![](media/image1.wmf){width="2.1222222222222222in"
height="0.7326388888888888in"}

Final Report

Director's CD-1 Review

of

the DES-DECam Project

July 25 -- 27, 2006

This page intentionally left blank

Table of Contents

[Executive Summary 5](#__RefHeading___Toc142461459)

[1.0 Introduction 8](#__RefHeading___Toc142461460)

[2.0 Technical 9](#__RefHeading___Toc142461461)

[2.1 Science Requirements 9](#__RefHeading___Toc142461462)

[2.2 Focal Plane Detectors and CCD Camera (WBS 1.2 and 1.5.2)
12](#__RefHeading___Toc142461463)

[2.3 Readout Electronics and Survey Image System Process Integration
(SISPI) (WBS 1.3 and 1.6) 16](#__RefHeading___Toc142461464)

[2.4 Optics, Opto - Mechanics, Survey Planning and Integration (WBS 1.4,
1.5, 1.7, and 1.8) 23](#__RefHeading___Toc142461465)

[3.0 Project Management (WBS 1.1) 29](#__RefHeading___Toc142461466)

[3.1 Cost 29](#__RefHeading___Toc142461467)

[3.2 Schedule 32](#__RefHeading___Toc142461468)

[3.3 Management 35](#__RefHeading___Toc142461469)

[4.0 Charge Questions 37](#__RefHeading___Toc142461470)

[Appendices 39](#__RefHeading___Toc142461471)

[DES-DECam's Project Cost Estimate 40](#__RefHeading___Toc142461472)

[Charge for the Director's CD-1 Review 41](#__RefHeading___Toc142461473)

[Agenda 44](#OLE_LINK4)

[Report Outline and Reviewer Writing Assignments
47](#__RefHeading___Toc142461475)

[Reviewer Assignments for Breakout Sessions
48](#__RefHeading___Toc142461476)

[Reviewers' Contact Information 49](#__RefHeading___Toc142461477)

[Participant List 51](#__RefHeading___Toc142461478)

[Table of Recommendations 53](#__RefHeading___Toc142461479)

This page intentionally left blank

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461459 .anchor}Executive Summary

Technical

The science of DES directly addresses Dark Energy properties and will
lead to significant advances in this emerging and important field.  The
scientific requirements have been formulated, and the DECam instrument,
as operated on the Blanco Telescope, is fully capable of providing the
data needed to undertake the science.  The technical team is excellent. 
The project is aggressively moving ahead on several R&D fronts.  Areas
of cost and schedule risk are already well known to the DECam team and
are being addressed.  The cost range seems reasonable based on the cost
of other large focal plane arrays.  The schedule could be paced by the
delivery, characterization and testing of working CCD\'s.  For several
reasons, we urge that the project continue to place a high priority on
2010 for commissioning DECam on the Blanco Telescope.  We expect that
our recommendations will help the team with a successful CD-1 review.

Focal-Plane Detectors

Sixty-two large CCD\'s are to be processed at LBNL and packaged and
tested at Fermilab and used in the focal plane; additional packaged
devices will serve as spares.  These are fully-depleted devices with
high QE at 1 micron, which allows meeting the key DES goals of detecting
galaxies at high redshift. Several engineering-grade devices have been
produced, packaged, and tested, exercising most of the steps in the
production.  The LBNL infrastructure for DES is largely shared with that
related to the SNAP project.  Excellent progress has been made at 
Fermilab to set up the packaging and testing systems in the R&D phase. 
The general approach appears to be sound, but the CCD\'s are on the
critical path and there are very few of these devices working in an
astronomical environment.  The eventual yield is uncertain; the project
plan allows for a 19% yield.  It would be prudent to include an
additional lot of wafers in the baseline, with yet another lot held in
the contingency.   The testing of the engineering CCD\'s is proceeding
well, but additional FTE will be required to handle the full production
rate of packaged devices.

Front-End Electronics

The CCD control and read-out system will be a modified version of
Monsoon to enable higher density (more channels per board), to drive
more clocks,  and to provide for an S-Link optical connection.  The
front-end electronics have been separately reviewed and we agree that
Monsoon, and the proposed upgrades, comprise a sensible path.  An
equivalent system will be used for testing the detectors prior to the
assembly of the focal plane.  The boards will be fabricated in Spain as
part of an in-kind contribution to the project, substantially reducing
the MIE costs.  The group in Spain has already been deeply involved in
the R&D effort.

Optics

The optical design achieves the scientific requirements and has already
been separately reviewed.  Partners have been added to DES since the
June 2004 review who have greatly enhanced the depth of experience in
working with optics of this kind, and who have also brought resources
for the purchase of the optics.  The fabrication of the optics is on the
critical path, but there do not appear to be major technical risks.  
The filters are large but several vendors appear to be willing to bid. 
The costs are well constrained by comparable fabrication projects.  The
committee supports proceeding with selecting vendors for the lens
material as soon as possible.

Opto-Mechanical System

The opto-mechanical system includes the structure that connects the
prime-focus optics to the telescope top-end, and the camera with its
cooling system.  It also includes the shutter, the filter exchange
mechanism, the guiding system, and the active optical alignment system. 
The prime focus cage carries the f/8 secondary mirror and thus the
opto-mechanical system must provide for any attitude.  The stiffness
inherent in the design appears to be very good.  The hexapod concept
provides the needed control to align the prime-focus optics with the
primary mirror.  Combined with the sensing system, the hexapod appears
to be a sensible path to pursue, but we note that the combination of
required precision of control and moving mass is beyond what has been
done so far in astronomical telescopes.  Construction of a prototype
camera vessel to test multi-CCD performance also allows several
mechanical tests and is overall an excellent step to take.  The
procurement of parts for the prototype camera vessel has helped in the
cost estimation for the camera itself.  This WBS element contains many
sub-systems.  The baseline of \$4.1M appears to be generally reasonable.
More engineering manpower may be needed to meet the schedule.

Survey Image System Process Integration

The SISPI task combines the control of the DECam (filters, shutter,
monitoring) with the data acquisition, and with the telescope control
system (guiding and active optics) and with other ancillary systems.  It
includes provision for substantial computing on the mountain, a novel
facility for CTIO.  The SISPI task includes interfaces between all three
parts of the DES project (DECam, the Data Management system, and CTIO
infrastructure). SISPI is still in a rudimentary stage of design.  The
project has determined that several FTE\'s are required for the design
and construction, but so far the resources to hire these individuals
have not been identified.  The skill mix needs to include several
Computing Professionals in addition to postdocs and graduate students. 
The baseline includes \$126k for hardware.  We do not have enough
information to comment on schedule.

Survey Planning

The scientific goals lead in a natural way to a general plan for how the
observations are conducted, leaving what appears to be significant
latitude for tuning.  The team has substantial experience with the
conduct of the SDSS and is well equipped to undertake the task of
deriving a detailed observing strategy from the scientific requirements,
given the performance of the instrument, both as planned and as
operating.  In some instances the reasons for choosing between certain
trade-offs were not clear to the committee.  This may be partly because
the scientific and technical requirements need to be refined and
tightened.  For example, one of the technical specifications is that no
less than 5% of the focal plane should be inactive.  However, if the
choice were between not observing and observing with some inoperative
detectors, we assume the latter option would be adopted.  Moreover, if
sub-standard detectors were used in the focal plane, in principle this
could mitigate schedule risk and lead to scientific returns sooner,
albeit with some compromise.  Decisions made along these lines cannot be
easily derived from the current state of the written scientific
requirements.

CTIO Integration

A working DECam is to be delivered to CTIO, installed at the prime focus
while maintaining the f/8 capability, and tested with on-the --sky
observations.  Subsequently, CTIO will assume responsibility for
operations, but it is understood that the DES collaboration will provide
continuing support.  Such support during the operations phase includes
processing and otherwise handling of the data on the mountain by general
users.  The details of the integration and the specifics of the
respective responsibilities are to be spelled out in a MOU that is
currently in draft form.  The MOU needs to anticipate a variety of
circumstances that could arise regarding impact on CTIO operations (e.g.
down-time for the telescope for major DECam maintenance) and regarding
continuing resources needed from the DES collaboration (e.g. technical
support).  Without a careful understanding of the MOU, the reviewers
cannot assess whether this task is properly scoped for budget and
schedule.

Cost

A Work Breakdown Structure and WBS Dictionary have been created for the
DES. Detailed Bases of Estimates (BOE) have been prepared and compiled
to support the project cost estimate. The DECam team presented a point
estimate of \$23.6M. The committee feels that there are some areas where
the estimate is possibly high especially in the multiple passes planned
for some of the tasks. Conversely, some areas specifically for example
the number of CCD wafer orders were felt to be underestimated. The
process for assigning contingency was quite broad and should be improved
including a risk analysis basis before the CD-2 stage. We were not shown
that the point estimate flows smoothly from the base estimate to the
burdened estimate with contingency and escalation. In summary the
committee feels that about \$3M should be added to the point estimate
and that perhaps some amount should be added to the upper end of the
stated range of \$20.4M to \$29.5M.

Schedule

A nearly 1000 line schedule based on the WBS has been prepared in MS
Project. This schedule has been resource loaded and is said to fit
within the funding profile guidance provided by Fermilab management.
Major Item of Equipment (MIE) funding from DOE is assumed beginning in
FY2008. The schedule completion range is given as March 2010 to March
2011. The committee feels that a scientifically productive instrument
can be fielded in this timeframe. However, the committee feels that
being ready for a March 2007 CD-2 Review will require focus.

Management

Organization charts were shown for the Dark Energy Survey and for the
DECam Project. The DECam Project Manager, members of the DECam Project
Office and Level 2 WBS Managers have been named. The Project Team
presented the Conceptual Design, Cost and Schedule in a coordinated
manner during this review. With some additional staff (notably a
full-time Project Engineer, Systems Engineer, and Computer
Professionals) the committee feels the team can move DECam to the CD-2
stage.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461460 .anchor}1.0 Introduction

A Director's CD-1 Review of the Dark Energy Survey DECam Project was
held on July 25-27, 2006. The charge included a list of topics to be
addressed as part of the review. The assessment of the Review Committee
is documented in the body of this report.

Each section in the report is generally organized by Findings, Comments
and Recommendations. Findings are statements of fact that summarize
noteworthy information presented during the review. The Comments are
judgment statements about the facts presented during the review and are
based on reviewers' experience and expertise. The comments are to be
evaluated by the project team and actions taken as deemed appropriate.
Recommendations are statements of actions that should be addressed by
the project team. A response to recommendation(s) is expected and
actions taken will begin to be reported by the project within two months
from the review closeout during the Directorate's DES-DECam Working
Group Meeting with a complete set of responses to be provided at the
next Director's Review.

