high-level software (ocs/dhs/ics/tcs/css/csf)...tcs cost contract management $1,127k osl contract...

High-Level Software (OCS/DHS/ICS/TCS/CSS/CSF)

Bret Goodrich, Steve Wampler, John Hubbard, Bruce Cowan, Chris Berst, Erik Johansson

10 January 2012

Software Costs

System Cost Request Completion

Common Services Framework $647K $655K FY2018

Observatory Control System $743K $743K FY2016

Data Handling System $2,396K $2,444K FY2017

Telescope Control System $2,110K $1,957K FY2016

Instrument Control System (1) $838K $182K FY2016

Camera Control System (2) $743K $948K FY2015

Totals $7,477K $6,929K ($-548K)

1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 2

1. CR-0068 addresses issue of unfunded hire. 2. CCS budget was originally ICS budget, hence the higher request. 15% reduction is a new budget of $6,355K (cost) or $5,890K (request)

CSF Costs

Total

Panguitch Development $39K

Canary 1-2 Development $80K



Lake 1 Development $64K

CSF Construction Support $227K

Total $647K

¼ FTE during FY 2016-2018

CSF Risks

Pre Mitigation

Risk

Post Mitigation

Risk

Risk Item

Seri

ou

sne

ss

Like

liho

od

Gra

de

Seri

ou

sne

ss

Like

liho

od

CSF-01 C++ development lags (lack of resources) M M 3 M L

OCS Costs

Total

OCS Hardware $90K

Scripting $99K

Experiments $85K

Facilities $191K

End-to-end Simulator $126K

Site Integration $96K

Management $53K

Total $743K

½ FTE during FY 2012 and part of FY 2013

OCS Risks

Pre Mitigation

Risk

Post Mitigation

Risk

Risk Item

Seri

ou

sne

ss

Like

liho

od

Gra

de

Seri

ou

sne

ss

Like

liho

od

OCS-01 New user interface specifications M H 4 L M

OCS-02

Engineering archive performance – not all systems are developed enough to establish accurate estimates of typical/maximum loads.

H L 3 M L

OCS-03 Operational mode script performance – OCS cannot run at the rates required by some scripts

M L 2 L L

OCS-04

Support for Instrument tab developers– developers cannot build their parameter interfaces as required

M M 3 L L

DHS Cost

Management $52K

Mini-DHS Design & Development $654K

Mini-DHS Equipment $110K

Development & Testing $416K

Equipment—System $92K

Equipment—Camera Line 1 $49K

Equipment—Camera Lines 2-5 $171K

Equipment—GPU $710K

Instrument Support $141K

Total $2,396K

DHS Risks

Pre Mitigation

Risk

Post Mitigation

Risk

Risk Item

Seri

ou

sne

ss

Like

liho

od

Gra

de

Seri

ou

sne

ss

Like

liho

od

DHS-01 Data processing – GPUs cost more than VBI estimates

H M 4 M L

DHS-02 Processing plugins are not written in Java, C++, or IDL

H M 4 H L

DHS-03 Data rates and/or volumes go up on instruments H M 4 H L DHS-04 More bandwidth required to the base facility H H 5 M M

TCS Cost

Contract Management $1,127K

OSL Contract $712K

OSL Contract Option Phase 4 $52K

OSL Contract Option Phase 5 $95K

Site Hardware $4K

Site Integration $171K

Total $2,110K

TCS Risks

Pre Mitigation

Risk

Post Mitigation

Risk

Risk Item

Seri

ou

sne

ss

Like

liho

od

Gra

de

Seri

ou

sne

ss

Like

liho

od

TCS-01 Some subsystem ICDs are delayed M H 4 L H

ICS Cost

Master Clock and TRADS $10K

Management $59K

Final Design $82K

Base Components $88K

Standard Instrument Framework $42K

Observation Management System $99K

Simple Instrument $85K

User Interfaces $66K

Final Construction $172K

Instrument Support $133K

Total $838K

ICS Risks

Pre Mitigation

Risk

Post Mitigation

Risk

Risk Item

Seri

ou

sne

ss

Like

liho

od

Gra

de

Seri

ou

sne

ss

Like

liho

od

ICS-01 Facility instruments don't implement all facility standards

H M 4 H L

ICS-02 Script performance is not sufficient H L 3 L L

ICS-03 Inter-instrument coordination becomes synchronization

H L 3 M L

ICS-04 Support additional hardware controllers H H 4 L H

CSS Cost

Design $83K

Simulator $117K

Beta Development $156K

Integration $86K

Final Development $221K

Hardware $80K

Total $743K

CSS Risks

Pre Mitigation

Risk

Post Mitigation

Risk

Risk Item

Seri

ou

sne

ss

Like

liho

od

Gra

de

Seri

ou

sne

ss

Like

liho

od

CCS-01 Non-real-time system H M 3 H M

CCS-02 Selection and control characterization of cameras

M M 3 M L

Software Staff Profile

FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016 FY2017 FY2018

SW Engr 1

ICS ICS

ITC ITC

SW Engr 2

CSF CSF CSF 1/2

TCS TCS 1/2

ITC ITC

SW Engr 3

OCS OCS OCS 1/4

CSF CSF 1/4

ITC ITC 1/2

SW Engr 4

DHS DHS

ITC ITC

SW Engr 5

TCS TCS

ITC ITC

SW Engr 6

CCS CSS

ITC ITC


Software Re-scope

• Labor is dominating cost: $6.238K (83%)

– Without DHS GPUs: (92%)

• 15% reduction ≈ 6-10 months work reduction

– Depending upon duration of work

– This leaves a staffing profile gap between construction and IT&C

• Reduction in work is beneficial for new work

– Quality Assurance/Quality Control

– Transition to operations 1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 16

