1 / 28

Aspen Program Proposal for Science Committee Meeting June 2005

Detailed overview of Aspen program recommendations, budget, and instrument selection for Gemini Science Committee Meeting in 2005. Key decisions, financial commitments, and future plans discussed by the Board.

dennisyoung
Download Presentation

Aspen Program Proposal for Science Committee Meeting June 2005

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. Aspen Program Proposal Gemini Science Committee Meeting June 2005

  2. Since the Previous GSC Meeting… • Presented various Aspen program packages to the Board that fit within the budget previously defined by the GFC ($75M) • Made down-select recommendations to the Board as a result of the ExAOC and HRNIRS design study reviews in March • Carried forward the recommendations of the WFMOS and GLAO review committees

  3. From the Board Resolutions • “The Board compliments the Observatory on the thorough review process carried out by the selection boards and review teams assembled to assess the design and feasibility studies for the Aspen instruments.” • “The Board also notes the comments of the GFC with regard to the integrity of the process by which cost estimates were arrived at for the Aspen instruments and the level of financial commitment identified by the agencies at the GFC meeting to provide a sum of $75M over the five-year period 2006-2010 as a target for planning purposes.” • The Board reaffirmed its commitment to provide $75M to fund the Aspen program and expressed its confidence in the integrity of the review process

  4. From the Board Resolutions • “The Board endorses the Director’s selection of teams based on the HRNIRS and ExAOC design studies, and notes the review team recommendations to proceed to the Conceptual Design Review phase for GLAO and WFMOS.” • Hence all 4 primary components of the Aspen program remain viable from the Board’s perspective, going into this GSC meeting • Down select results: • LLNL + its collaborators won the competition for the ExAOC • PI Bruce Macintosh • NOAO/UF won the competition for HRNIRS • PI Taft Armandroff

  5. From the Board Resolutions • “The Board also accepts the recommendation of the WFMOS review team that WFMOS proceed only if it can be implemented on Subaru.” • If we proceed with the WFMOS conceptual design studies, we will only pursue the Subaru deployment option, as explored by AAO and their collaborators in their WFMOS feasibility study • These conceptual designs will be managed collaboratively between Gemini and Subaru, as a precursor to how we will jointly manage building the instrument

  6. From the Board Resolutions • “The Board asks the Director to bring the options for instrumentation packages that fall within the budget planning envelope and his recommended instrumentation plan to the GSC. The Board anticipates that the GSC will provide recommendations to the Director concerning how well various packages achieve the high priority Aspen science goals, discuss whether plans for phasing are optimum, and consider ways to maintain options for Aspen instruments that are not yet in conceptual design phases.” • The various options presented to the Board, including that recommended by the Observatory, will be presented to the GSC today…

  7. From the Board Resolutions • “The Board urges the GSC to engage in its discussions and formulate its recommendations for the Director as soon as possible. The Board expects to meet by telecon to consider the Director’s final recommendation in the timeframe of approximately one month.” • This set the timeframe for this GSC meeting, and given the complications of assembling everyone on short notice, the e-format of this meeting • We need to emerge from this GSC meeting with a consensus of how we should proceed with the Aspen program

  8. Tying it All Together into theAspen Program…

  9. Cost Summary • Building 30% cash contingency into each component of the Aspen program yields a total cost of ~$100M • ExAOC - deployed in Chile, replacing NICI • HRNIRS - deployed in Chile, fed by MCAO • WFMOS - deployed on Subaru • Assumes 50% cost sharing of WFMOS with Subaru and WFMOS costs extend into 2013 • Facilities Upgrade - 2 new A&G units + ASM to yield GLAO system in Hawaii • Assuming a $75M budget for the Aspen program, we have a ~$25M shortfall so hard choices remain before us • Removing the GLAO system from this list only cuts the overrun in half, so we must choose between ExAOC, HRNIRS, and WFMOS

  10. Some Considerations While Building 4 “Packages” • Using a nominal cash flow as defined by the GFC, and cost projections from the various Aspen studies, 4 packages have been defined which fall within the $75M total cost envelope • Some packages still remain cash-flow “challenged” even if they total <$75M through 2010 • In general 2006-07 are the leanest years in terms of cash availability • Due to the time critical deployment of ExAOC (VLT competition), packages including this instrument have cash-flow forward-biased, thereby consuming essentially all available 2005 money for ExAOC, precluding HRNIRS startup this year • Per report at previous GSC, cost of UNB filters for FLAMINGOS-2 and GSAOI and use of TEXES at Gemini-N is affordable within overall budget so appears in all “packages” developed • Have explored a hybrid model for HRNIRS as part of this analysis…