Reference materials for this review are contained in the Appendices.
Appendix A is DECam's project cost estimate with contingency
spreadsheet. The Charge for this review is shown in Appendix B. The
review was conducted per the agenda shown in Appendix C. The Reviewer's
assignments are noted in Appendix D and E, and their contact information
is listed in Appendix F. The Review Participants are listed in Appendix
G. Appendix H is a table that contains all the recommendations included
in the body of this report.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461461 .anchor}2.0 Technical

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461462 .anchor}2.1 Science Requirements

Findings

-   The DES Collaboration has laid out a scientific program designed to
    constrain dark energy parameters using four principal
    techniques: (1) measurement of the number density and distribution
    of clusters of galaxies as a function of redshift; (2) measurement
    of the cosmic shear power spectra and various cross-spectra as
    functions of redshift; (3) detection of baryon acoustic peaks in the
    large-scale distribution of galaxies; and (4) measurement of
    multi-color lightcurves for a large sample of Type 1a supernovae.

-   DES measurements of the clusters will support and strongly benefit
    the interpretation of Sunyaev-Zeldovich measurements of clusters
    that will be performed by the South Pole Telescope. No other planned
    near-term project can fully meet this need.

-   The anticipated data sample that will be returned from the DES will
    reduce the area of the w-w~a~ contour by roughly a factor 3 -- 5,
    assuming that the design specs for the camera and the survey itself
    are met.

-   A set of science requirements has been drafted based on the four
    science themes indicated above. In some cases, there has been a
    clear flow-down to technical requirements, however some important
    technical requirements cannot be easily traced back to these science
    requirements.

-   After it is delivered, it is planned for the DECam instrument to be
    made available to the general astronomical community at CTIO when it
    is not being used for the survey (roughly 70% of the time). A
    provision for up to four additional filters has been made to support
    non-DES science applications of the camera. In addition, the camera
    has been designed to be operational in the U-band. No other explicit
    science requirements pertaining to the camera for general observer
    use were identified.

Comments

-   The science case for the DES is quite strong, and it is well-matched
    to the capabilities enunciated for Stage III projects in the DETF
    report. The team has done a very careful job in studying the science
    performance of the project using detailed simulations of all
    anticipated technical and systematic effects.

-   While some flow down from science performance to technical
    requirements has been identified, the Committee felt that further
    clarification of this flow down would be helpful to the project.
    Most of the science performance metrics are sensitive to global
    figures of merit, like AΩT. A number of different technical trades
    can be envisioned, which leave these global figures of merit
    unchanged, but could reduce cost and technical risk. It is unclear
    whether the design has been fully optimized in this regard, or
    whether further trades would be beneficial.

-   The project identifies two levels of science requirements, but it is
    unclear how these different levels will be utilized in the
    definition of the "success" of the program in its subsequent
    reviews. Which level of requirements is being used to define
    acceptance criteria for individual components? Which criteria are
    relevant to success at CD-4?

-   While it is apparent that considerable work has been devoted to
    understanding the photometric calibration procedures, it was still
    unclear to the committee whether a detailed calibration error budget
    has been constructed. With the present tiling strategy, it seems
    likely that a non-negligible fraction of the proposed survey region
    will obtain less than 3 visits in individual colors. We were not
    presented with a clear picture of how this would affect the
    photometric redshift determinations and the end science analysis. We
    are especially concerned about the z-band, where the water bands at
    the red end can lead to photometric errors unless they are properly
    monitored.

-   An adequate study of the potential trade-offs between more or fewer
    exposures and how they are distributed over time was not presented.
    There may be important effects associated with cosmic ray removal,
    time-variable PSF effects, etc., which might be mitigated by an
    optimized plan.

-   While the DES project does offer some unique capabilities in the
    near-term, the robustness of the science case for the project will
    decrease significantly with time, both because other near-term
    programs will be making similar measurements, and because the Stage
    IV projects will eventually offer much greater capability. We
    therefore believe that it is critical for DECam to hold schedule,
    achieving first light by early 2011, at the latest.

-   The science requirements for general observer use of DECam must
    become better understood in the near-term, while critical design
    decisions are still being made. In addition, there should be a
    definition of what data products should be available at the
    telescope immediately following the CCD readout. Some such products
    will be needed for commissioning and testing the camera in any case,
    but there should be some well thought-out specifications (FITS
    image, a quick display tool, etc) that would ensure that this comes
    out in a form that would also fill the needs of general observers.

Recommendations

1.  A clear connection should be made between the two levels of science
    requirements and the subsequent decision-making process of the
    project as it proceeds into development. Is achievement of
    "substantial success" sufficient for the project or not?

2.  A more detailed calibration error budget should be developed for
    CD-2. This should include explicit simulations that demonstrate the
    required photometric precision can be achieved at all points in the
    survey region. If the photometric precision will be heterogeneous
    over the survey region, the science implications should be
    addressed.

3.  A set of more extensive science trades should be performed for
    technical choices that leave global performance unchanged -- e.g.
    total field versus packing efficiency, versus efficiency in the use
    of observing time, quantum efficiency in the various bands, etc.
    Each technical requirement should have a clear science rationale.

4.  The MOU with NOAO should include a detailed discussion of science
    requirements for the use of the DECam by the general user community.
    These requirements should be identified and enunciated very soon to
    ensure that they can be met by the present design.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461463 .anchor}2.2 Focal Plane Detectors and
CCD Camera (WBS 1.2 and 1.5.2)

WBS 1.2 -- Focal Plane Detectors

Findings

-   Obtaining an adequate number of scientific grade CCDs for DECam is
    identified as one of the highest risk items in the project. The
    fully-depleted LBNL CCDs offer the best hope of achieving the NIR
    z-band sensitivity required to achieve the science goals of the
    experiment. The project assumes an overall yield of 0.25 to acquire
    the devices needed.

Comments

-   This procurement, along with a similar development by the SNAP
    project, is the first large production run of p-channel,
    fully-depleted CCDs at DALSA attempted by LBNL. Therefore, yields
    are far too uncertain to inspire confidence. Some losses of wafers
    and devices occur in steps at LBNL and by outside vendors (for wafer
    mechanical thinning and dicing) that were not accounted for in the
    yield estimates. Experience with other large CCD foundry
    procurements shows that the expected yield of 0.25 can easily drop
    to 0.10 if things go wrong (and things DO go wrong).

Recommendations

5.  The project should add an additional lot of CCDs to their baseline
    program, including all the steps needed to make these CCDs ready for
    deployment into the camera (wafer production at DALSA, processing at
    LBNL, packaging and testing at FNAL).

Findings

-   The NIR 1-micron QE of the fully-depleted LBNL CCDs is the chief
    driver for their adoption for this project. Yet no justification is
    given for the choice of device thickness of 250-microns (why not
    thicker?).

Comments

-   Additional NIR QE can be achieved by making the devices slightly
    thicker (say 300 or 350 microns with the large required backside
    bias voltage), and by operating the devices warmer that the planned
    operating temperature of -100C.

Recommendations

6.  The team should justify its choice of 250-microns for the CCD
    thickness (as compared to thicker) and should indicate that it plans
    to investigate the trade in NIR-QE vs. dark current that can be had
    at a warmer operating temperature of, say, -80C.

Findings

-   The project is faced with a critical decision in the near term
    before going ahead with their first lot: to go with the new
    polybackseal wafers or to stick with the Wacker wafers.

Comments

-   The new polybackseal wafers offer the hope that the recent
    occurrence of bright, catastrophic defects can be eliminated.
    However these new wafers are from a different wafer vendor than that
    used by LBNL for their earlier p-channel fully-depleted process.
    Experience shows that changing the silicon vendor can sometimes lead
    to subtle problems with the new devices (e.g. charge traps). On the
    other hand, staying with the existing Wacker material requires that
    these wafers go out for re-polishing after gettering before
    subsequent processing at DALSA and LBNL to eliminate the
    catastrophic bright defects (associated with contaminants on the
    wafer surface). It was not clear that this re-polishing actually
    solves this problem.

Recommendations

7.  The project needs to carefully consider their decision on whether to
    go with the re-polished Wacker material or the new wafers with
    polybackseal. This decision should be made after extensive test data
    are available for the new polybackseal devices (e.g. 1 or 2 working
    devices does not constitute an extensive set of test data).
    Similarly, test data need to be acquired for the re-polished Wacker
    devices. After reviewing the specification for wafer repolishing, we
    also recommend that a minimum amount of material to be removed be
    called out in the spec (e.g. the spec currently calls out only a
    maximum amount of 10 microns to be removed but does not call out a
    minimum amount that must be removed).

Findings

-   The project appeared to underestimate the effort required to screen,
    test, characterize, and optimize the large numbers of CCDs needed to
    get approximately 70 of these for use in the DECam focalplane. A
    clear plan for CCD optimization was not presented, and adequate
    personnel resources were not identified.

Comments

-   CCD characterization and optimization is crucial for the project to
    achieve its science goals. This becomes even more important when one
    considers that little astronomical data has been acquired and
    analyzed using LBNL CCDs. While the team clearly plans to acquire an
    extensive set of test data on these devices, the overall plan for
    how these data will be used to characterize and optimize the devices
    was not clear at all.

-   The Fe55 x-ray technique offers a superior way to measure and
    optimize CCD performance, especially with regard to device gain,
    CTE, and charge diffusion. To probe the region near the back surface
    of the device, low energy x-rays can be used by fluorescing targets
    (C, O, Al) with the 5.9 keV Fe55 x-rays.

Recommendations

8.  Adequate resources (primarily experienced personnel) need to be
    provided to carry out CCD testing, characterization and
    optimization. This process can be divided into two distinct
    areas: 1) R&D testing to explore and understand the performance of
    the LBNL CCDs over a wide range of operating parameters, 2)
    production testing which is an automated set of tasks that generates
    a large data set of images that are analyzed to select the best CCDs
    with their optimal operating parameters. These two areas are
    coupled, with the first needing to be carried out before one can
    design and implement the best automated production testing plan. The
    team should prepare a detailed test plan showing what data will be
    collected, and how these data will be used to determine the device
    properties and to converge on an optimal set of operating parameters
    for each device.

9.  The DECam team should include Fe55 x-ray testing as one of the core
    techniques used to characterize the CCDs. A complete set of Fe55
    data should be collected and analyzed for each detector. It would be
    essential to further characterize a subset of devices using
    lower-energy x-rays, or UV/blue photons to probe the back surface
    and insure a field-free region does not exist.

Findings

-   The CCD packaging scheme looks sound. However, with this packaging
    scheme, a damaged connector on the package cannot be repaired, and
    loss of this connector means the loss of the entire CCD. With the
    amount of testing needed on these devices, it is likely that these
    connectors will undergo numerous mating and unmating cycles.

Comments

-   Extensive experience with Nanonics connectors has shown that they
    are fussy, delicate and can be easily damaged. Furthermore, this
    connector appears to be surface-mount soldered onto the ALN board
    with no obvious means of strain relief. This makes this particular
    joint even more vulnerable to damage from handling.

Recommendations

10. A means should be identified to strain relieve the surface-mounted
    Nanonics connector on the ALN board. Metalized traces on ceramic are
    much more delicate than copper traces on FR-4 or polyimide, and it
    will be quite easy to pull this connector right off the ALN if any
    shear force is encountered during mating and unmating, or by pulling
    on the mating flexcable. Therefore, we recommend that the number of
    mating and unmating cycles of this joint should be minimized. This
    can be achieved by using a connector saver at all times on the
    device package for all device testing. The connector saver should
    only be removed for the final installation in the camera focalplane.
    The mating and unmating cycles can also be minimized if the team
    decides to attach the long flexcable to the package and leave it
    there at all times for device testing and handling. This approach,
    however, may complicate the device handling and storage and
    focalplane loading process. The Nanonics connector should also be
    strain relieved, perhaps by potting the base of the connector into
    the invar block. This does not preclude using a connector saver, as
    damage to the connector itself is also a risk (as opposed to damage
    to the surface-mount joint), but it at least minimizes one of the
    risk areas.

