Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System

PS2: Managing the Next Stepin the Pan-STARRS Wide Field Survey System

William S. Burgett Pan-STARRS Project Manager

Pan-STARRS Wide Field High Resolution Survey System

• Time domain astronomy → “Rapid Response” needed for follow-up

– Transient objects, e.g., Supernovae– Moving objects– Variable objects

• Static sky science– Stack (co-add) repeated scans to form ultra-deep static

sky images

• Pan-STARRS PS-4 system concept― Four 1.8m R-C + corrector lenses

• Distributed aperture concept yields ~4m capability• Simpler fabrication, reduced cost compared to larger

monolithic system → less risk (wide field optics already difficult enough!)

– 7 deg2 FOV per telescope, 4 1.4 Gigapixel cameras– Sited in Hawaii (excellent site characteristics)– A ~ 50 m2 deg2

– R ~ 24 in 30 s integration → 7000 deg2/night– All sky + deep field surveys in g, r, i, z, y and w filters

Pan-STARRS Development and Evolution

• Design, development, infrastructure, and testing(2003-2006)

• PS1– Integration and Commissioning

(2006 – 2008, 2009)– 3.5 year mission (2010 – 2013)

• PS2, PS1+2 (2009 – 2014+)– Improved telescope/optics– Improved camera/CCDs– Multiple tel/cam control

• PS-4– Development and

Construction (2014 – 2017)– PS-4 10-yr Mission (2017-2026)

TC 3 360 Mpix

GPC 1 1.4 Gpix

GPC 1, 2, 3, 45.6 Gpix

GPC 1 & 2 2.8 Gpix

PS1 + PS2

Management Basics

• Buy-in to the management plan– Requires commitment at all levels above and below project manager– Most reasonable plans can succeed if there is buy-in– Without buy-in, even the “perfect” plan will fail

• Successful project execution is TEAM sport

• Successfully and efficiently managing any project requires tight organization– Well-defined authorities, roles, responsibilities, and work plan

• Successful project execution is TEAM sport– Good documentation

Management Basics

• Buy-in to the management plan– Requires commitment at all levels above and below project manager– Most reasonable plans can succeed if there is buy-in– Without buy-in, even the “perfect” plan will fail

• Successful project execution is TEAM sport

• Successfully and efficiently managing any project requires tight organization– Well-defined authorities, roles, responsibilities, and work plan

• Successful project execution is TEAM sport– Good documentation – Common mistakes and misunderstanding

• “If the other person/team isn’t doing it, why should I/we?”• “Do you want product/progress or do you want documentation?”• “All we need to do is maintain Wiki pages.”• “We can wait to write the documentation until we have everything else done.”

Management Basics

• Buy-in to the management plan– Requires commitment at all levels above and below project manager– Most reasonable plans can succeed if there is buy-in– Without buy-in, even the “perfect” plan will fail

• Successful project execution is TEAM sport

• Successfully and efficiently managing any project requires tight organization– Well-defined authorities, roles, responsibilities, and work plan

• Successful project execution is TEAM sport– Good documentation

• “If the other person/team isn’t doing it, why should I/we?”• “Do you want product/progress or do you want documentation?”• “All we need to do is maintain Wiki pages.”• “We can wait to write the documentation until we have everything else done.”

– Configuration management– Communication

• Two-way street both vertically and laterally

Acronyms/AbbreviationsEIS: Environmental Impact StatementIPP: Image Processing PipelineMOPS: Moving Object Processing SWA&E: Architectural & EngineeringObs/Tel: Observatory & TelescopeOCS/TCS: Obs/Tel Control SWDB: DatabaseDev Sup: Development SupportEng Sup: Engineering Sup

Pan-STARRS Organization (as of 2009)

Business OfficeAdmin/Fiscal Lead

IPP SubsystemLead

Principal Investigator

Project Management OfficeProject Manager

Deputy Project Manager (vac)Chief Engineer & Test Manager (vac)

OCS/TCS SubsystemLead

DB SubsystemLead

SW Dev SupSubcontractor

Science Design CommitteeProject Scientist (Chair)

