What Requirements Drive NGAO Cost?
description
Transcript of What Requirements Drive NGAO Cost?
What Requirements Drive NGAO Cost?What Requirements Drive NGAO Cost?
Richard DekanyRichard Dekany
NGAO Team MeetingNGAO Team Meeting
September 11-12, 2008September 11-12, 2008
2
Presentation Sequence
• Laser power cost/benefit• Specific requirements
– 50% EE in 70mas for 30% sky coverage– 170 nm RMS WFE for 10% sky coverage– 140 nm RMS WFE for bright NGS (goal?)– High-contrast LGS observations– Precision astrometry and photometry
• Add’l cost saving ideas• Proposed WFE budget assumption changes• Conclusions
3
WFE budget changes (based on SDR and post-SDR feedback)
• Reduce Na column density to 2 x 109 atoms/cm2
– Approximately the 25% percentile column density
• Increase multi-WFS tomographic error propagator– Multi-LGS centroid error is ~ 0.85 x the centroid error for a single
beacon• Former ratio was 1/sqrt(NLGS) = 0.5 for NLGS = 4 (0.41 for NLGS = 6)
– Required power to reach ~0.1” rms centroid error (all noise sources included)
• 1 beacon = 25W (spigot)• 6 beacons = 137W (spigot) ~ 5.5x the 1 beacon power
• Found and fixed a bug in the sky background calculation– Was using an IR band sky background in the HOWFS– Correction somewhat offsets the above increases to required laser
power
4
NGAO lasers
• Currently most expensive component procurement– SDR WBS 5.2
• Total Cost $FY087,289K for 2 x 50W ‘SOR-Type’ Lasers– Reduced from ~$FY088,925K for 3 x 50W (to realize ~$1,637K savings for SDR)
• Greatest technical and programmatic risk– Commercial availability of such a laser is uncertain
– Estimated savings of buying less laser power may not be realizable due to NRE costs
• Technical assumptions at SDR– 75 W launched
– 66.1 W reaching Na layer
– 150 ph/cm2/sec/W return model (questioned at SDR)
– ~10,000 ph/cm2/sec total return from all beacons
5
NGAO WFE vs. Laser Photoreturn
NGAO Performance vs. Photoreturn
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Relative photoreturn(1 = baseline; 150 ph/cm2/s/W, 100W, 4e9 cm-2 Na)
H-Strehl
N = 64 KBON = 32 KBON = 64 Gal Gal LensN = 32 Gal Gal Lens
6
Requirement Drivers
• 50% EE in 70mas for 30%+ sky coverage– Strongly depends on MOAO for IR TT stars
• Typically >60% H EE vs. < 30% H EE w/o MOAO– Can generally reduce patrol range when using MOAO, compared to SCAO TT
star correction (Need to revisit FoR requirement)
– Weakly depends on PnS
– Weakly depends on Nactuators
– Weakly depends on Flaser return, WFS noise
– Moderately depends on NLGS, Rasterism
7
Requirement Drivers
• < 170 nm HO WFE for 10% sky coverage (includes KBO, Gal Center science cases)
– Doesn’t depend on MOAO for IR TT stars
– Doesn’t depends on PnS
– Weakly depends on Nactuators
• N=40 nearly as good as N=48 for 25W SOR return
– Moderately depends on Plaser , WFS noise
• 25W SOR return (meas err 61 nm w/ Nact = 48) better than 20W LMCT (meas err 84nm w/ Nact = 38)
– Strongly depends on NLGS, Rasterism
• NLGS = 3 --> 93nm on 20” radius asterism vs. NLGS = 1 --> 143nm
• NLGS = 3+1 --> 85nm on 20” radius
• Conspiracy of error budget terms, however, makes holding 170nm difficult & 190nm more likely obtainable
8
Requirement Drivers
• < 140 nm HO WFE for bright NGS (goal?)– Doesn’t depend on MOAO for IR TT stars
– Doesn’t depends on PnS
– Strongly depends on Nactuators for mV = 6
• N=64 (atm fit 48nm, total 111nm) vs. N=40 (atm fit 71nm, total 121nm)
– Weakly depends on Nactuators for mV = 9
• N=64 (atm fit 48nm, total 136nm) vs. N=40 (atm fit 71nm, total 134nm)
– Moderately depends on WFS noise (for NGS mV = 9)
– Doesn’t depends on NLGS, Rasterism
9
Requirement Drivers
• Exo-Jup LGS (High-contrast LGS science)– Doesn’t depend on MOAO for IR TT stars
– Doesn’t depends on PnS
– Strongly depends on Nactuators
• Correction of semi-static errors critical
– Moderately depends on Flaser return, WFS noise, compute latency
– Strongly depends on NLGS, Rasterism
• NLGS = 3 gives err tomo 93nm on 20” radius asterism (3+1 85nm)
– Strongly depends on (currently undescribed) instrument-integrated static speckle calibration system
10
Requirement Drivers
• Precision Astrometry and Photometry– Weakly depends on MOAO for IR TT stars
– Weakly depends on PnS
– Moderately depends on Nactuators
• To keep Strehl up
– Moderately depends on Flaser return, WFS noise, compute latency
• To keep Strehl up
– Strongly depends on NLGS, Rasterism
• To keep Strehl up
– Strongly depends on accurate Cn2(h,t) sensor
• Note– Compared to Keck 1 LGS, even RMS WFE of 220nm would give a
significant improvement in photometry and astrometry
11
Add’l cost saving ideas
• For more modest # of actuators (N = 40 - 52)– Eliminate 2nd relay in the science path
• Saves: MEMS DM cost, MOAO calibration, risk mitigation, go-to error terms, science transmission losses
• Costs: Increased 1st relay size, loss of MOAO bandwidth benefit
• Reduce the size of 1st relay– Use only N = 10 - 14 in 1st relay
• Saves: 1st optical relay costs• Costs: Less 1st relay correction of LGS & dIFS science, some increase in
saturation errors (need to evaluate in detail, but probably not large)
12
Investigation Summary (starting point, not the end word)
• NLGS = 3 (or 3+1) sufficient for all but d-IFU instrument– 50 W of SOR-type laser return would largely meet goals, when balanced with other
system parameters• e.g Nsubap & frame rate, system transmission, CCD noise
• Rasterism = 20” (fixed) appears sufficient for 10% sky coverage– Rasterism = 40 to 50” (fixed) preferred for 30% sky coverage
• Nactuators = 40 sufficient for all but high-contrast science• Flaser return = 25W of 150 ph/cm2/W/sec sufficient for all but high-contrast
science– Assumes CCID56 success, excellent laser beam quality– New indications from LAOS simulations that tomography error propagator much
higher than expected for NLGS > 1 implies 50W baseline prudent• PnS concept appears DoA in light of this - would require purchase of additional lasers for
patrolling LGS
• By Implication:– All but high-contrast works with Nactuators ~ 40 probably workable in the ‘Large
Relay’ architecture w/o Science Path MOAO (but with IR TT MOAO)• Consider design of semi-static high-order ‘calibration DM’ into NGAO NIR imager to
emphasize its role as the LGS high-contrast instrument