Software Costs

System Cost Reduction Results

Common Services Framework $647K $97K $550K

Observatory Control System $743K $111K $632K

Data Handling System $2,396K $359K $2,037K

Telescope Control System $2,110K $317K $1,793K

Instrument Control System $838K $125K $713K

Camera Software System $743K $111K $632K

Totals $7,477K $1,122K $6,355K


CSF Re-scope (-$97K)

1. Drop the Canary 5-6 release

– Savings:

• $124K * 75% = $93K

• Need to keep 25% staffing for problem support

– Impacts:

• Loss of advanced features, improvements, bug fixes

• One year gap in labor to IT&C

– Achievability:

• FY2013 work means TCS subsystem work is advanced



2. Drop the Lake release

– Savings:

• $64K * 75% = $48K

• Need to keep 25% staffing for problem support

– Impacts:

• Loss of site-specific CSF installation and next generation

• Six month gap in labor to IT&C

– Achievability:

• FY2014 work means TCS subsystem work is advanced.



3. Drop C++ Support

– Savings:

• ~ $50K

– Impacts:

• Loss of coding versatility; restrict partners to Java

• Move TCS and CCS C++ code to Java

– Achievability:

• Advance 50% TCS work to 2014

• Likely to cost more in TCS, CCS, and inst development


OCS Re-scope (-$111K)

1. Drop the end-to-end simulator

– Savings:

• $90K (6 months)

– Impacts:

• Loss of testing framework

• Loss of interaction with scientists/operators

– Achievability:

• Immediate; OCS finishes 6 months early



2. Remove Facility User Interfaces

– Savings:

• $90K (6 months)

– Impacts:

• Operators use engineering screens

• Loss of automation and integration

• Loss of alarms; no improvements in health monitor

– Achievability:

• FY2015; OCS finishes 6 months early



3. Remove final language selection & scripting

– Savings:

• $50K (4 months)

– Impacts:

• No improvements to scripting support

– Achievability:

• FY2014; OCS finishes 4 months early


DHS Re-scope (-$359K)

1. Eliminate some GPU Hardware

– Savings:

• $360K (keeps two GPUs for VBI red & blue)

– Impacts:

• Reduced speckle processing rate (through the night)

• Already considered as part of instrument re-scopes

– Achievability:

• Immediate



2. Eliminate C++ and IDL Plug-in ability

– Savings:

• $50K (4-5 months)

– Impacts:

• All data processing/quality assurance in Java only

• Loss of some legacy processing algorithms/experience

– Achievability:

• Immediate



3. Eliminate some physical camera lines

– Savings:

• $50K per line (up to 4)

– Impacts:

• Limited number of simultaneous cameras

• Other services may be reduced (header, Q/A, data processing)

– Achievability:

• FY2016 at purchase of summit hardware



4. Elimination of the DHS

– Savings:

• ~ $1,500K

– Impacts:

• No summit data processing or quality assurance

• All instruments must provide storage and display

• Multiple storage software systems and formats

– Achievability:

• Immediate

• Large additional costs placed on instrumentation


TCS Re-scope (-$317K)

1. Eliminate Phase 4 & 5 Options

– Savings:

• $147K

– Impacts:

• No TMA-TCS integration testing at Ingersoll

• No TCS integration with OCS, TMA, and ECS at site.

– Achievability:

• FY2015 & FY2016

• The TCS vendor can do this work better and cheaper than ATST.



2. Elimination of subsystem work

– Savings:

• $124K (1 year: FCS—4 mo, ACS—2 mo, FOCS—6 mo)

– Impacts:

• No acquisition or facility control systems

• No feed optics control system

– Achievability:

• FY 2014

• Will probably need to implement some simpler variant of the feed optics control system



3. Cancel the TCS contract

– Savings:

• $130K (remaining TCS work)

– Impacts:

• ATST will complete the beta/final release & integration

• No manpower for TCS subsystem work (FCS, FOCS, ACS)

– Achievability:

• February 2012 (after delivery of the ephemeris service)

• Vendor can perform the work better and cheaper


ICS Re-scope (-$125K)

1. Eliminate Partner Development Support

– Savings:

• $133K (15% over 5 years)

– Impacts:

• Partners get limited development support

• Makes IT&C harder and more likely to have integration troubles.

• No new standard software (drivers, controllers, etc)

– Achievability:

• Immediately



2. Reduce Work on A Simple Instrument

– Savings:

• $64K (6 months)

– Impacts:

• No instrument pattern for developers

• No further interface development/testing for OCS & ICS

• No test instrument for end-to-end simulator

– Achievability:

• FY2012



3. Remove Final ICS Construction

– Savings:

• $172K

– Impacts:

• No instrument integration activities

• No last version of ICS with construction updates

• Most of this work will be moved to IT&C

– Achievability:

• FY 2014-5


CSS Re-scope (-$111K)

1. Eliminate Camera Simulator

– Savings:

• $125K (15% over 5 years)

– Impacts:

• No end-to-end simulator camera for ICS and DHS tests

• CCS development requires dedicated hardware camera

– Achievability:

• FY2012



2. Use only one camera frame grabber

– Savings:

• $64K (6 mo)

– Impacts:

• Limits the camera choices

– Achievability:

• FY2013



3. Support external camera triggering only

– Savings:

• $124K (12 mo)

– Impacts:

• Instrument developers must provide triggers

• Less stability in camera systems

– Achievability:

• FY2012


high-level software (ocs/dhs/ics/tcs/css/csf)...tcs cost contract management $1,127k osl contract...

Documents