NGAO:

Cost Comparison with First Light TMT AO

Peter Wizinowich, Richard Dekany, Don Gavel

with input & review by Brent Ellerbroek
SSC Meeting
November 3, 2008

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
2

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).
3

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

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

5

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
6

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

1st Gen 30m AO

2nd Gen 8-10m AO

1st Gen 8-10m AO
Upgrades

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

8

Major Differences between NFIRAOS & NGAO

NGAO (below) roughly

to NFIRAOS (left) scale

9x4x3m
(blue) box
3.8 m
9

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:

Conclusions:
Modest contingency
increase likely needed
Need quote for new laser
No significant adjustments
required - differences
largely understood

10

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

11

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

12

> $1M

WBS Category Comparison

> 5 wy

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
13

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
14

LGS WFS Assemblies

Each lens is ~ 0.4m in
diameter
Six zoom assemblies;
18 mechanisms

3.1
m

Entire assly is
~ 0.5 x 0.5 m

Note: NFIRAOS PDR design corrects each WFS individually

15
> ~ $1M savings in lens costs compared with aspheric CoDR design

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

18

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

19

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

We are participating in ESOs 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

20

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

21

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)

22

Contingency
Comparison
$7.7M NGAO contingency
$22.0M NFIRAOS contingency

Management & System Engineering:

22% more NGAO labor pre-contingency
Both NGAO & NFIRAOS assume level of effort
Keck interfaces & telescope well known + 2 nd 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

23

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
24