DESI Project Overview Henry Heetderks UCB Project Manager

DESI Project Overview Henry Heetderks (UCB) Project Manager

Outline • DESI System Overview — — — Science Requirements Block Diagram Instrument Requirements Key Performance Parameters Major Technical Challenges Descope Strategy • DESI Project Overview — — — Collaborating Institutions Participation Rules WBS showing major responsibilities Agency Org Chart DESI Project Org Chart • Risk Management • Cost and Schedule Summary — — — Level 1 and Level 2 Baseline Milestones Top Level Summary Schedule Cost Pie Chart by WBS showing % Cost Table by WBS showing base cost and contingency Funding Profile Table Funding Profile Graph • CD-1 Requirements • Summary 2

DESI System Overview

DESI Science Requirements (Level 1 science requirements) Requirement Threshold Objective < 1. 5% < 0. 8% Measure H(z) up to z=2. 5 with 2 error less than <2% <1. 2% 3 Constrain growth σ8(z) f(z) with relative error less than <3% <1. 5% 1 Measure distance scale error σ /R for 0. 5<z<3. 0 R 4 Measure galaxy power spectrum <1. 5% up to z=1. 5 with error less than <0. 8% 4

DESI Instrument Reference Concept • • • Scale up BOSS to a massively parallel fiber-fed spectrometer Stage-IV BAO and Power Spectrum, build upon BOSS Broad range of target classes: LRG’s, ELG’s, QSO’s Broad redshift range: 0. 5 < z < 1. 6, 2. 2 < z < 3. 5 Sky area: 14, 000 – 18, 000 square degrees Number of redshifts: 20 – 35 million Medium resolution spectroscopy, R ~ 3000 – 5000 Spectroscopy from blue to NIR Automated fiber system, Nfiber ~ 4000 – 5000 fiber actuators New 3. 2° field-of-view corrector New spectrographs Mayall 4 -m Telescope 5

DESI Instrument Block Diagram 6

Key Instrument Design Parameters (Subset of the Level 3 Instrument Requirements) Subsystem Parameter Value Corrector performance in Mayall telescope Focal Ratio f/3. 9 ave. FOV 3. 2 deg. Blur XX arc-sec Fiber Diameter 107 microns Throughput > 90% Resolution 360 to 660 nm: R>1, 500 620 to 840 nm: R>3, 000 800 to 980 nm: R>4, 000 Number of channels per spectrograph 500 Spectrograph performance Number of channels 5, 000 Fiber position error (all sources incl astrometry) <0. 35 arc-sec Overall System Throughput >12% 7

Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) define the scope and deliverables of the Project, and define successful completion (CD-4) for the Project. • Threshold KPP’s specify the minimum acceptable outcome for CD-4 • Objective KPP’s define the desired outcome for CD-4 Description of Scope Threshold KPP Objective KPP Corrector FOV 4 square degrees 8 square degrees Subsystem testing and delivery Tested and delivered in place; ready for transport to the Mayall Telescope Delivered to Mayall with installation into the telescope system Focal plane system 500 fiber positioners capable of <20 mm. 5, 000 fiber positioners capable of <10 mm Spectrograph system Two units, 3 -arm spectrograph Ten units, 3 -arm spectrographs, with installation at Mayall Instrument control system Data acquisition hardware & & software, Observation control system and database. DESI Pipeline demo with DESI Pipeline demonstrated with MOC data Offline system infrastructure 8

Major Technical Challenges • Design of high resolution wide field corrector • Development of compact, high accuracy, low power and high speed positioners for focal plane • Control of throughput and FRD in fiber • Development of techniques to produce a high accuracy focal plane structure • Development of spectrograph with sufficient resolution and throughput • Development of red-shift calculation pipeline • Minimizing cost of all instrument subsystems 9

Descope Options Considered • Reduce size (hence cost) of corrector — Result is support of fewer positioners (channels) — Decision has to be made at beginning of project — Cannot be reversed if additional support appears later in project • Reduce number of spectrographs manufactured — Number of positioners is also proportionally reduced — Can be done anytime until close to CD-4 delivery — Can be reversed if funding situation improves 10