A&ESubcontractor

ConstructionSubcontractors

Eng SupIfA Instr Div &Subcontractor

FiltersSubcontractor

OpticsSubcontractor

Tel StructureSubcontractor

DetectorsSubcontractor

ShuttersSubcontractor

Eng SupIfA Instr Div

Obs/Tel SubsystemLead

Civil Construction OfficeConstruction Manager

Camera SubsystemLead

MOPS SubsystemLead

EIS & PermittingSubcontractor

Pan-STARRS Subsystems

Image Processing Pipeline:Processes the pixels and finds the objects in the images

Publishes Science Products Subsystem:Ingests the data and serves it to the user

Observatory, Telescope, & Instrumentation SW: Controls the System

Moving Objects Processing SW: Calculates orbits for SS objects

Management Basics

• Buy-in to the management plan– Requires commitment at all levels above and below project manager– Most reasonable plans can succeed if there is buy-in– Without buy-in, even the “perfect” plan will fail

• Successful project execution is TEAM sport

• Successfully and efficiently managing any project requires tight organization– Well-defined authorities, roles, responsibilities, and work plan

• Successful project execution is TEAM sport– Good documentation – Common mistakes and misconceptions

• “If the other person/team isn’t doing it, why should I/we?”• “Do you want product/progress or do you want documentation?”• “All we need to do is maintain Wiki pages.”• “We can wait to write the documentation until we have everything else done.

– Configuration management– Communication

• Managing expectations– Providing transparency to team and sponsors, – Initially setting realistic goals– Maintaining the discipline to avoid requirements/scope creep

Pan-STARRS: An Academically-based Science Project

• Academically-based projects requiring initial R&D leading to a production or operations end goal often have some unique challenges

• Management tools such as Earned Value (EV) very useful for controlling management issues and assessing performance, but …

– Difficult to implement when R&D is a major component of the SOW– Requires significant commitment from those providing the inputs

• Regardless of management plan and tools, never allow “the perfect to be the enemy of the good enough”

– Not as easy as it sounds!

• Pan-STARRS management– Well known to Air Force Research Laboratory sponsor (AFRL)

• Plan subject to direct oversight and approval• Frequently reviewed

– Not as well known outside AFRL sponsor • Has been subject to some anecdotal, often inaccurate comments or

perceptions– Several reviews by external advisory committees

Principles of Risk Management

• Risk Management– Assessment– Control– Mitigation– Quantitative foundations, but

nearly impossible to eliminate all subjectivity

• Risk categories– Technical– Schedule– Budget

• Consequence and Probability of Occurrence Levels used for Pan-STARRS

– Low– Medium– High

Impact Risk Matrix

High LH MH HH

Med LM MM HM

Low LL ML HL

Consequence Prob. of Occur. Low Med High

Impact Risk (or simply, Risk)

• Consequence of adverse event weighted by probability of occurrence• Common to have related sequence of low consequence, low probability events pose a High cumulative risk• Often adequate to approximate Risk above to Low, Medium, and High

Primary Factors Creating Risk

• Budget– Technical component or features not mature so require development or repair

beyond that planned– Poor schedule estimates– Unknown costs, i.e., no work element with associated costs for material, fabrication,

equipment, or personnel

• Schedule– Unknown tasks– Poor estimate of duration

• Technical– Poor design– Initial design validation revealing problems– System HW does not perform properly– Lack of tools to test and analyze performance– Requirements/scope creep

PS2 Risk Assessment: Overview

• The Technical and Schedule risks for PS2 are simply not the same as for PS1– Same experienced team for PS2 that designed & commissioned PS1– Commissioning tasks known and necessary tools now exist– Most significant risk reduction factor for PS2 was successfully completing PS1

• Low Technical risk for the overall system concept and performance – Designs are mature and validated by PS1 system performance plus the known

characteristics of the PS2 as-builts

• Low Schedule risk for the telescope and associated testing through at least SAT– Virtually all long lead fabrication will be complete by January 1, 2013– Serious delays now unlikely in the final delivery of the telescope structure– Machine shop hours, engineering, and construction material contingency for relatively

minor additional fabrication

PS2 Risk Assessment: Overview (contd.)