Findings

-   Many of the key components of the CCD packages, focalplane and
    camera included as many as 4 design iterations in the budget and
    schedule.

Recommendations

11. We recommend that in most cases, the 3^rd^ or 4^th^ design iteration
    was unlikely to be needed and should be considered to be part of the
    contingency.

WBS 1.5.2 -- CCD Camera

Findings

-   We were not presented with a list of metrology specifications for
    the camera regarding package and focalplane mosaic planarity, gap
    size, CCD-to-CCD alignment, etc.

Comments

-   It became obvious during the breakout sessions that the team was
    designing with certain technical specifications in mind, but those
    specifications and their motivation need to be clearly listed.

Recommendations

12. A list of focalplane metrology specifications needs to be prepared.

Findings

-   The approach for the design of the focalplane appeared to be fine.
    However we were not shown any results of thermal and mechanical
    modeling (which we were told had been carried out) showing that
    there were no thermal or mechanical distortions that could warp or
    otherwise affect the flatness of the mosaic focalplane.

Comments

-   It became obvious during the breakout sessions that the team had
    carried out this modeling.

Recommendations

13. Results of thermal modeling and FEA analysis should be presented to
    show that the camera focalplane meets spec.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461464 .anchor}2.3 Readout Electronics and
Survey Image System Process Integration (SISPI) (WBS 1.3 and 1.6)

WBS 1.3 -- Front End Electronics

Findings

-   The continued use of NOAO's CCD Controller, Monsoon, was advocated
    in preference to the "Leach controller " (Astronomical Research
    Cameras Inc), due Monsoon's open architecture, considerable software
    (open source), extensibility, superior packaging, extended features
    such as telemetry, and the existence of high density boards. The
    decision to use Monsoon was based on a review of options by an
    internal DES committee.

-   Arguments were presented for modifying the designs of all of the
    boards:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Replace the Systran fiberlink interface (daughter card) with an
    Slink card familiar to the HEP community, due to failing support(?)
    and doubtful supply of the Systran in future.

-   Upgrade the Clock/Bias board: more clocks, no biases (etc) for
    better match to this application.

-   Upgrade video board from 8 to 12 channels to the keep crates within
    desired size and layout for ease of fit and cooling layout.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Three (more) design cycles of each component are scheduled over the
    next two years.

-   Cost estimates for the major electronics components are based on
    costs of the existing Monsoon boards. Engineering costs are based on
    past experience with similar complexity boards.

Comments

-   We fully endorse the rationale and decision to use Monsoon. The
    group has done a thorough evaluation of the options in making this
    decision.

-   We were persuaded, by a narrow margin, that the benefits justify the
    considerable expense and risk of the board redesigns.

-   The M&S costs for constructing the boards are reasonable. The
    contingency assigned is reasonable considering the basis of estimate
    and the fact that there are already three design cycles planned. The
    labor cost for board design and testing are reasonable and
    consistent with the engineering effort currently working on the
    project. The planned number of spare modules at the telescope is
    appropriate given the need to support the system far from the
    designer and builders.

Recommendations

14. Gain as much experience as possible, as early as possible in the
    project, with the electronics and associated software, by using
    these for CCD characterization etc. Configurations as close as
    possible to that of the final instrument should be used in
    qualification tests.

15. Aim to produce the final design in the first iteration with the
    second PCB design cycle fixing problems found. The third cycle
    should be retained as *contingency* only. This will maximize
    experience with boards during CCD, software, and system testing,
    while minimizing the risk of introducing new faults during the final
    cycle(s). This may also lead to a cost saving by eliminating the 3rd
    iterations.

16. Create a clear set of acceptance testing criteria for each stage of
    board development, which includes all components to be included.
    Design reviews between steps should include comparison of results
    with these criteria and provide branch points such as eliminating
    design iterations or implementing fallback solutions.

17. In addition to the 135 clocks, include several sequencer outputs
    (digital levels only) on front panel connectors to be used for such
    things as triggering oscilloscopes (eg Frame Start), or operating a
    shutter in the lab, unless these features already exist.

18. Test clocks and biases for noise performance by looping back
    directly into the video preamp (AC coupling, stopped at high then
    low level). Acceptable noise is defined as being much less than that
    of the CCD output after the clock in question has been attenuated by
    the clock feed-through ratio. (This needs to be determined
    empirically.) An analog multiplexor can be used to scan through all
    clock outputs automatically. Notes:

-   While technically a sufficient test, simply accepting a clock board
    because CCD performance appears not to be degraded, gives little
    information on noise margin.

-   Furthermore the test with the CCD works only when the test system
    and CCD have already demonstrated low noise, and only tests a subset
    of the clocks

-   It is preferable to use the video signal path to monitor clock and
    bias quality since digital interference within the controller is
    invisible, since it is synchronous. Furthermore, the video chain has
    better resolution, noise and dynamic range than most lab instruments

19. Verify the efficacy of the multi-controller synchronization
    mechanisms, which must be employed to prevent degradation of noise
    performance when multiple master control boards are used together.
    This should be done during the testing of the first PCB versions in
    case the problem requires a design modification. As a baseline,
    search for beat frequencies by Fourier transforming the data stream
    from the CCD. (If significant sources of interference are found, the
    test can be repeated in the bias/clock loop-back configurations and
    with shorted video input to identify the coupling path.) The test
    must then be repeated with *multiple* controllers (backplanes)
    operated in sync in the same crate, to see if new harmonics appear.

Findings

-   The project presented the design of the Front End electronics in the
    Conceptual Design Report and presentations to the review committee
    in both plenary and breakout sessions.

Comments

-   The description of the design in the CDR focused heavily on the
    process of deciding on the design rather than the chosen design. The
    CDR and review presentations would benefit from a more top down
    approach to the presentation.

Recommendations

20. Revise the text of the CDR to focus on the baseline design then
    describe the justification for the choice of Monsoon and for
    redesigning boards.

Findings

-   The project team expressed the hope that a preamplifier in closer
    proximity to the CCD would help achieve detector limited noise
    performance.

Comments

-   In fully synchronous systems, with clean clocks, and appropriate
    grounding and shielding, this reviewer (Roger Smith) has not found
    preamplification to be necessary for good noise performance.
    However, reducing the output impedance at the CCD has other major
    benefits, such as decreasing the settling time on the video lines,
    reducing crosstalk and reducing susceptibility to current noise in
    the input to the external electronics.

-   The inclusion of a source follower made with a low noise JFET on the
    CCD package is a *simple* and compact solution, which is commonly
    employed, eg E2V and MITLL use an n-channel J309 which will have an
    output impedance of \~100 ohm compared to \~7000 ohm for a typical
    single stage CCD output.

-   Lack of gain greater than one is generally not a problem since the
    noise density (uV/√Hz) at the CCD output is typically greater than
    at the input referred noise density of the video chain.

Recommendations

21. Incorporate load resistor for CCD source follower and a low noise
    p-channel JFET source follower and its load resistor into the CCD
    package or on the CCD end flex cable (stiffener).

Guiders, alignment and focus CCDs

Findings

-   The team has no prior experience developing *astronomical* guider
    software, though it draws on experience in a similar application.

-   The statement was made that guiders differ from the science CCDs in
    requiring a faster frame rate, and having less demanding noise
    requirements.

Comments

-   The stated difference in requirements relative to the science CCDs
    is not quite right: while exposure times are indeed 10 to 100 times
    shorter this reduces the shot noise due to sky and thus makes the
    noise requirement *more* demanding. At the same time the pixel read
    rate can be *lower* since, for region of interest readout, the frame
    time is dominated by parallel and serial shifts rather than the
    pixel reads.

-   The guider interface significantly affects both telescope operator
    and non-survey users of the instrument.

-   This is a topic, which has seen much refinement for decades and is a
    largely solved problem. It is thus likely that the team can learn
    from existing experts and can substantially adopt/adapt an existing
    software package that represents the state of the art.

-   The read time for the science CCDs may be short enough to use a
    science CCD for guiding even in full frame mode. Even if only a
    region of interest is read out (to increase the frame rate) the
    surrounding pixels which are lost in this case are likely to have
    been contaminated by scattering/ghosts anyway.

-   The large increase in guide star search area increases the
    likelihood of finding a bright enough star when narrowband or short
    wavelength filters are used (for non DE Survey). Choices made now in
    allocation of CCDs to controller backplanes will determine the
    impact on the shape of the science field in this mode.

Recommendations

22. Consult with Rolando Cantarutti at CTIO who is an established
    expert. He will be able to offer examples of well developed guider
    software (as used on SOAR and Blanco telescopes)..

23. Be aware that guider sensitivity is an issue, which is likely to
    arise in discussions of non-DES programs where narrower band filters
    are likely to be used.

-   Consider full frame cross correlation of the guider CCDs to achieve
    higher precision and/or eliminate the need for automatic guide star
    selection.

-   Allow for the possibility of using a subset of the science field for
    guiding in the event that brighter guide stars (or cross correlation
    of larger area) are needed for narrow filters: allocate CCDs to
    "controllers" to optimize the shape of the residual science field.

-   Consider what would be needed to support the selection of a single
    science CCD (or a group of three) anywhere in the field for guiding.

Findings

-   Focus/alignment CCDs are allocated to the same Master Controller
    Boards (and backplane segments) as science CCDs and thus can't be
    operated independently.

Recommendations

24. Allocate all focus/alignment CCDs to the same controller (changing
    cable layout accordingly) to protect against the case where a
    different readout cadence is required

    WBS 1.6 -- Survey Image System Process Integration (SISPI)

Findings

-   The proponents presented a pre-conceptual design of the data
    acquisition (DAQ) and control system (SISPI) for the DES experiment.
    The science requirements can likely be met with an achievable
    application of modern commodity computing hardware and software
    engineering.

Comments

-   The resources required to design, develop and deliver the
    acquisition and control system are predominantly the effort to
    produce the required software. The plan is to utilize in-kind
    contribution of students, postdoctoral researchers, and part-time
    scientist contributions. The proponents are working with funding
    agencies to secure off-project support for about 18 FTE-years of
    student and postdoc effort. To date only a small fraction of this
    effort has been secured. While it is laudable for the experiment to
    exploit the talent of the collaboration to produce the DAQ and
    control software it is likely that significant computing
    professional effort will be required to deliver a robust and
    reliable system.

-   Much remains to be done to define the requirements of the software
    suite. System bandwidth, response time, security concerns, local
    caching, coordination with other infrastructure control software,
    etc, remain open issues. Further there may be issues of operating a
    relatively large amount of commodity hardware at the CTIO site.
    Examples include the altitude and humidity environment of CTIO. The
    experience of the IceCube collaboration which is deploying a
    comparable computing plant in a challenging altitude and humidity
    environment could be informative here.

