Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology AFTA Coronagraph Recommendation Process...

Jet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of Technology

AFTA Coronagraph Recommendation Process

Gary Blackwood, Exoplanet Exploration Program ManagerJet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology

EXOPLANET EXPLORATION PROGRAM ANALYSIS GROUP #8, Denver CO

October 5, 2013

1Copyright 2013 California Institute of Technology. Government sponsorship acknowledged

ExoPlanet Exploration Program

2

AFTA Coronagraph Recommendation

Why: In response to NASA Administrator’s guidance, and Astrophysics Director’s Implementation plan, AFTA must produce a compelling and viable mission concept including coronagraph within guideline budget and schedule for• 2015 Mid-decadal review• FY17 potential new mission start

What:• Use limited funds to focus design and technology investments• Technology funds for AFTA will be directed not competed• Choose primary and backup coronagraph technology

AFTA = Astrophysics-Focused Telescope Asset


3

Background

• January 6 2013: ExoPAG#7 endorses coronagraph for AFTA• May: Steering Group formed by Program Office to anticipate possible follow-up

actions to Administrator briefing• May 30: NASA Administrator gives permission for AFTA pre-formulation

activities including a coronagraph• June 20: AFTA Coronagraph Working Group (ACWG) Charter signed by NASA

Headquarters, identifying Members.• July 23-25: AFTA Coronagraph Workshop (ACW)#1 held in Princeton• Aug-September: Instrument Team builds analysis tools for comparative

analysis. Advocates produce designs• September 9,10: AFTA Science Definition Team (SDT) meeting• September 16: Initial briefing by Program and Study Office to Technology

Analysis Committee (TAC) • September 25-27: ACW#2 held at JPL

– Preliminary science requirements and evaluation criteria established• October 5: Briefing to ExoPAG#8 on AFTA Coronagraph by Program Office


4

Approach to Recommendation

• Objective: Recommend a primary and backup coronagraph architecture to focus design and technology development leading to mid-decadal review and new mission start

• Recommendation by ExEPO and ASO based on inputs from– SDT: Sets the science requirements– ACWG: Delivers technical FOMs and technology plans

> Aim for the positive: a consensus product> SDT delivers science FOMs

– TAC: Analysis of technical FOM, TRL readiness plans, and risks

• ExEPO and ASO recommendation to APD Director based on:– Technical and Programmatic– Musts (Requirements), Wants (Goals), and Risks– Distinguish description from evaluation

• APD Director will make the decision

ACWG = representatives of ExEPO, ASO, SDT, Community

How do we define a successful outcome?

FOM = Figure of Merit

TAC:Alan Boss (Carnegie Mellon)Joe Pitman (EXSCI)Steve Ridgway (NOAO)Lisa Poyneer (LLNL)Ben Oppenheimer (AMNH)


5

ACWG Membership

• These represent Program, Study Office, SDT, and Community:

• Additional consultants participate at request of Steering Group

Members:Jeremy Kasdin (Princeton U)Mark Marley (NASA ARC)Marc Clampin (NASA GSFC)Olivier Guyon (UofA)Gene Serabyn (NASA JPL)Stuart Shaklan (NASA JPL)Remi Soummer (STScI)John Trauger (NASA JPL)Marshall Perrin (STScI)Feng Zhao (NASA JPL)Rick Lyon (NASA GSFC)Dave Content (NASA GSFC)Mark Melton (NASA GSFC)Cliff Jackson (NASA GSFC)John Ruffa (NASA GSFC)Jennifer Dooley (NASA JPL)Mike Shao (NASA JPL)

Workshop Organizers:Gary Blackwood (NASA JPL)Kevin Grady (NASA GSFC)Peter Lawson (NASA JPL)

Steering Group:Scott Gaudi (OSU)Neil Gehrels (NASA GSFC)Dave Spergel (Princeton U)Tom Greene (NASA ARC)Chas Beichman (NExScI)Jeff Kruk (NASA GSFC)Karl Stapelfeldt (NASA GSFC)Wes Traub (NASA JPL)Bruce MacIntosh (LLNL)

Charter


6

Recommendation Criteria:Defining a Successful Outcome

MUSTS (Requirements): Go/No_Go

1. Science: Does the proposed architecture meet the baseline science drivers?

2. Interfaces: For the baseline science, does the architecture meet telescope and spacecraft requirements of the observatory as specified by the AFTA project (DCIL1)

3. Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Gates: For baseline science, is there a credible plan to be at TRL5 at the start of FY17 and at TRL6 at the start of FY19 within available resources?