DESI Project Overview

The DESI Collaboration currently comprises 34 Institutions • • • • • AAO Argonne Brazil Brookhaven Carnegie Mellon Univ. Durham EPFL ETH Zurich FNAL Harvard IAA Spain Kansas KASI LAM/CPPM Mexico NOAO New York Univ. • • • • • Portsmouth Saclay SJTU SLAC Spain Texas A&M The Ohio State Univ. College London UC Berkeley UC Irvine UC Santa Cruz U. Edinburgh U. Michigan U. Pittsburgh U. Utah USTC Yale 12

Institutional Participation is via “Buy-in” • Institutions participate by making a contribution to DESI following a paradigm developed by SDSS and BOSS • Nominal contribution is $200 K per senior research participant • Buy-in is capped at $950 K per university or institute • Contributions may be in cash or in-kind effort or equipment • In-kind contributions must address specific WBS items, and the offset value is set by the DESI project • The DESI project seeks to raise up to $20 M by this method • Full details defined in the DESI By Laws 13

Simplified Level 3 DESI WBS (1 of 3) WBS Nr. 1. 1 1. 2. 4 1. 2. 6 1. 2. 7 1. 2. 8 1. 3. 2 1. 3. 3 1. 3. 4 1. 3. 5 1. 4. 3 1. 4. 4 1. 4. 6 1. 4. 7 1. 4. 8 1. 4. 9 Description Management, System Engineering, QA, and Safety Corrector and ADC Assembly Lens procurement Lens cell procurement Mounting lenses in cells Mount lens cells in barrel Cage & Ring Assembly with Barrel Components Corrector Barrel Assembly Cage & Ring Assembly Hexapod Cage Electrical Controller and Interface Focal Plane System (FPS) Focal Plate and Associated Structure Thermal Enclosure & Control Equipment Positioner Production Fiber View Camera Guiders, Focus Sensors Illuminated Fiducials Major Responsibility LBNL University College London Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory LBNL IAA, Spain LBNL TBD Yale SLAC/Michigan LBNL 14

Simplified Level 3 DESI WBS (2 of 3) WBS Nr. 1. 5. 5 1. 5. 6 1. 5. 8 1. 5. 9 1. 5. 10 1. 5. 12 1. 6. 5 1. 6. 6 1. 6. 7 1. 6. 8 1. 6. 9 1. 6. 10 Description Fiber System with Spectrograph Slit Assembly Optical Fiber Splicing System Procurement and Training Fiber Spool Box Assy Fiber Cable Slit Assy Development Fiber Scrambler Spectrographs Demonstrator/Unit 1 Development Production Unit Subassemblies Procurement Production Units I&T Cryostats Detectors and Electronics Calibration System Major Responsibility Durham University / LBNL LAM / OHP / LBNL CEA Saclay LBNL Michigan 15

Simplified Level 3 DESI WBS (3 of 3) WBS Nr. 1. 7. 3 1. 7. 4 1. 7. 6 1. 7. 7 1. 7. 9 1. 7. 10 1. 7. 11 1. 8. 2 1. 8. 3 1. 8. 5 1. 8. 7 1. 8. 10 1. 9. 3 Description Instrument Control System (ICS) Databases Observation Control Guider, Focus, and Alignment Control Fiber Position Control System Image Processing Quick Look & Data Quality Assurance Framework Mayall Telescope Control System Interface Survey Planning & Data Systems Long Term Survey Planning Fiber assignment Data Reduction Pipeline Development Data Transfer, Archive, and Distribution Target Analysis Pipeline System Level Assembly, Integration, and Testing Mayall Preparation Major Responsibility Ohio State University New York University / Utah State University / LBNL NOAO 16

Agency Org Chart for DESI LBNL Project 17

DESI Project Org Chart 18

Risk Management and Contingency Calculation • Risk Management Plan developed and released — DESI-doc-324 — Risks categorized using a 4 X 4 matrix — Follows DOE practice used on previous LBNL projects • Risk Registry developed following extensive discussion between Level 2 managers and Risk Manager — DESI-doc-376 • Monte Carlo calculation shows need for $5. 507 M management reserve added to contingency to account for known risks • A detailed presentation of DESI risk methodology and current risks and mitigation will be given in the 19 Management Breakout

