement differences ( > $1M)– TMT system physically larger

• Biggest difference is the launch facility labor– NGAO labor based on K1 LGS launch facility– NGAO asterism generator based on LGS WFS pick-off mechanisms

• NFIRAOS estimate may be somewhat conservative (CoDR level)• NGAO may be slightly optimistic

– Not obviously missing anything after comparison to NFIRAOS– At most could imagine adding 2 work-years to estimate

NFIRAOS NGAO NFIRAOS NGAOEnclosure 699 51 648 13.6 760 1224 -464 0.6Launch facility 1154 1340 -187 0.9 20496 3900 16596 5.3Safety systems 224 36 188 6.2 5384 1812 3572 3.0System control 397 126 271 3.1 17348 8105 9243 2.1

Total = 2474 1554 920 1.6 43988 15041 28947 2.9

Laser System Components


NFIRAOS / NGAO


NFIRAOS / NGAO

22

I&T Comparison

• NGAO has more labor in all but one category than NFIRAOS– NFIRAOS laser lab I&T includes a full off-telescope system test– NFIRAOS tel. I&T only covers to beginning of science commissioning

• ~ 25% of NGAO AO telescope I&T is for science commissioning

• NGAO estimate takes into account past experience with a detailed breakdown• Possibility that we are not comparing apples to apples

– NFIRAOS may cover some under system eng. & I&T contingency– NGAO assumes that each subsystem is complete & has met its requirements prior to lab I&T (presumably also

true for NFIRAOS)

NFIRAOS NGAO NFIRAOS NGAOAO lab I&T 0 113 -113 0.0 5526 8480 -2954 0.7Laser lab I&T 17 72 -55 0.2 4664 3126 1538 1.5Laser telescope I&T 0 40 -40 0.0 2528 4838 -2310 0.5AO telescope I&T 45 51 -6 0.9 5646 19160 -13514 0.3

Total = 62 276 -214 0.2 18364 35604 -17240 0.5

I&T Labor (hrs) NFIRAOS - NGAO

NFIRAOS / NGAOI&T Non-labor


NFIRAOS / NGAO

23

Contingency Comparison

NFIRAOS NGAOManagement 18% 7% 2.5System Eng 27% 16% 1.7AO System 36% 31% 1.2RTC System 46% 24% 1.9Laser System 28% 26% 1.1Laser 26% 19% 1.4I&T 32% 22% 1.4Component Dev 26% 0%Facility Mods 0% 23% 0.0

Total = 32% 22% 1.45

NFIRAOS / NGAOCategory

Contingency %

• Management & System Engineering: – 22% more NGAO labor pre-contingency– Both NGAO & NFIRAOS assume level of effort – Keck interfaces & telescope well known + 2nd generation AO system

• AO & Laser systems: Contingencies fairly close• RTC system: NFIRAOS at pre-CoDR study estimate, but have vendor quote

– 46% NGAO RTC contingency would require $300k more.

• Laser: NGAO 19% contingency too low. 50% would require $2M more.• I&T: NGAO plan has ~1.7x more labor excluding science commissioning• Contingencies generated using the same risk evaluation methodology

– Will evaluate whether applied adequately & consistently for NGAO

$7.7M NGAO contingency$22.0M NFIRAOS contingency

24

Conclusions

• NGAO is 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• NFIRAOS comparison was worthwhile for determining

confidence in NGAO estimate.– Methodology largely gave us reasonable system design estimates

• A cost review will be part of the NGAO PDR– We will include NFIRAOS PDR estimate comparison

Documents

NFIRAOS Cost Comparison