4. Is the option ready in time for this selection process?

WANTS (Goals): Relative to each other, for those that pass the Musts:

5. Science: Relative strength of science beyond the baseline

6. Technical: Relative technical criteria- See details

7. Programmatic: Relative cost of plan to meet TRL Gates

RISKS and OPPORTUNITIES

- See details1DCL = Dave Content Interface List


7

Option Space

• Six architectures being considered:1. Shaped Pupil Kasdin2. PIAACMC Guyon/

Belikov3. Hybrid Lyot Trauger4. Vector Vortex Serabyn5. Visible Nuller – DAVINCI Shao6. Visible Nuller Coronagraph– Phase-Occulted Lyon

• Some hybrids may emerge through the design process – in order to best satisfy the success criteria


8

Evaluation Criteria


9

Product of ACWG:Comparative Analysis

CoronagraphAdvocates

ASO Coronagraph Instrument Team

ExEPO Chief Technologist

SDTDesigns Technical FOM

Science FOM

TRL Assessment

TechnologyPlans

Sensitivities / Other

Optical Model

Science Baseline Requirements

SDT

TAC ExEPOASO

APD DD

Decision

An

aly

sis

Recom

men

dati

on

FOM = Figure of MeritASO = AFTA Study OfficeExEPO = Exoplanet Exploration Program Office

You Are Here

Technology Manager

TechnologyDescription

Plan Viability


10

Top-Level Schedule

FY13 FY14

July August September October November December January

Milestone Completed Milestone Review Completed Review

Rev. 10/3/2013

Coronagraph Architecture Prioritization Top Level Schedule

ACWG Events

SDT Baseline & Threshold Reqmts

Advocates Optical Designs Technology Plans TRL AssessmentsCoronagraph Instrument Team Simulations Sensitivities

ExEPO Chief Technologist TRL Assessment

TAC

ExEPO / ASO ExEPO/ASO Recommendations to APD Briefing to HQ HQ Decision HQ's Annoucement at AAS

ACW #1at Princeton

ACW #2at JPL

ACW #2.5(Telecon)

ACW #3TBD Location

12/6

ACWG FinalBriefing to TAC

8/8 8/21

8/28

9/4

9/13 9/23

10/2

10/910/30

ExoPAG at Denver

SDT Meeting at GSFC 10/2 Science FOM #1

10/30Science FOM #2

9/24Draft

9/30Prelim

9/30 Prelim10/22

Final

9/25 Prelim11/5

Final

11/11Final

10/29Prelim

11/21 Final

10/28Prelim

9/25 Prelim 11/21 Final

9/1610/2

BriefTAC

10/30BriefTAC

BriefTAC

12/6

Deliver Analysisto ExEPO & ASO

12/13

12/13

12/31

1/7

23-25th 25-27th 24-25th

5-6th

Telecons

TBR

GlossaryACWG - AFTA Coronagraph Working GroupACW - AFTA Coronagraph WorkshopTFOM - Technical Figure of MeritSFOM - Science Figure of MeritTRL - Technology Readiness LevelSDT - Science Definition TeamTAC - Technology Analysis Committee

9-10th

21-22nd

21-22nd


Acknowledgements

This work was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.© 2013. All rights reserved.

11


12The technical data in this document is controlled under the U.S. Export Regulations, release to foreign persons may require an export authorization.

BACKUP


13

AFTA Coronagraph Workshop (ACW) Series Charter


14

AFTA Coronagraph Workshop (ACW) Series Charter

Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology AFTA Coronagraph Recommendation Process...

Documents

Transcript of Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology AFTA Coronagraph Recommendation Process...