PM’s List of Leading Risks Risk description Prob. Impact Risk Level Mitigation/Response Foreign funding less than expected M M M Contingency, Drop to threshold KPP Corrector lens polishing takes longer than planned M M M Contingency and schedule float Accidental damage to lens L H M Contingency and schedule float DOE funding profile shifted to later years L-M M L-M Reduce scope Barrel late or accuracy not achieved L M L Contingency, Scope Lens coating failure L M L Contingency, Float Slit manufacture difficult L-M L L Early prototype Blue triplet bonding failure L L L Back up oiled design 20

Cost and Schedule

Simplified DESI Schedule 22

Summary Schedule from. MPP File 23

Summary Schedule from. MPP File 24

Reported Level 2 Milestones WBS Nr. 1. 4 1. 6 1. 7 1. 5 1. 9 1. 6 1. 8 1. 5 1. 4 1. 9 1. 2 1. 3 1. 4 1. 2 1. 7 1. 8 1. 6 Level 2 Milestone Actuator downselect Prototype detectors and FEE delivered to cryostat supplier ICD's for all of the subsystems controlled by the ICS released Bulk fiber in house All ICDs completed and approved Prototype spectrograph fully verified Data reduction pipeline preliminary version operating at scale First fiber cables with Spoolboxes fabrication complete First two Slitheads (with fibre from cable) fabrication – Focal plane structural and thermal equipment fabrication complete First batch of 500 positioners fabrication and verification with installed fiber Mayall facility improvements completed Polishing complete for corrector lenses C 1, C 4, ADC 1, and ADC 2 Lens Cell installation in barrel complete Guider tracker hardware manufacture and test complete Full assembly and verification of Ring, Cage, and barrel or prototype barrel Focal plane decapus assembly complete Lens installation into cells complete Lens alignment in barrel complete L 2: ICS Integration and Installation Complete Target analysis pipeline operational at scale Unit 2 -5 spectrographs fully assembled and verifiedpl Schedule Date Jun-14 Aug-14 Nov-14 Jan-15 Mar-15 Sep-15 Dec-15 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Nov-16 Mar-17 Jul-17 Sep-17 Oct-17 Dec-17 Jan-18 25

MIE Project FTE’s by Year DOE Computing Designer Engineer Management Scientist Technical Common Fund Engineer Management Scientist Technical Foreign Designer Engineer Management Scientist Technical NOAO Admin Computing Contract Engineer Management Technical Totals by Year (TY$K) 2014 19. 48 0. 58 0. 87 7. 41 1. 54 7. 80 1. 28 1. 01 0. 11 0. 01 0. 89 - 5. 64 0. 24 2. 25 0. 31 1. 66 1. 18 0. 45 - - - 0. 22 0. 23 - 26. 58 2015 28. 31 1. 30 2. 72 9. 37 1. 57 11. 27 2. 08 3. 14 0. 03 - 2. 98 0. 13 7. 62 0. 12 2. 74 0. 12 1. 17 3. 47 0. 94 0. 02 0. 25 0. 06 0. 25 0. 34 0. 02 40. 01 2016 30. 12 2. 82 0. 62 6. 19 1. 79 12. 58 6. 12 2. 86 0. 02 - 2. 80 0. 04 6. 34 0. 05 0. 81 0. 10 0. 82 4. 56 0. 11 - 0. 10 - 0. 01 - - 39. 43 2017 19. 44 2. 14 0. 07 3. 83 1. 78 8. 77 2. 85 1. 96 - - 1. 96 - 6. 63 0. 04 2. 73 0. 09 2. 10 1. 67 - - - - 28. 03 2018 3. 17 0. 39 - 0. 63 0. 38 1. 34 0. 43 0. 31 - - 0. 31 - 4. 12 - 1. 53 - 2. 34 0. 25 - - - - 7. 60 Total 100. 52 7. 23 4. 28 27. 43 7. 06 41. 76 12. 76 9. 28 0. 16 0. 01 8. 94 0. 17 30. 35 0. 45 10. 06 0. 62 8. 09 11. 13 1. 50 0. 02 0. 35 0. 06 0. 48 0. 57 0. 02 141. 65 26