  11. HRNIRS • This is a complex instrument providing 3 modes that will require 6 years to develop • R=70k 1-5 µm single-slit natural seeing spectrometer • Precision RV spectrometer using above mode plus wavelength fiducials and high stability to support terrestrial planet searches • R=30k MCAO fed MOS capable of targeting ~18 objects simultaneously • Assuming 2006 startup, expect 2012 completion, hence we will be unable to execute any of the HRNIRS portion of the Aspen science mission for a long time

  12. Proposed Solution to Long HRNIRS Development Time… • Split HRNIRS into 2 separate instruments • Remove 1-5 µm single-slit and precision RV modes working at R~70k • This leaves - • MCAO fed MOS providing all MOS functions as proposed by NOAO • Also have 1-2.5 µm simultaneous coverage of up to ~3 sources simultaneously at R~30k • Use cost savings to help fund a fast-track bench mounted JH fiber fed R~70k precision radial velocity spectrometer (PVRS)

  13. Proposed Solution to Long HRNIRS Development Time… • PRVS undoubtedly a lower risk and faster-track approach to enabling planet searches than either HRNIRS proposal supported • Non-cryogenic since it only needs to work through H-band • Gravity stable environment since bench mounted • Leaves us with two teams developing less complex instruments • Possibly deploy PRVS at Keck? • Only J and H needed for RV survey of late type stars, so low emissivity at Gemini isn’t a significant sensitivity boost compared to Keck’s larger aperture • 2-5 m performance would suffer though! • Time swap with Keck may significantly reduce the demand at Gemini for telescope time to conduct a large scale PRV survey - consistent with one of the benefits of putting WFMOS on Subaru • Due to relatively simple optical interface, could explore deployment on other telescopes as well during study phase

  14. Proposed Solution to Long HRNIRS Development Time… • HRNIRS review committee was reconvened via telecon shortly before previous GSC meeting to discuss this - • General endorsement of the concept as a means of moving ahead with a key science capability (terrestrial planet search) several years faster than would be possible with full-up HRNIRS • Chris Tinney has assessed the science impact of losing 2-5 µm R=70k spectroscopy, in the context of the science cases discussed at Aspen • If endorsed, this instrument would be re-competed with design studies completed in 2006 and deployment nominally ~3 years later • If bundled with ExAOC, this option would enable a comprehensive terrestrial plus Jovian-class planet search program starting in ~2009

  15. UNB Filters 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Integrated Program Timeline (1) Begin First Light Survey with FLAMINGOS-2 Order Filters

  16. Integrated Program Timeline (1) UNB Filters FP Filter Begin First Light Survey with FLAMINGOS-2 Start Tunable Filter Fabrication 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

  17. Integrated Program Timeline (1) UNB Filters FP Filter TEXES Begin 1 year deployment on Gemini Begin Modifications to work on Gemini 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

  18. Integrated Program Timeline (1) UNB Filters Deploy at GS FP Filter TEXES ExAOC Negotiate contracts and begin work Begin Exo- Planet Survey 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

  19. Integrated Program Timeline (1) UNB Filters FP Filter New A&G’s Deployed ASM (Static) Commitment to GLAO made depending on CoDR Results TEXES GLAO ExAOC GLAO Begin Build Phase Mauna Kea Ground Layer Turbulence Measurements Begin CoDR, phased with ramp-down of MCAO deployment 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

  20. Integrated Program Timeline (1) UNB Filters FP Filter TEXES ExAOC GLAO HRNIRS Begin project after negotiating contract in 2005 Delivery to CP after 6 year development period 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

  21. Cash Flow for Various Scenarios (1)

  22. Integrated Program Timeline (2) UNB Filters Begin Terrestrial Planet Survey FP Filter Begin Design Study TEXES PRVS ExAOC GLAO 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

  23. Integrated Program Timeline (2) UNB Filters FP Filter TEXES PRVS ExAOC GLAO MCAO-MOS Begin project after negotiating contract in 2005 Delivery to CP after 6 year (?) development period 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

  24. Cash Flow for Various Scenarios (2)

  25. Integrated Program Timeline (3) UNB Filters FP Filter TEXES PRVS Begin Design Studies ExAOC Begin Build Phase Deploy on Subaru 2013 GLAO WFMOS AO for Design Studies Commit to build after CoDR 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

  26. Cash Flow for Various Scenarios (3)

  27. Integrated Program Timeline (4) UNB Filters FP Filter TEXES PRVS GLAO MCAO-MOS WFMOS 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

  28. Cash Flow for Various Scenarios (4)

More Related