Recommendations

25. Analyze the need for computing professional developers to advance
    the design of the data acquisition and control system. In our
    estimation the project will require 1-2 Computing Professional FTEs
    for 3 years to design and develop the required software systems..

Findings

-   The SISPI team has informal support in the design of the SISPI
    system from those who will be users of the system for the DES
    program but has not clearly integrated them in their design and
    development process.

-   The SISPI team has not identified informal or formal support in the
    design, development and testing of SISPI from the NOAO community
    that will be using and supporting the instrument for general
    observer use.

-   There does not appear to be a clear set of written requirements and
    defined interfaces at the appropriate level for this stage of
    development for the SISPI system (see also recommendation 13 above),
    flowing down from the science and operations requirements and
    coordinating with the tasks of the Data Management System..

Comments

-   It is critical for the development of a real-time operations system
    like SISPI that the design of the system, the trades taken along the
    way, and the testing and validation process, have active involvement
    from a dedicated user group which includes (1) observational
    astronomers who will be working directly with the system to acquire
    data and (2) instrument and telescope support personnel who will be
    directly supporting the system\'s real time use..

-   There does not appear to be a requirements document provided to the
    SISPI project specifying the scope of the user interfaces. These
    requirements should be set by the users, both within DES and the
    outer user community (e.g. through NOAO).

Recommendations

25. We recommend that the SISPI Project clearly identify internal DES
    project science and operations members (including astronomical
    observers and those with telescope operations expertise) who will
    constitute the necessary user group to support the development of
    requirements, design, testing, and deployment of the SISPI System.

26. We recommend that the SISPI project work closely with NOAO to
    identify a User Advisory Group for the SISPI project with whom they
    work closely in the design, development, and testing of the system
    to assure it integrates within the telescope environment and
    supports the needs of the general user community.

27. We recommend that the SISPI project develop a clear set of
    requirements from which the high level design will flow, working in
    conjunction with the internal and external user advisors as noted in
    recommendations 26 and 27 above. We note that as the schedule shows
    the development of the high level design of SISPI by December 2006,
    it is critical that the system requirements be developed *before*
    the initiation of the design work.

Findings

-   No specifications exist for command execution speed.

Comments

-   Full initialization from a cold start should be very fast since this
    can have an enormous impact on debugging, commissioning and
    maintenance activities where the system may need to be restarted
    frequently.

Recommendations

28. Develop software execution speed budget, broken down by task. These
    requirements must ensure that neither survey nor calibration speed
    (eg twilight sky flats) are not significantly impacted.

29. Ensure that system initialization time, including return to prior
    setup, are short enough (\<20sec?) to have minimal impact on system
    testing and debugging.

30. Designate a person to be responsible for hardware software
    initialization/configuration.

    MOU topics

Comments

-   At only 7000' altitude, Cerro Tololo is a relatively benign
    environment, except for prolonged very low humidity.

Recommendations

31. Ensure that robust humidity control is provided both in the CTIO
    computer room and adjoining control room.

32. Specify the networking and security requirements (firewall, access
    management).

33. Define (limits on) software support for non-DES use of the
    instrument, both during development and operations phase.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461465 .anchor}2.4 Optics, Opto - Mechanics,
Survey Planning and Integration (WBS 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, and 1.8)

WBS 1.4 -- Optics

Findings

-   The optics design appears well developed and converging.  It has
    completed a design review in February of 2006.  A preliminary
    sensitivity analysis has been completed.

-   Filter bandpass homogeneity is not specified in the science
    requirements.

Comments

-   None

Recommendations

34. Define the required filter bandpass and throughput homogeneity over
    the camera field of view and incorporate that into the filer
    procurement process.

WBS 1.5 -- Opto-Mechanical System

Findings

-   Instrument integration and inter-divisional interfaces are handled
    informally.

-   A conceptual solid model (mechanical) of the DECam system exists.
    The scientific and engineering staff understand the need for a fully
    integrated design.

Comments

-   The mechanism for L2 managers to interact and control interfaces is
    not clear to the L2 managers. A more formal procedure for
    discussions between subsystem leaders is needed.

-   More formal lines of communication will need to be developed such
    that design choices can be understood and made. The choice of the
    proper cryogenic system is an example where having the correct
    people (especially from CTIO, in this case) available for
    discussions is needed.

-   For opto-mechanics, the mechanical lead (Andy) holds the solid model
    for the optics and optics mounts and acts as the opto-mechanical
    integrator, but no management mechanism visible.

-   Analyses (mechanical, thermal, vibration, \...) will need to include
    not just the camera, but the camera integrated with the rest of the
    telescope.  The required design loads (shipping, seismic) need to be
    documented.

-   Procedures for lifting (weight, swing, and hoisting points), door
    sizes, elevator weight limits, rough walkways, hose paths, ST vs.
    SMA, etc., should be understood early to allow smart design
    decisions to be built-in rather than retrofitted.

Recommendations

35. A full-time instrument scientist or systems engineer should be
    identified (hired, if necessary). This person should take
    responsibility for high-level requirements and engineering
    interfaces of all L2 subsystems with the goal of coordinating
    interface control, managing changes, and monitoring scientific
    requirements in the context of engineering compromises.

36. Create an interface control document with procedures for changing
    and adding to it. Interface documents between components and
    organizations should be a high priority. This is a job for the
    instrument scientist/systems engineer.

Findings

-   Final assembly and test is done at CTIO under the heading of
    "commissioning."

-   Final assembly and test is listed as taking 6 weeks at CTIO.

Comments

-   Final assembly and testing should be done in a familiar environment
    where resources are readily available on short notice. Assembly and
    testing at a remote site is more difficult and requires considerable
    planning and extra equipment. Having subsystems meet for the first
    time at the observatory adds uncontrollable and unfamiliar
    environmental effects (electrical noise, temperature/humidity, power
    problems, etc.) making initial shakeout difficult.

-   It is good to have baseline performance characteristics of the
    integrated system to compare with performance at the telescope.
    Getting the subsystems to work together and fine-tuning the control
    software is easier in your home lab; worrying about all of these
    things with the problem of adding telescope control and
    commissioning work in the same trip sounds daunting.

-   We would expect the final assembly and testing to take at least 3
    months, twice as long as currently allocated.

Recommendations

37. The committee believes a full assembly and test at Fermilab (without
    corrector lenses but with appropriate masses) before shipment to
    CTIO should be considered. If final assembly at CTIO remains the
    baseline, careful and thorough planning of sub-system acceptance
    testing must be completed.

38. Develop a high-level final assembly and test plan sufficient to call
    out specific goals (read out the detectors and move the hexapods at
    the same time, e.g.) and make reasonable schedule estimates.

Findings

-   The "commissioning" task currently includes final assembly and
    testing at the observatory.

Comments

-   Commissioning at the 4-m should begin with a fully tested instrument
    and consists of the tasks needed to mount the instrument, validate
    science performance, and develop observing procedures.

-   The commissioning team should worry about starlight on the
    detectors. They should not have to debug problems such as shutter
    interactions with the readout electronics.

Recommendations

39. "Commissioning" should not include the final assembly and test phase
    (although a re-assembly is probably needed). Assembly and test
    should be a separate task.

Findings

-   Drivers and requirements for the choice of CCD cooling system are
    not known.

Comments

-   A variety of cooling systems were presented but there was no path to
    choosing the optimum one. What drives the decision? Cost? Vibration?
    Operations efficiency (stop to fill dewars)? Weight? Power? Heat
    dissipation?

-   The GM choice will inject a strong 2.4 Hz (or thereabouts) signal
    into the telescope top end. Will this excite vibrational modes in
    the telescope secondary support structure (these might be in the 5
    Hz range?).

-   Mechanical design at many levels is stalled until a decision is made
    on the cooling system.

Recommendations

40. After determining that you've done everything you can to reduce the
    heat load, bring the appropriate people together, including the CTIO
    team (who will maintain and operate it), to pare the list of
    potential cooling systems.

Findings

-   Dewar window settles at -10C on the outside, -20C on the inside.

Comments

-   Icing of the window is guaranteed if something is not done to
    prevent this. A dry nitrogen purge is planned but what if it runs
    out?

Recommendations

41. Think seriously about how to avoid icing the window. Dewpoint
    sensors, window heaters, or hermetically seal the space between C4
    and C5, silica gel canisters, etc.

42. There's an effect, probably minor, on the refractive index of the
    window. Showing this is not a problem is worth doing.

43. Make sure your coatings are water-resistant.

Findings

-   In the straw-man design for the hexapod system, the six legs are
    attached to six separate attachment points at each end, rather than
    having pairs of legs come to a common attachment point so that there
    is a kinematic mount with only three attachments in all at each end.

-   Manufacturer suggests that this is not a problem; that the control
    system handles the situation properly.

Comments

-   This looks a lot like an overconstrained system, with potential for
    warping the rings that the hexapod legs attach to, or otherwise not
    being well behaved. We were told that the control system would
    prevent this, and that such systems are routinely used. However,
    real-life experiences show that overconstrained systems should
    always be a cause for worry.

-   The suggested mechanical configuration allows the hexapod to bend
    the rings/plates to which it attaches.

Recommendations

44. The hexapod design should be very carefully checked for possible
    problems due to the proposed attachment scheme. This is not
    necessarily a bad choice but be sure you understand the issues (what
    bad things can happen if the control system fails) and have a way to
    avoid serious damage (breakaway systems, etc.) if you decide to go
    this route.

45. A three-point scheme would be preferable if it is practical.

Findings

-   A spot check of costs for several large ticket items was done.
    Reasonable base costs have been found through communication with
    experienced vendors and in some places were compared with similar
    existing devices. All contingencies were applied top down, at the
    standard rates.

-   A logically linked schedule exists, though complete understanding of
    the interplay and completeness of those links remains to be
    developed. Schedule float was based on vendor experience, and
    included on each individual line.

Comments

-   The design as presented is good for this stage of the project. The
    integration of the thermal, mechanical, vibrational, and optical
    aspects of the design as it progresses over the next year will
    require a large effort that should become more formal.

-   The cost estimate and schedule should be scrubbed.

WBS 1.7 -- Survey Planning

Findings

-   The observing plan is based around the Blanco Telescope\'s current
    optical performance.

Comments

-   There are high hopes that the alignment and dome seeing will be
    improved by the features designed into DECam. However, an important
    component of the case made in the current write-ups is that the
    science goals can be reached with the current performance of the
    telescope. That argument should be retained in the documentation, as
    it is a good selling point to skeptics.

WBS 1.8 -- CTIO Integration

Findings

-   The hexapod is a good approach for providing the motions of the
    camera required to compensate for telescope flexure and primary
    de-centering.