MIE Funding Source by Year TY 13$K FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 3, 288 6, 984 9, 645 7, 880 579 28, 376 485 2, 910 5, 239 5, 296 153 14, 083 2, 803 4, 074 4, 405 2, 585 426 14, 293 Common Fund 2, 301 1, 430 498 3 4, 232 Material 2, 262 1, 263 449 1 3, 976 Work 39 167 49 2 257 Foreign 972 2, 831 5, 809 1, 736 630 11, 978 Material 354 1, 994 5, 039 908 40 8, 335 Work 618 837 770 828 590 3, 643 181 486 667 DOE Material Work NOAO Work Totals by Year 6, 742 11, 731 15, 951 9, 619 1, 209 Total 45, 253 27

DOE MIE Project Cost at Level 2 WBS by Year TY 13$K WBS 1. 1 1. 2 1. 3 1. 4 1. 5 1. 6 1. 7 1. 8 1. 9 Management, System Engineering, QA, and Safety Corrector and ADC Assembly Cage & Ring Assembly with Barrel Components Focal Plane System (FPS) Fiber System with Spectrograph Slit Assembly Spectrographs Instrument Control System (ICS) Survey Planning & Data Systems System Level Assembly, Integration, and Testing Totals without Contingency TEC TPC 188 2, 815 3, 699 77 32 2, 218 2, 307 1, 134 187 3, 216 3, 965 1, 000 1, 803 208 12 3, 022 3, 306 127 416 70 39 3 528 654 664 759 3, 245 5, 092 197 9, 293 9, 957 115 447 597 340 6 1, 390 1, 504 161 193 474 718 75 1, 460 1, 621 217 244 489 349 66 1, 146 1, 363 3, 288 6, 984 9, 645 7, 880 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 884 911 845 872 88 1, 120 989 749 1, 895 284 579 25, 088 28, 376 28

Contingency Analysis • Total Contingency is comprised of two components — Cost estimate contingency — Risk contingency (developed from Monte Carlo analysis on risk registry) • Cost estimate contingency determination — Estimated material and labor costs from Level 2 managers are entered into the resource loaded schedule developed in MS Project — Level 2 managers generate Basis of Estimate (BOE) sheets at WBS level 3 which document the process used to develop costs — Each level 3 material and labor cost is classified according to a table into which the maturity of the design or cost is entered — Standard contingency values are assigned for each level 3 material and labor cost based on the chosen maturity classification 29

Labor Contingency Rules L 1 Completed 0% L 2 Level of Effort 20% L 3 Done Before 25% L 4 Conventional Design 32% L 5 Conceptual Idea 40% L 6 Not Defined Yet 60% 30

Materials Contingency Rules M 1 Completed 0% M 2 Recent Firm Quotes (<1 yr) 12% M 3 Firm Quote (sole or <2 yr) 20% M 4 Preliminary Design 32% M 5 Conceptual Design 50% M 6 Novel Fabrication 60% M 7 Pre-Conceptual Design 85% 31

Contingency Analysis on DOE Funding (first sheet) WBS Name Material Work Total Material contingency Level % 1. 1. 1 Project Mgr & Support Staff 1. 1. 2 System Engineering 1. 1. 3 Travel, Supplies and Expenses Collaboration Meetings and 1. 1. 4 Reviews 1. 1. 5 Milestones and Reviews 1. 2. 1 Corrector Activities Mgnt Corrector baseline dev’t and 1. 2. 2 performance characterization Lens manufacturing plan 1. 2. 3 development 1. 2. 4 Lens procurement 1. 2. 5 Lens Coating Development 1. 2. 9 Full optical test k$ 2, 359, 9, 011 M 2 12% 0 231, 1, 332 M 2 12% 0 826, 142 M 2 12% 99137 98, 227 M 2 12% 11787 184, 121 M 2 12% 22094 271, 1, 657 M 4 32% 0 23, 3, 199 M 4 32% 0 4, 4, 641 M 4 32% 0 1, 353, 267 M 2 12% 162392 614, 156 M 3 20% 122831 38, 8, 652 M 5 50% 0 Labor contingency Level % k$ L 1 0% 0 L 2 20% 0 L 2 20% 54331 L 4 32% 7424 L 4 32% 1485 L 3 25% 0 L 6 60% 23191 32