• Medium Schedule risk for GPC2– Unavoidable delays in some areas of electronics fab/assembly due to funding

slowing– Delays in CCD delivery now producing noticeable adverse consequence

• Overall technical performance still looks promising – Remove GPC2 from Telescope SAT critical path (CP) by using 16-OTA TC3

• Other Schedule contingencies– 75 days in the schedule for weather, installation, integration, and commissioning

delays• Weather contingency based on 10-year historical Haleakala meteorological data

– Substantial schedule contingency has been included for SW tasks

Lessons Learned from PS1

• The overall Pan-STARRS design was validated and is sound – It is not always sufficiently appreciated or is forgotten that so many aspects of

the PS1 design were completely new, and yet PS1 works as designed for the most part

– The design is tightly coupled to the specified capability requirements

• The deviations in PS1 performance from the capability requirements and goals are mostly due to fabrication issues, not design issues

– Some important design iterations for PS2 to further improve performance

• Complete fabrications and development prior to commissioning– Staffing critical mass

• We learned what needed to be improved for PS2 and how to do it

PS2 Improvements Relative to PS1

• Better telescope (provided by AMOS of Liège, Belgium)– Actively cooled drives with increased performance margin, – Cooled primary mirror assembly (PMA)– Better M2 support– A stiffer truss providing increased margin against vibration– Better M1 figure control utilizing 36 active figure controllers (PS1 has 12)– Improved cable wrap (balanced and powered)– Better overall reliability not only due to intrinsic design but better quality control of as-

built components– Better accessibility for more efficient maintenance and repair

• Better optics– Full aperture testing critical

• Better filters

• Significant reduction of ghosting and scattered light

AMOS PS2 Telescope on Factory Floor in Liège

AMOS PS2 Telescope

PS2 Improvements Relative to PS1• Better CCDs (provided by MIT Lincoln Laboratory)

– Reduced “burn trails/persistence”– Reduced defects – Improved CTE– Reduced/eliminated amplifier glow– Eliminated corner problem– Reduced device cross talk by using only 2-phase devices– Better AR coatings – Increased full well – Improved linearity

• Better package and mounting to FP

• Better camera electronics – Reduced cross talk with new cable routing – Reduced read noise– Improved thermal control

• Mature image processing due to the efforts of the SW engineers on the PS1 Science Consortium team

PS2 Milestone Schedule as of October 2012• The on-site delivery of the telescope structure Mar 2013

• The on-site delivery of the 16-OTA TC3 camera Mar 2013

• Completion of the optics & instrument integration with the telescope Apr 2013

• The Site Acceptance Testing (SAT) of the telescope May 2013

• The start of post-SAT telescope commissioning, i.e., testing that does Jun 2013not involve direct participation by the telescope vendor

• The on-site delivery and integration of GPC2 Jul 2013

• The return of GPC2 Oahu for final tuning early Oct 2013– Includes focal plane metrology to match the physical detector

surface to the actual optical focal surface determined from the preliminary collimation and alignment

– Possible replacement of some devices, if necessary

• Subsequent return of GPC2 to the summit mid Nov 2013

• Final collimation and alignment Nov-Dec 2013

• The successful simultaneous operation of PS1+PS2 using OTIS Dec 2013

• Beginning of science operations Jan 2014

Summary

• We are confident that the PS2 system will perform noticeably better than PS1, and that commissioning will proceed much more efficiently than for PS1

• We are not over-confident with respect to our costs or schedule– We fully recognize that unanticipated issues will arise, and some of those may incur

delays or added expense• Case in point: 2-month delay by UH in securing approval and availability of funds

for observatory renovations– We monitor, attempt to control, and revise as necessary full WBS and schedule often

to incorporate updates, identify risk points, prepare contingencies• Much more informal than formal process for Pan-STARRS

• As of October 2012, the critical path to operational readiness is GPC2 completion due to CCD delivery schedule

– MIT Lincoln Laboratory fabrication schedule remains challenging• Has shown commendable commitment and effort to produce devices that will be

significant upgrade to those used in GPC1• Unfortunately, Schedule Risk now Medium so necessary to begin executing

contingency plan– Telescope SAT will be conducted with 16-OTA TC3