Comments

-   Throughout their 30-year history, both the Blanco Telescope and its
    twin, the Mayall Telescope, have had problems with lateral supports
    breaking their glue bonds onto the primary mirror. This leads to
    excessive lateral motions of the primary mirror in its cell. The
    Blanco Telescope showed a promising improvement in performance after
    recent modifications and adjustments to the lateral supports on its
    primary mirror. This was the result of an intensive engineering
    effort by CTIO that led (for the first time) to a specific idea
    about what the error was in the original design. However, one of the
    (unmodified) lateral supports did immediately pull loose. It has
    been the case in the past that it was thought that this problem was
    under control, only to find out that over a period of a year or so
    several supports pulled loose. The best-case situation probably is
    the current performance, with the position of the prime focus
    shifting laterally relative to the primary mirror by about 1.2mm as
    the telescope moves around the sky, repeatable to about 0.1mm (Slide
    17 of the Tim Abbott\'s ppt presentation at the breakout session).
    However, it is too soon to be sure that the telescope will not slip
    back to its previous performance, with about 1.5 mm shifts and much
    poorer repeatability (Abbott slide 14). The tolerance is 0.2mm.

Recommendations

46. The project should provide the capability to deal with a worst-case
    situation in which the primary mirror shifts around by the amount
    that it did before the recent work on the support system. The donut
    images from the focus CCDs should be used to measure coma as well as
    de-focus, and there should be a means of feeding the coma signal as
    well as the focus signal to the hexapod for closed-loop corrections.
    Astigmatism should also be measured from the focus images; this
    signal could in principal be used (very easily) to drive closed-loop
    astigmatism correction with the existing active optics system on the
    primary mirror, but at minimum can be used to continuously improve
    the lookup table that is used by that system.

Findings

-   The telescope polar alignment was not discussed.

Comments

-   If the telescope is mis-aligned (and even if it isn't: true or
    refracted pole?), then the imaging field will rotate. This might be
    a problem for weak lensing.

Recommendations

47. Understand the impact of a mis-aligned telescope. What are the
    combinations, if any, of Dec and exposure time that affect the weak
    lensing analysis. Determine the polar alignment requirement.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461466 .anchor}3.0 Project Management (WBS 1.1)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461467 .anchor}3.1 Cost

Findings

-   The team presented to the committee their cost estimates for each
    subtask and a level 2 WBS rollup. Presentations were given from each
    subtask based on their own work scope. The total project cost
    estimate including contingencies, escalation, and burdens is
    \$23,645,783.30, not including in kind contributions from other
    countries and US institutions. The team also presented a cost range.
    For the upper bound of the range, \$29.5M, the team assumed that all
    project costs incurred in FY09 will be repeated. For the lower
    bound, \$20.4M, the team assumed that only half of the project
    contingency would be needed.

-   Costs presented by individual subtasks were unburdened and
    unescalated. These factors were, however, included in the WBS Level
    2 rollup.

-   Default contingencies of 50% on labor and 40% on M&S were used
    unless vendor information or direct experience was available, in
    which case a contingency of 20% was usually applied.

-   The team presented a Basis of Estimate binder including past
    purchase requisitions, vendor quotes, and catalog information.

Comments

-   The committee felt that the project team has the technical and
    management capability to develop an accurate cost estimate.

-   The project presented a WBS down to level 6 and the list of
    activities therein was fairly comprehensive.

-   While the total project cost was presented consistently, the lack of
    consistency in presenting lower level costs caused some difficulty
    for the reviewers. For example, the WBS Level 2 rollup included
    contingency on R&D while in the slide presentation this same
    contingency was included in MIE instead. Also, the individual Level
    2 tasks presented costs without escalation or burden.

-   Labor in WBS 1.7 did not include costs for computing professionals,
    though the project acknowledged that computing professionals would
    be needed for the simulation efforts. The review committee estimated
    this cost to be around \$1M, though this should be further analyzed
    by the project team. Additional computing professionals will likely
    be required in SISPI (WBS 1.6), but are not planned to be costed to
    the project.

-   The reviewers studying the CCD fabrication suggested that the
    project plan for the procurement of an additional lot of wafers and
    additional resources for CCD testing, characterization and
    optimization. This would add approximately \$500k for fabrication
    plus \$500k for packaging and testing.

-   M&S Cost for WBS 1.8, CTIO Integration, was presented as having zero
    cost. Costs of final assembly will be shared between the project and
    CTIO, but the exact split of activities is not defined. The review
    committee suspects that there will be infrastructure costs incurred
    by the project.

-   The committee felt that a systems engineer will be required to
    ensure successful integration. This will likely add \$400k
    unburdened in total over 4 years, so around \$750k fully burdened.

-   The methodology of applying contingency factors and determining the
    overall cost range should be improved such that they are more easily
    defensible. A bottom up analysis would help to improve the accuracy
    of these estimates. In general, uncertainties identified in risk
    analysis should feed into calculation of contingencies. Providing
    supporting information for determining the cost range is an explicit
    requirement of DOE CD-1.

-   The committee felt that the project could probably be completed
    within the presented cost range, although significant additional
    costs for a system engineer, computer professionals for SISPI, and
    additional CCD lot and personnel will likely increase the base and
    lower bound cost by around \$3M. The upper bound may increase also,
    depending on the outcome of re-evaluating contingencies based on the
    risk assessment.

-   Section 2.3 of this report recommends that the goal be for 2^nd^
    iterations of Front End PCBs to be final versions to minimize
    introducing the risks associated with late changes. 3^rd^ iterations
    would then be considered contingency. This same philosophy could be
    considered for other systems.

-   Section 2.4 of this report comments that the final assembly will
    likely take longer than the planned 6 weeks, probably closer to a 3
    month duration.

Recommendations

48. Reassign contingency factors from the bottom up based on understood
    uncertainties to be developed in a risk assessment.

49. Reconsider methodologies for calculating lower and upper bounds on
    total project cost to comply with DOE's CD-1 requirement of
    supporting information for determining cost range.

50. Maintain consistency in presentation of costs between WBS Level 2
    presentations, Project Management rollups, and complete WBS cost
    chart.

51. Consult with Fermilab Directorate on best method for differentiating
    R&D base and contingency costs from MIE costs.

52. Evaluate and include costs for WBS 1.8 (CTIO Integration) M&S.

53. Allocate 3^rd^ iterations of Front End electronics and possibly
    other systems as contingency.

54. Revisit travel costs in the Project Management section of the WBS
    considering reviews, vendor visits, and site visits.

55. Include cost of an additional lot of CCDs as discussed in section on
    WBS 1.2 in this report.

56. Include costs for a Systems Engineer, Computing Professionals, and
    additional resources for CCDs.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461468 .anchor}3.2 Schedule

In summary, DECam has a resource loaded schedule that meets the intent
of the CD-1 requirements. Some minor changes are needed to better
justify the recommended schedule range to fulfill the CD-1 level
readiness. Some additional scrubbing of the schedule and the Bases of
Estimate (BOE) needs to be performed from the Bottom-Up and the Top-Down
to meet CD-2 level readiness. There is a lot of work to be performed
between now and the CD-2 review, which may require additional resources.

Findings

-   DECam has developed a WBS down to Level 6.

-   DECam presented a schedule range for completion of the project
    between March 2010 to March 2011 based on funding availability for
    MIE activities starting November 1, 2007.

-   DECam presented a resource loaded schedule in the Microsoft Project
    (MSP) scheduling tool.

-   The DECam schedule consists of 1013 lines with 685 tasks.

-   DECam has established 117 milestones contained in the MSP file
    consisting of 5-L0, 3-L1, 18-L2, 45-L3 and 46-L4 milestones.

Comments

-   Schedule contingency and schedule range was not developed using a
    detailed risk assessment. Schedule contingency needs to based on
    bottoms-up and top-down risk assessment.

-   DECam believes that they have identified the resources needed to
    complete the work required to achieve baseline approval (CD-2), but
    not all the required resources are currently available (i.e.
    Designers, Project Engineer). The committee believes that there is a
    lot of work to be accomplished and it will require a tight focus to
    be ready for a March 2007 CD-2 baseline review.

-   The committee believes that a scientifically productive instrument
    can be delivered to meet the project completion in the proposed
    schedule range of March 2010 to March 2011. The concern is that the
    camera's technical specifications may need to be refined to meet the
    minimum scientific requirements in order to achieve the proposed
    project completion date.

-   There are several schedule mechanic issues that need to be addressed
    in the DECam MSP schedule as noted below:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There are some activities that do not have a predecessor assigned.
    Generally, all activities should have a predecessor and successor.

-   The resource names used in the schedule do not follow the Standard
    Fermilab Resource Naming Convention. The resources in the schedule
    should be revised to follow the standard convention.

-   Review activities are included in the schedule, but not always fully
    resource loaded. Appropriate resources should be assigned to all
    review activities.

-   The schedule assumes a CD-3 approval on October 08, 2007 and that
    MIE funding is available to start work on November 1, 2007. DECam is
    a FY08 new start and MIE funds are not available to spend until the
    appropriation bill is signed. Normally MIE funds for new starts are
    not available until December or later. If the date is not adjusted
    some of the schedule contingency built into the CD-4 completion date
    will be used at the beginning of construction.

-   Out of the 685 total activities in the schedule there are 685
    activities that are greater than 8 weeks in duration and 209 of
    those activities are greater than 16 weeks in duration. Based on the
    current project cost estimate of over \$20M, an Earned Value
    Management System (EVMS) and reporting will be required. To
    establish a schedule that will result in quality EVMS data to manage
    a project, the schedule activities need to be shorter in duration
    (i.e. 3 months or less) or objective method to measure progress
    established. The schedule needs to be assessed and updated to assure
    it is configured for EVMS reporting and give the project management
    an accurate assessment of project progress.

-   Turnover and project closeout activities have not been included in
    the schedule or in the cost estimate. These activities should be
    added to the schedule and resource loaded.

Recommendations

57. The DECam project needs to implement their risk management plan as
    soon as possible to assure that risk mitigation plans have been
    incorporated into the base schedule and that schedule contingency
    has been developed based on the risk assessment. A similar
    recommendation was identified in the prior 2004 Director's Review
    Report (Section 4.0 -- Schedule, Recommendation #1).

58. The committee believes that it will be difficult for DECam to
    accomplish all the work required to carry the design forward and to
    be ready for the March 2007 baseline review with the current
    available resources. DECam needs to define what work is required to
    meet the baseline requirements and determine what resources are
    required to accomplish that work. Then work with Lab Management on
    any resource shortfalls and then determine when the project can be
    ready for a baseline review.

59. The committee believes that the project can be accomplished in the
    schedule range between March 2010 and March 2011 as presented during
    the review. The committee recommends that DECam assure that the
    reason given to justify the schedule range is better defined with a
    sound risk basis.

60. The committee recommends that DECam identify the camera's technical
    specifications needed to meet the minimum scientific requirements to
    assure an instrument can be delivered and pass the acceptance test
    no later than the upper schedule range of March 2011.

61. DECam needs to assess and update the project schedule to address the
    varies schedule mechanic issues discussed in the comment section
    above.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461469 .anchor}3.3 Management

Findings

-   The project presented high level overviews of DES, science goals,
    the final environment, and a DECam project overview talk. The
    project overview talk covered the proposed design at Level 2. It
    covered cost, the WBS to level 2, and the critical paths. There are
    8 level 2 subprojects, including one for Project Management. There
    are level 2 managers for all L2 subprojects.

-   To Summarize;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The project has a WBS

-   The project has a resource loaded schedule

-   The upper management team is in place

-   The project has a PPEP, PPMP, and CDR and draft versions of Hazard
    Analysis, Risk Management, Configuration Management, Value
    Management and AS.