Contingency Analysis on DOE Funding (last sheet) 0 L 6 1. 8. 3 Fiber assignment - - M 2 12% Interface with Nightly 23, 1. 8. 4 Operations 538 M 2 12% 0 L 6 Data Reduction Pipeline 616, 1. 8. 5 Development 567 M 2 12% 0 L 6 Large Scale Structure 1. 8. 6 Catalog (mksample) - - M 2 12% 0 L 6 353, Data Transfer, Archive, 935 M 2 12% 0 L 6 1. 8. 7 and Distribution Data Systems 75, 1. 8. 9 Integration 932 M 2 12% 0 L 6 250, 281, 531, 1. 8. 10 Target Analysis Pipeline 000 160 M 2 12% 30000 L 6 1, 005, 1. 9. 1 AI&T Management 683 M 2 12% 0 L 6 282, 357, 75, 136 704 M 2 12% 9068 L 6 1. 9. 3 Mayall Preparation 568 Totals 14, 063, 659 14, 292, 824 28, 356, 482 21% 3, 000, 042 ave Total Material Labor TPC Total contingency is $8, 181, 586 which is 29% of TPC contingency on Material 60% 0 60% 14123 60% 369940 60% 212361 60% 45559 60% 168696 60% 603410 60% 169281 36% 5, 181, 543 ave Total contingency on Labor 33

DESI Proposed DOE Budget Profile • • • Base cost comes directly from the resource loaded MS Project schedule Total Contingency is $8, 182 K from Cost BOE calculation plus $8, 507 K from the risk Monte Carlo for a total of $16, 689 K Total contingency is allocated by year to level funding profile TY$K FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17 FY 18 TOTAL 3, 050 4, 100 4, 500 2, 600 500 14, 750 150 2, 900 5, 100 5, 300 13, 550 3, 200 7, 000 9, 600 7, 900 600 28, 300 Contingency 200 1, 500 4, 600 6, 300 1, 100 13, 700 Grand Total 3, 400 8, 500 14, 200 1, 700 42, 000 Labor Materials Total Base 34

CD-1 Requirements

CD-1 Documents Status • • All key deliverables have been completed AQ & PPEP has been reviewed by DOE site office, OPA and HEP Program Office and is ready for final signatures CD-0 Approve Mission Need Acquisition Strategy (AQ) Preliminary Project Execution Plan (PPEP) Appointment of the Federal Project Director (FPD) Integrated Project Team (IPT) Approved Risk Management Plan Developed Conceptual Design Complete Conceptual Design Review in Process Conceptual Design Report Submitted to DOE Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report Prepared Develop and Implement an Integrated Safety Management Plan Established Preliminary Quality Assurance Program (QAP) Identified general Safeguards and Security requirements for the recommended alternative Completed National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Strategy by issuing a determination (i. e. , EIS, EA) Conducted Independent Project Reviews or External Independent Review Update PDS, or other funding documents for MIE and OE projects, and OMB 300 s, if applicable. 36

CD-1 Readiness • • • All CD-1 criteria have been met Instrument designs are at or beyond conceptual design and meet technical requirements Baseline documents (functional, design, cost & schedule) developed and in place Programmatic WBS Dictionary - scope of project defined Risk Registry – risks defined and managed Cost Estimate – detailed Basis of Estimates developed Schedule – resource loaded approaching CD-2 maturity Long lead procurements defined Management plans drafted Technical Requirements & interfaces defined Corrector Requirements Focal Plane, Positioner, and Fiber Requirements Spectrograph Requirements Internal Interfaces In Process Technical design maturity exceeds CD-1 requirement (Conceptual Design) & provides sufficient information to develop a solid cost estimate range Design Reviews on Corrector and Spectrograph 37

Summary • • Strong and experienced technical staff Key personnel and management staff have been identified Scope is well defined and organized. DOE deliverables are clearly defined, and interfaces are mature for this stage of the project Designs are mature and have been successfully reviewed by external panels Project risks are well defined and are actively being mitigated Detailed cost estimates have created a robust cost range Resource loaded schedule has been developed and leveled — Schedule is logically linked to support leveling per funding agency guidance — Start EVMS at CD-2 to help manage the collaboration • Major near term Milestones & Events — Begin fabrication of prototype spectrograph (Under way!) — Initiate corrector fabrication via foundation funding (Q 2 -14) — Actuator downselect (Q 3 -14) 38