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
Canary 3-4 Development $112K
Canary 5-6 Development $124K
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 15
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 17
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 18
CSF Re-scope (-$97K)
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.
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 19
CSF Re-scope (-$97K)
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 20
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 21
OCS Re-scope (-$111K)
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 22
OCS Re-scope (-$111K)
3. Remove final language selection & scripting
– Savings:
• $50K (4 months)
– Impacts:
• No improvements to scripting support
– Achievability:
• FY2014; OCS finishes 4 months early
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 23
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 24
DHS Re-scope (-$359K)
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 25
DHS Re-scope (-$359K)
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 26
DHS Re-scope (-$359K)
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 27
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.
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 28
TCS Re-scope (-$317K)
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 29
TCS Re-scope (-$317K)
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 30
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 31
ICS Re-scope (-$125K)
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 32
ICS Re-scope (-$317K)
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 33
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
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 34
CSS Re-scope (-$111K)
2. Use only one camera frame grabber
– Savings:
• $64K (6 mo)
– Impacts:
• Limits the camera choices
– Achievability:
• FY2013
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 35
CSS Re-scope (-$111K)
3. Support external camera triggering only
– Savings:
• $124K (12 mo)
– Impacts:
• Instrument developers must provide triggers
• Less stability in camera systems
– Achievability:
• FY2012
1/10/12 ATST All-Hands Meeting – Jan 2012 36
Top Related