-   Total cost for Project Management was shown as \$.98M which includes
    29% contingency.

Comments

-   The project is to be commended for their progress in strengthening
    the Project Management team. The Deputy Project Managers, Scheduler
    and Budget Officer are experienced and competent, and should have no
    problems in supporting a project this size. The addition of a
    Project Engineer, who has been identified, but who is currently a
    level 2 manager needs to be expedited. The committee feels that a
    systems engineer is also probably needed. An ES&H person needs to be
    assigned to the Project office and Quality Assurance and integration
    oversight responsibilities defined in the PPMP consistent with the
    plan presented. The reviewers feel that getting these key people in
    place before the CD-2 review is important. It is good that the L2
    manager positions have been filled with competent and experienced
    people. Answers were available to questions and recommendations from
    the previous review.

-   The Conceptual Design Report is complete. The PPEP and PPMP are near
    completion, and should be ready for CD-1 with only minor additions.
    The preliminary Hazards Analysis Report is in good shape and should
    be adequate for CD-1 review.

-   The website that serves documents to the reviewers had direct links
    to all the documents that they might need to access, which was very
    helpful. Having the schedule information there in un-zipped format
    was very useful. The uniformity of slides and presentations among
    the project team and subproject leaders should be improved before
    the next review, with templates for cost, schedule, and subproject
    critical paths using the same rules for all presentations. It would
    be helpful to have the subproject WBS number, etc., in the footer
    for each presentation.

Recommendations

62. Recheck the PPEP, PPMP, and CDR and make them consistent before
    submission to DOE, with thresholds for change control (cost)
    established, and Level 3 milestones included in the PPMP.

63. Assignment of a Project Engineer and possibly a Systems Engineer to
    the Project Office should be made soon.

64. Assignment of an ES&H professional to the Project Office should be
    made soon.

65. The Project Office planning should include staffing for Project
    closeout through CD-4, and should re-examine the travel requirements
    for the entire project.

66. Project management should determine if a performance management
    system is required, and begin to implement a certifiable EVMS if so.

67. A Quality Assurance Plan should be developed, and QA oversight
    responsibilities assigned.

68. The Project Office should implement the Risk Management Plan well
    before CD-2, to engage the level 2 managers in identifying and
    managing project risks, and to develop more accurate cost and
    schedule contingencies.

69. A one page master schedule showing the high level tasks and the
    project critical path should be made.

70. The Project should plan to begin monthly reporting by the end of
    2006 so that it is a routine, well understood process by the time
    the CD-2 review happens.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461470 .anchor}4.0 Charge Questions

Technical

1.  Are the scientific requirements sound and clearly stated?

The science requirements that have been stated for the project are
sound, but added clarification would be helpful. It is not clear that
all technical requirements can be cleanly traced back to science
requirements. Some technical trades that leave global performance
parameters like AΩT unchanged, may be useful (see response to 4.2).

2.  Have these scientific requirements been translated into appropriate
    technical specifications that are clearly stated and documented for
    this stage of the project?

At the highest level, yes: the SPT survey covers 4000 square degrees of
southern sky, and the survey for high-redshift clusters demands a large
volume. The required image quality and flux limits have been derived
from a straightforward logic. These requirements, plus the need for four
bandpasses extending into the red, and the constraint on the available
observing time, define most of the high-level DES technical
specifications. The image quality has been conservatively reckoned as
comparable to the current prime focus camera. Very likely DECam will
exceed this requirement. The science \"reach\" is sensitive to the image
quality and to some extent better image quality can be traded for
observing time. This is a built-in contingency.

At a deeper level of mapping the science requirements onto the technical
specifications, more work is needed to enable clear choices between
plausible alternatives. For example, if the dark current spec were
relaxed, higher QE could be achieved. It is not clear that the adopted
technical spec optimizes the net science. Similarly the read-out noise
may be too conservative since a higher observing efficiency with a
faster read-out may compensate. Still another example concerns the
photometric accuracy required in the z band - we were informed that the
science goals could tolerate 2.5% photometric accuracy in the z band,
which seems relaxed in the context of the criticality of the photometric
redshifts. The point is not that this spec is incorrect, but that we
could not easily see how it was derived. Yet another example is how the
specifications given to the filter vendors (uniformity over the field of
the transmission function) flowed down from the science requirements.
The design of a number of subsystems is proceeding now using the
existing technical specifications, and so some of these points are
substantive.

3.  Can this design be built?

We define this question to mean: "*Are the technical risks to completion
on budget, on time and within spec acceptably low?*"

...Not as presented, due to the significant risk that the CCD yield will
be lower than the 19% which can be accommodated by the current budget.

We propose that this be addressed by adding one more wafer-lot and
increasing contingency to allow for an additional wafer-lot and the
associated packaging and testing.

We also advocate considering fall-back scenarios. At what point, if any,
will it make sense to begin the survey with a partly populated focal
plane while additional CCDs are being made and tested? If this on-time
but partial deployment makes sense scientifically, the additional cost
of disassembly and upgrading of the instrument needs to be included
within the contingency budget.

Rather than a simple pass/fail definition of success, consider the
relative impact on survey rate of a partially filled focal plane (never
upgraded), or a of a focal plane which is fully filled but includes
partially functioning or poorer performing devices. Attempt to determine
the relative likelihood of total failure of devices as opposed to
performance falling short of the acceptance criteria.

An easy compromise may be to accept the survey speed loss due to reading
out via only one amplifier per CCD. This fall back is only useful if
failure of output amplifiers or partly blocked serial registers are a
significant yield loss mechanisms. Can the software and wiring scheme
support individualized serial register clocking direction?

4.  Does the design meet technical specifications?

Yes. The technical specifications are not particularly challenging for
the existing telescope optics and mount and the optical design is up to
the task. If the detectors perform as expected, then the instrument will
meet the required scientific performance specifications.

5.  Is it a reasonable design?

Yes, the general design is a reasonable approach to putting the desired
number of CCD pixels on the sky. A wide-field prime focus camera clearly
is indicated, and completely replacing the prime focus cage makes good
sense. The optical design for the camera is sound, and the hexapod
positioning system is a good way to deal with the interface to the
telescope. The biggest area of concern is how fast the CCDs can be
procured.

6.  Does the conceptual design meet the project's objective (mission
    need)?

The conceptual design for DES does meet the stated mission need for the
ground-based dark energy CD-0 (Option 1), and is consistent with the
goals for a Stage III project as enunciated in the DETF report.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461471 .anchor}Appendices

Project Cost Estimate

Charge

Agenda

Report Outline and Reviewer Writing Assignments

Reviewer Assignments for Breakout Sessions

Reviewers' Contact Information

Participant List

Table of Recommendations

Appendix A

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461472 .anchor}DES-DECam's Project Cost
Estimate

for the Director's CD-1 Review of the DES-DECam Project

July 25 -27, 2006

![](media/image2.wmf)

Appendix B

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461473 .anchor}Charge for the Director's CD-1
Review

of the

Dark Energy Survey - DECam Project

July 25-26, 2006

Project Overview:

The Dark Energy Survey (DES) is a 5000 sq. deg. imaging survey to be
conducted using a new camera on the CTIO Blanco 4m telescope. The
primary scientific goal of the DES is to constrain dark energy
cosmological parameters using multiple techniques.

The DES is divided into two projects. One component covers the
construction of the new instrument, DECam, the second covers the
management of the data that the instrument will produce. Fermilab is
leading the instrument project and NCSA is leading the data management
project.

History:

The DES originated in response to an NOAO Announcement of Opportunity
(AO) for a partnership with NOAO in which 30% of the telescope time on
the CTIO Blanco 4m was offered in exchange for a new instrument. In Dec.
03 the DES collaboration formed and in March 04 DES submitted a proposal
to the Fermilab Physics Advisory Committee (PAC). The PAC found the
science compelling. A Director's review was held June 7- 8, 2004.
Following the June PAC meeting, the Fermilab Director gave DES Stage 1
approval.

In July 04 DES submitted the updated DES proposal to NOAO in response to
the AO. A technical committee (the Blanco Instrumentation Review Panel
-- BIRP) appointed by NOAO reviewed the proposal in Aug. 04 and in Sept.
04 recommended that NOAO accept the proposal. The Director of NOAO
approved the proposal and advised DES to develop a Memorandum of
Agreement. A draft of this agreement has been prepared and reviewed by
the directors of Fermilab, NOAO and NCSA.

Scope:

The scope of this review is DECam. Fermilab is the lead institution on
the project to construct DECam and the majority of the project funding
will hopefully be provided by DOE. Since the time of the BIRP review DES
has been adding collaborators who can make significant cash or in-kind
contributions that would reduce the potential DOE project costs, with a
goal that approximately one third of the project equipment costs will be
funded by non-DOE funds. The current funding plan includes funding from
DOE and funding of in-kind contributions by the United Kingdom(PPARC),
Spain(CSIC), and several universities from non-DOE funds.

The DECam project as a whole is managed at Fermilab. R&D for the project
is proceeding using funds from both DOE and non-DOE sources.

Approval of CD-1 by DOE is based on a Conceptual Design Report (CDR) for
the project. The project scope and preliminary baseline range for the
cost and schedule are to be defined at this point in the project. The
committee should answer the following questions regarding the scope of
DECam: Are the scientific requirements sound and clearly stated? Have
these scientific requirements been translated into appropriate technical
specifications that are clearly stated and documented for this stage of
the project? Can the design be built? Does the design meet the technical
specifications? Is it a reasonable design? Does the conceptual design
meet the project's objective (mission need)?

Some additional documents that support the CD-1 determination are a
Preliminary Project Execution Plan (PPEP), a Preliminary Project
Management Plan (PPMP), Acquisition Strategy, Preliminary Hazard
Analysis (PHP) report and Draft Risk Management Plan. The technical part
of the review will focus on the conceptual design of the DECam. It will
determine whether these designs meet the requirements and specifications
and whether the designs are sound. The cost, schedule and scope ranges
are usually based on an initial set of documentation such as the
following: WBS -- Work Breakdown Structure, WBS Dictionary, BOE -- Basis
of Estimate documentation, risk and contingency analyses, RLS --
Resource Loaded Schedule, and time phased funding and cost profiles. The
committee is asked to review each of these items, for quality,
completeness, and accuracy. The committee should determine whether
appropriate ES&H measures have been and are being taken into account.
Furthermore, the committee is asked to review and assess the quality of
and comment on the additional formal project management documentation
(PPEP, PPMP, PHA and RMP) required for CD-1 approval.

Additionally, the committee is to review and comment on Project's
response and actions taken with respect to the recommendations from the
Director's Preliminary Review of DECam in June 2004 and from the Blanco
Instrumentation Review Panel (BIRP) Review. Constructive comments on
presentation content, format, and style are also requested.

Finally, the committee should present findings, comments, and
conclusions at a closeout meeting with DECam, Fermilab, NCSA and NOAO
management and provide a written report soon after the review.

***Expectations for a Successful CD-1 Review*** Attachment 1

-   Completed Conceptual Design Report: It should

    -   Document the science requirements to be met,

    -   Describe technical solutions that are likely to meet the science
        requirements,

    -   Provide a credible estimate of the cost range and associated
        supporting information to justify the cost range,

    -   Present a credible schedule duration which shows how long it
        will take to complete design and construction,

-   Project team in place: The team should be capable of carrying the
    design forward to a baseline.

