Internal
Document Number AOW/MAN/AJL/4.7/10/97/ELECTRA-NAOMI Milestones
Version
date 16/10/97, based on Project Plan
version NAOPL997_2.MPP
|
Milestone |
|
Due Date 11/07/96 |
Due Date 15/01/97 |
Due date 20/06/97 |
Due date 15/10/97 |
Achieved Date |
Reason for delay |
|
Single
actuator DM test |
D |
25/03/96 |
25/03/96 |
08/03/96 |
08/03/96 |
08/03/96 |
|
|
E0
DM 10 segment soak test |
D |
30/07/96 |
11/10/96 |
11/10/96 |
11/10/96 |
11/10/96 |
Effort
not available |
|
ELECTRA
WFS cam. delivery |
D |
09/08/96 |
17/01/97 |
20/01/97 |
20/01/97 |
20/01/97 |
Contractor
late delivery |
|
EEV
chip delivered |
D |
15/08/96 |
22/08/96 |
22/08/96 |
22/08/96 |
22/08/96 |
|
|
tip-tilt
mirror tested* |
D |
14/09/96 |
31/01/97 |
14/02/97 |
14/02/97 |
14/02/97 |
|
|
E0
first light |
D |
15/10/96 |
20/04/97 |
18/06/97 |
18/06/97 |
18/06/97 |
Revised
definition of E0 Late
delivery of WFS |
|
E0
performance assessment |
D |
28/10/96 |
01/06/97 |
24/07/97 |
24/07/97 |
|
“ “ |
|
Supervisory
software Architecture Des. complete |
C |
28/10/96 |
28/04/97 |
28/04/97 |
28/04/97 |
28/04/97 |
Still
preliminary as ING sys. architecture not fixed |
|
o-m-c
PDR |
E |
01/11/96 |
13/03/97 |
23/04/97 |
23/04/97 |
23/04/97 |
Staff
changes; additional work on calibration unit; tighter PDR definition |
|
WFS
PDR |
C |
13/12/96 |
19/02/97 |
19/02/97 |
19/02/97 |
19/02/97 |
Revised
WFS design |
|
system
review (1) |
A |
06/01/96 |
23/05/97 |
29/08/97 |
22/09/97 |
22/09/97 |
Delay
to E0; changes in infrastructure assumptions; Modified to detailed progress
report |
|
Sup.S/ware
prototype N-A built |
C |
24/01/97 |
03/06/97 |
01/08/97 |
31/01/98 |
|
Waiting
for WHT Software Architecture development |
|
OMC CDR |
E |
14/03/97 |
21/08/97 |
09/09/97 |
07/11/97 |
|
Delayed
PDR; lack of electronics effort |
|
NAOMI
WFS CCD delivery |
C |
- |
- |
13/10/97 |
12/12/97 |
|
|
|
NAOMI
WFS CDR |
C |
11/04/97 |
11/09/97 |
14/11/97 |
17/12/97 |
|
Re-design
to meet WFS spec latency with existing cam. |
|
E1
closed loop DM accept |
D |
23/05/97 |
01/08/97 |
?? |
20/05/98 |
|
E0
delay: Durham grant delay. New
timescale awaiting feedback from E0 |
|
E1
lab acceptance |
D |
13/06/97 |
22/08/97 |
?? |
03/06/98 |
|
See
above |
|
system
review (2) |
A |
30/06/97 |
06/11/97 |
16/02/98 ? |
02/04/98 |
|
|
|
E1
can be at telescope |
D |
04/07/97 |
12/09/97 |
05/12/97
? |
17/06/98 |
|
E0
delay etc. New timescale awaiting feedback from E0 |
|
E1
performance evaluation |
A |
08/08/97 |
17/10/97 |
12/01/97
? |
22/07/98 |
|
See
above |
|
OAPs
delivered |
E |
01/09/97 |
21/02/98 |
23/02/98 |
06/08/98 |
|
Latest
quote gives 5 month delivery, instead of 3 months |
|
Stubbed
system software tests prototype N-B |
C |
24/12/97 |
05/01/98 |
15/03/98
?? |
31/08/98 |
|
Provisional
pending further architecture definition |
|
NAOMI
WFS build complete |
C |
06/03/98 |
29/04/98 |
15/09/98 |
13/10/98 |
|
Funding
profile changes |
|
OMC
stand-alone accept |
E |
13/03/98 |
01/09/98 |
21/06/99 |
05/03/99 |
|
Reduction
in stand-alone testing period, as expected after PDR. |
|
NAOMI
timing prototype N-C complete |
C |
10/06/98 |
26/06/98 |
?? |
26/03/99 |
|
Very
provisional, pending further architecture information |
|
WFS
acceptance |
C |
15/06/98 |
31/08/98 |
24/02/99 |
11/01/99 |
|
|
|
NAOMI
Full Lab. Integration starts |
A |
03/07/98 |
10/09/98 |
05/04/99 |
06/04/99 |
|
|
|
Full
Lab. Integration complete |
A |
25/09/98 |
18/01/99 |
30/07/99 |
12/08/99 |
|
|
|
NAOMI
First Light |
L |
14/11/98 |
05/03/99 |
22/08/99 |
14/09/99 |
|
|
The design reviews held so far have proved the ideas for NAOMI are sound.
The following list itemises the main reasons for delays. Some items have significant delays from the last plan, but only those relevant to ELECTRA and software prototyping are crucial, as the ELECTRA development and the top-level software are now the critical path items. There is about one month slack in other areas relative to this.
Overall delays have been caused by the following.
1. Neither of the two cameras most likely to be available for the NAOMI WFS met the full latency specifications for NAOMI. A new option, to use two CCDs and bin pixels orthogonally in each CCD, has been evaluated and adopted to overcome this problem. The new option enables NAOMI to employ the new standard cameras to be adopted by ING while meeting NAOMI specifications.
2. System reviews are further delayed because of (a) the delay to E0; (b) uncertainties in the infrastructure requirements at GHRIL; (c) lack of electronics effort
3. Software planning has been hampered by continued uncertainties in the architecture to which NAOMI must interface. To recover (partially) from this the NAOMI internal architecture is now more tied to that of ELECTRA; the differential work in going from ELECTRA to NAOMI has been minimised, which should allow some flexibility in handling NAOMI development while the WHT architecture is determined and problems with DRAMA are evaluated and solved or by-passed.
4. Delays to E0 have occu rred because it took longer to solve some real-time control problems than was anticipated.
5. Delays to E1 are because of a combination of delay in delivery of the final verison of the WFS camera, the delay in awarding the Durham NAOMI grant and the delay to E0.
6. Some additional delay is being caused by modifications to the funding profiles (June 1996). The current plan has a funding profile which is slightly delayed from that agreed in June, mostly because of the phasing of payments in the Durham grant but also because of a longer than expected delivery time on the OAPs.