    -   A qualified project management team should be in place,

    -   The scientists, engineers, and other personnel needed to
        complete the design have been identified and made available,

    -   Project roles and responsibilities are clearly defined,

    -   There is a plan to complete the R&D needed for the design and
        resources to implement the plan have been identified.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Other required documentation for CD-1:

    -   Preliminary Project Execution Plan (PPEP) which addresses all
        required elements of the PEP at a preliminary level.

        -   Details can be completed at CD-2 when the final PEP is
            approved.

        -   A Risk Management Plan that describes the method for
            managing technical risk, budget risk, and schedule risk,

        -   An Acquisition Plan that identifies procurement strategies,
            including critical make vs. buy decisions that have been
            evaluated in conjunction with scope definition,

        -   If a Preliminary Project Management Plan (PPMP) will be used
            to supplement the PEP then a draft should also exist at a
            similar level of detail.

    -   Preliminary Hazard Analysis Report which identifies major safety
        issues and conceptual solutions to mitigate these issues.

[]{#OLE_LINK4 .anchor}Appendix C

Agenda

**for the CD-1 Director's Review**

**Dark Energy Survey Instrument -- DECam Project**

**July 25-27, 2006**

**Tuesday, July 25, 2004 -- Location**

+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 8:00--9:00 AM | Executive Session (Comitium -     | Ed Temple        |
|               | WH2SE)                            |                  |
|               |                                   | Rich Kron        |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 9:00--9:10 AM | Introduction (Curia II -- WH2SW)  | Hugh Montgomery  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 9:10--9:25 AM | DES Project overview              | John Peoples     |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 9:25--9:50 AM | DES in the context of the Dark    | Josh Frieman     |
|               | Energy Task Force Rpt             |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 9:50--10:15   | DES Science goals and             | Jim Annis        |
| AM            | requirements                      |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 10:15--10:40  | Break                             |                  |
| AM            |                                   |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 10:40--11:05  | AO, CTIO site, telescope          | Alistair Walker  |
| AM            | environment, user community,      |                  |
|               | DECam and CTIO                    |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 11:05--12:05  | DECam Project Overview,           | Brenna Flaugher  |
| PM            | Management, Organization, Cost,   |                  |
|               | Schedule                          |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 12:05--12:30  | Data Management                   | Joe Mohr         |
| PM            |                                   |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 12:30--1:30   | Lunch (2^nd^ Floor Crossover)     |                  |
| PM            |                                   |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 1:30--1:55 PM | CCD characterization, yield       | Juan Estrada     |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 1:55 - 2:20   | CCD readout electronics           | Terri Shaw       |
| PM            |                                   |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 2:20--2:45 PM | Optics: design, procurement       | Peter Doel       |
|               | assembly and testing plans        |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 2:45--3:10 PM | Mechanical Overview (camera,      | Andy Stefanik    |
|               | barrel, cage, hexapod\...)        |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 3:10--3:35 PM | Simulations and Photo-z's         | Huan Lin         |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 3:35--4:00 PM | BREAK                             |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 4:00--5:00 PM | Breakouts Sessions (Sessions 2, 3 |                  |
|               | and 4 only) See Breakout Detail   |                  |
|               | Section for Room Assignments      |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 5:00--6:30 PM | Executive Session (Comitium       | Ed Temple        |
|               | WH2SE)                            |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+

# Wednesday, July 26, 2006

+--------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 8:00--8:45   | Cost and Schedule Executive       | Ed Temple        |
| AM           | Session (Comitium WH2SE)          |                  |
+--------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 8:45 --      | Breakouts Sessions                |                  |
| 12:45        |                                   |                  |
|              | (BREAK at 10:15 outside of        |                  |
|              | Comitium)                         |                  |
+--------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
|              | 1\) Management, Cost and Schedule | Brenna Flaugher, |
|              | (Comitium - WH2SE)                | Wyatt Merrit,    |
|              |                                   |                  |
|              | > WBS 1.1 - Management            |                  |
+--------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
|              | 2\) Focal Plane Detectors and CCD | Tom Diehl,       |
|              | Camera (Snake Pit -- WH2NE)       |                  |
|              |                                   | Herman Cease     |
|              | > WBS 1.2 - Focal Plane Detectors |                  |
|              | >                                 |                  |
|              | > WBS 1.5.2 -- CCD Camera         |                  |
+--------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
|              | 3\) CCD Readout Electronics and   | Jon Thaler,      |
|              | SISPI (Racetrack -- WH7X)         |                  |
|              |                                   | Terri Shaw       |
|              | > WBS 1.3 - Front End Electronics |                  |
|              | >                                 |                  |
|              | > WBS 1.6 - Survey Image System   |                  |
|              | > Process Integration (SISPI)     |                  |
+--------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
|              | 4\) Optics, Opto-Mechanics,       | Peter Doel,      |
|              | Survey Planning, Integration      |                  |
|              | (Black Hole -- WH2NW)             | Andy Stefanik,   |
|              |                                   |                  |
|              | > WBS 1.4 - Optics                |                  |
|              | >                                 |                  |
|              | > WBS 1.5 - Opto-Mechanical       |                  |
|              | > System                          |                  |
|              | >                                 |                  |
|              | > WBS 1.7 - Survey Planning       |                  |
|              | >                                 |                  |
|              | > WBS 1.8 - CTIO Integration      |                  |
+--------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 12:45--1:45  | LUNCH (2^nd^ Floor Crossover)     |                  |
| PM           |                                   |                  |
+--------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 1:45--2:45   | DES Respond to Committee          | Brenna Flaugher, |
| PM           | Questions from 1^st^ Day and      | Wyatt Merritt,   |
|              | Additional Questions from         |                  |
|              | Breakouts (Comitium, WH2SE)       | John Peoples     |
+--------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 2::45        | Executive Session and Report      | Ed Temple        |
| PM-6:30+     | Writing (Comitium, WH2SE)         |                  |
|              |                                   |                  |
| (Break at    |                                   |                  |
| 3:45)        |                                   |                  |
+--------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+

**Thursday July 27th**

  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------
  8:30--2:00 PM    Closeout Dry Run with working lunch (Comitium - WH2SE)
                   Breaks taken as necessary.

  2:00 PM          Closeout (Curia II - WH2SW)
  ---------------- ------------------------------------------------------

**Breakouts Details with possible talks identified**

+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
|               | **1) Management (WBS 1.1)**       |                  |
|               | (Comitium - WH2SE)                |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | Milestones, Critical paths,       | Brenna Flaugher  |
|               | Procurements                      |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | CD-1 Documents                    | Wyatt Merritt    |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
|               |                                   |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
|               | **2) Focal Plane Detectors (WBS   | Tom Diehl,       |
|               | 1.2) and CCD Camera (WBS 1.5.2)** |                  |
|               | (Snake Pit -- WH2NE)              | Herman Cease     |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | CCD testing rate, production      | Juan Estrada     |
|               | plans                             |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | CCD packaging and testing         | Tom Diehl        |
|               | infrastructure                    |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | CCD reports and analysis          | Julia Campa\*    |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | Computing support for CCD testing | Liz Buckley-Geer |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | Prime Focus Camera                | Herman Cease     |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
|               |                                   |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
|               | **3) CCD readout Electronics (WBS | Jon Thaler,      |
|               | 1.3) and SISPI (WBS 1.6)**        |                  |
|               | (Racetrack -- WH7X)               | Terri Shaw       |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | Clock Transition cards and MCB    | Manel Martinez\* |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | Clock Board Design                | Juan de          |
|               |                                   | Vicente\*        |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | 12 Channel Acquisition Card       | Dave Huffman     |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | SISPI                             | Jon Thaler       |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | CCD readout Crates                | Vaidas Simaitis  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | Guiding                           | Francisco        |
|               |                                   | Castander        |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
|               |                                   |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
|               | **4) Optics (WBS 1.4),            | Peter Doel,      |
|               | Opto-Mechanics (WBS 1.5), Survey  |                  |
|               | Planning (WBS 1.7) Integration    | Andy Stefanik    |
|               | (WBS(1.8)** (Black Hole -- WH2NW) |                  |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | Optical Design and optimization   | Rebecca          |
|               |                                   | Bernstein        |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | Optical Testing                   | David Brooks     |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | Photoz-s and filter definition    | Huan Lin         |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | Focus and alignment               | Steve Kent       |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | Hexapods                          | French Leger     |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | Camera Cooling Plant              | Rich Schmitt     |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+
| 20 min        | Integration at CTIO               | Tim Abbott\*     |
+---------------+-----------------------------------+------------------+

\* Indicates attending via video conference.

Appendix D

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461475 .anchor}Report Outline and Reviewer
Writing Assignments

**for the Director's CD-1 Review**

**of the**

**Dark Energy Survey - DECam Project**

**July 25-27, 2006**

+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| Executive Summary                                     | [Rich        |
|                                                       | Kron]        |
| Technical                                             | {.underline} |
|                                                       |              |
| Project Management                                    | [Ed          |
|                                                       | Temple]      |
|                                                       | {.underline} |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1.0 Introduction                                      | [Dean        |
|                                                       | Hoffer]      |
|                                                       | {.underline} |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| 2.0 Technical                                         |              |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| 2.1 Science Requirements                              | [Steve       |
|                                                       | Kahn]{       |
|                                                       | .underline}, |
|                                                       |              |
|                                                       | Stefi Baum,  |
|                                                       |              |
|                                                       | Jack         |
|                                                       | Baldwin,     |
|                                                       |              |
|                                                       | Rich Kron    |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| 2.2 Focal Plane Detectors and CCD Camera              | [Gerry       |
|                                                       | Luppino]     |
| > WBS 1.2 - Focal Plane Detectors                     | {.underline} |
| >                                                     |              |
| > WBS 1.5.2 -- CCD Camera                             | Chris        |
|                                                       | Damerell     |
|                                                       |              |
|                                                       | Steve Kahn   |
|                                                       |              |
|                                                       | Rich Kron    |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| 2.3 Readout Electronics and SISPI                     | [Roger       |
|                                                       | Smith]       |
| > WBS 1.3 - Front End Electronics                     | {.underline} |
| >                                                     |              |
| > WBS 1.6 - Survey Image System Process Integration   | Stefi Baum   |
| > (SISPI)                                             |              |
|                                                       | Peter Wilson |
|                                                       |              |
|                                                       | Bob          |
|                                                       | Tschirhart   |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| 2.4 Optics, Opto-Mechanics, Survey Planning,          | [Alan        |
| Integration                                           | Uomoto]      |
|                                                       | {.underline} |
| > WBS 1.4 - Optics                                    |              |
| >                                                     | Jack Baldwin |
| > WBS 1.5 - Opto-Mechanical System                    |              |
| >                                                     | Jim Kerby    |
| > WBS 1.7 - Survey Planning                           |              |
| >                                                     |              |
| > WBS 1.8 - CTIO Integration                          |              |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| 3.0 Project Management - WBS 1.1 - Management         |              |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| > 3.1 Cost                                            | [Marc        |
|                                                       | Kaducak]     |
|                                                       | {.underline} |
|                                                       |              |
|                                                       | Mike         |
|                                                       | Lindgren     |
|                                                       |              |
|                                                       | Dean Hoffer  |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| > 3.2 Schedule                                        | [Dean        |
|                                                       | Hoffer]      |
|                                                       | {.underline} |
|                                                       |              |
|                                                       | Marc Kaducak |
|                                                       |              |
|                                                       | Mike         |
|                                                       | Lindgren     |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| > 3.3 Management                                      | [Mike        |
|                                                       | Lindgren]    |
|                                                       | {.underline} |
|                                                       |              |
|                                                       | Ed Temple    |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| 4.0 Charge Questions                                  |              |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| > 4.1 Are the scientific requirements sound and       | [Steve       |
| > clearly stated?                                     | Kahn]        |
|                                                       | {.underline} |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| > 4.2 Have these scientific requirements been         | [Rich        |
| > translated into appropriate technical               | Kron]        |
| > specifications that are clearly stated and          | {.underline} |
| > documented for this stage of the project?           |              |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| > 4.3 Can the design be built?                        | [Roger       |
|                                                       | Smith]       |
|                                                       | {.underline} |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| > 4.4 Does the design meet the technical              | [Alan        |
| > specifications?                                     | Uomoto]      |
|                                                       | {.underline} |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| > 4.5 Is it a reasonable design?                      | [Jack        |
|                                                       | Baldwin]     |
|                                                       | {.underline} |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
| > 4.6 Does the conceptual design meet the project's   | [Steve       |
| > objective (mission need)?                           | Kahn]        |
|                                                       | {.underline} |
+-------------------------------------------------------+--------------+

\* Note underlined names are the primary writer.

Appendix E

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461476 .anchor}Reviewer Assignments for
Breakout Sessions

**For Director's CD-1 Review**

**of the**

**Dark Energy Survey -- DECam Project**

**July 25-27, 2006**

+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| **1) Management, Cost and Schedule** (Comitium -  | Marc Kaducak     |
| WH2SE)                                            |                  |
|                                                   | Mike Lindgren    |
| > WBS 1.1 - Management                            |                  |
|                                                   | Dean Hoffer      |
|                                                   |                  |
|                                                   | Ed Temple        |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| **2) Focal Plane Detectors and CCD Camera**       | Chris Damerell   |
| (Snake Pit -- WH2NE)                              |                  |
|                                                   | Steve Kahn       |
| > WBS 1.2 - Focal Plane Detectors                 |                  |
| >                                                 | Rich Kron        |
| > WBS 1.5.2 -- CCD Camera                         |                  |
|                                                   | Gerry Luppino    |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| **3) CCD Readout Electronics and SISPI** (Black   | Stefi Baum       |
| Hole -- WH2NW)                                    |                  |
|                                                   | Roger Smith      |
| > WBS 1.3 - Front End Electronics                 |                  |
| >                                                 | Peter Wilson     |
| > WBS 1.6 - Survey Image System Process           |                  |
| > Integration (SISPI)                             | Bob Tschirhart   |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+
| **4) Optics, Opto-Mechanics, Survey Planning,     | Jack Baldwin     |
| Integration** (Racetrack -- WH7X)                 |                  |
|                                                   | Jim Kerby        |
| > WBS 1.4 - Optics                                |                  |
| >                                                 | Alan Uomoto      |
| > WBS 1.5 - Opto-Mechanical System                |                  |
| >                                                 |                  |
| > WBS 1.7 - Survey Planning                       |                  |
| >                                                 |                  |
| > WBS 1.8 - CTIO Integration                      |                  |
+---------------------------------------------------+------------------+

Appendix F

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461477 .anchor}Reviewers' Contact Information

**for the Director's CD-1 Review of DES-DECam Project**

**July 25-27, 2006**

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
  Jack Baldwin                                              Stefi Baum

  Michigan State University                                 Rochester Institute of Technology

  3270 BIOMED PHYS SCI                                      54 Lomb Memorial Drive

  East Lansing MI 48824-2320                                Rochester NY 14623-5604

  517-355-9200 x 2411                                       585-475-5944 (admin asst)

  [baldwi80@msu.edu](../baldwi80@msu.edu)                   [Baum@cis.rit.edu](../Baum@cis.rit.edu)

                                                            

                                                            

  Chris Damerell                                            Dean Hoffer

  Particle Physics Department                               Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

  Rutherford Appleton Laboratory                            M.S. 200

  Chilton, Didcot                                           P.O. Box 500

  Oxon, UK OX11 0QX                                         Batavia, IL. 60510

  +44 1235 446298                                           630-840-8898

  [C.J.S.Damerell@rl.ac.uk](../C.J.S.Damerell@rl.ac.uk)     <dhoffer@fnal.gov>

                                                            

  Marc Kaducak                                              Steven Kahn

  Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory                     KIPAC Physics Dept. MS 29

  M.S. 367                                                  Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

  P.O. Box 500                                              2575 Sand Hill Road

  Batavia, IL. 60510                                        Menlo Park CA 94025

  630-840-5192                                              650-926-4622

  <mkaducak@fnal.gov>                                       [skahn@SLAC.Stanford.EDU](../skahn@SLAC.Stanford.EDU)

                                                            

  Jim Kerby                                                 Richard Kron (Co chair)

  Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory                     Astronomy and Physics

  M.S. 316                                                  University of Chicago AAC 038

  P.O. Box 500                                              5640 Ellis Ave.

  Batavia, IL. 60510                                        Chicago IL 60637

  630-840-3595                                              773-702-3335

  <mlindgre@fnal.gov>                                       <rich@oddjob.uchicago.edu>

                                                            

  Michael Lindgren                                          Gerard Luppino

  Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory                     University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy

  M.S. 318                                                  2680 Woodlawn Drive

  P.O. Box 500                                              Honolulu HI 96822-1897

  Batavia, IL. 60510                                        808-956-8312

  630-840-8409                                              [ger@ifa.hawaii.edu](../ger@ifa.hawaii.edu)

  <mlindgre@fnal.gov>                                       

                                                            

  Roger Montague Smith                                      Ed Temple (Co chair)

  Caltech Optical Observatory                               Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

  M/C 105-24                                                M.S. 200

  California Institute of Technology                        P.O. Box 500

  Pasadena CA 91125                                         Batavia, IL. 60510

  626-395-8780                                              630-840-5242

  [rsmith@astro.caltech.edu](../rsmith@astro.caltech.edu)   <etemple@fnal.gov>

                                                            

  Bob Tschirhart                                            Alan Uomoto

  Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory                     The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of

  M.S. 370                                                  Washington

  P.O. Box 500                                              813 Santa Barbara Street

  Batavia, IL. 60510                                        Pasadena, CA. 91101

  630-840-4100                                              626-304-0278

  [tsch@fnal.gov](../tsch@fnal.gov)                         [au@ociw.edu](../au@ociw.edu)

                                                            

  Peter Wilson                                              

  Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory                     

  M.S. 318                                                  

  P.O. Box 500                                              

  Batavia, IL. 60510                                        

  630-840-2156                                              

  [pjw@fnal.gov](../pjw@fnal.gov)                           
  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------

Appendix G

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461478 .anchor}Participant List

for the Director's CD-1 Review of the DES-DECam Project

July 25-27, 2006

  ---------------- -------------- ----------- -------------------------------------
  **Role**         **Last Name**  **First     **Affiliation**
                                  Name**      

  **Reviewers**    Baldwin        Jack        Michigan State University

                   Baum           Stephanie   Rochester Institute of Technology

                   Damerell       Chris       Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, UK

                   Hoffer         Dean        FNAL

                   Kaducak        Marc        FNAL

                   Kahn           Steve       SLAC

                   Kerby          Jim         FNAL

                   Kron           Richard     University of Chicago

                   Lindgren       Mike        FNAL

                   Luppino        Gerard      University of Hawaii, Institute for
                                              Astronomy

                   Smith          Roger       Cal Tech Optical Observatory

                   Temple         Ed          FNAL

                   Tschirhart     Bob         FNAL

                   Uomoto         Alan        The Observatories of the Carnegie
                                              Institute of Washington

                   Wilson         Peter       FNAL

  **Presenters**   Abbott \*      Tim         Cerro Tololo Inter-American
                                              Observatory

                   Annis          Jim         FNAL

                   Bernstein      Rebecca     U Michigan

                   Brooks         David       University College London

                   Buckley-Geer   Liz         Fermilab

                   Campa \*       Julia       Universidad Autonoma de Madrid

                   Castander \*   Francisco   IEEE

                   Cease          Herman      FNAL

                   de Vicente \*  Juan        Centro de Investigaciones
                                              Energéticas, Medioambientales y
                                              Tecnológicas (CIEMAT) Madrid, Spain

                   Diehl          Tom         FNAL

                   Doel \*        Peter       UCL

                   Estrada        Juan        FNAL

                   Flaugher       Brenna      FNAL

                   Frieman        Josh        FNAL/Uchicago

                   Huffman        Dave        Fermilab

                   Kent           Steve       FNAL

                   Leger          French      FNAL

                   Lin            Huan        FNAL

                   Martinez \*    Manel       Institut de Fisica d\'Altes Energies
                                              (IFAE)

                   Merritt        Wyatt       FNAL

                   Mohr           Joe         U of I Champaign/Urbana

                   Peoples        John        FNAL

                   Schmitt        Richard     FNAL

                   Shaw           Terri       FNAL

                   Simaitis       Vaidas      U of I Champaign/Urbana

                   Stefanik       Andy        FNAL

                   Thaler         Jon         U of I Champaign/Urbana

                   Walker         Alistair    CTIO/NOAO - DIR
  ---------------- -------------- ----------- -------------------------------------

  ----------------- ------------ ----------- -------------------------------------
                                             

  **Role**          **Last       **First     **Affiliation**
                    Name**       Name**      

  **DOE**           Livengood    Joanna      DOE SO

                    Lutha        Ron         DOE SO

                    Philps       Paul        DOE SO

  **Directorate**   Kim          Young-Kee   FNAL

                    Montgomery   Hugh        FNAL

                    Oddone       Pier        FNAL

  **Other           Beldica      Cristina    U of I Champaign/Urbana
  Participants**                             

                    Bock         Greg        FNAL/PPD

                    Boroson      Todd        NOAO - Directorate

                    Cardiel \*   Laia        IFAE

                    Donahue      Megan       Michigan State University

                    Dunning      Thom        NLSA Director

                    Gerdes \*    David       U Michigan

                    Gladders \*  Mike        Carnegie Observatories

                    Honscheid    Klaus       Ohio State University

                    Karliner \*  Inga        U of I Champaign/Urbana

                    Sarlina      T.J.        FNAL

                    Scarpine     Vic         FNAL

                    Stoughton    Chris       FNAL

                    Strait       Jim         FNAL/PPD

                    Tucker       Doug        FNAL

                    White        Vicky       FNAL/CD

                    Worswick     Sue         University College London
  ----------------- ------------ ----------- -------------------------------------

\* Indicates attended by video conference.

Appendix H

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc142461479 .anchor}Table of Recommendations

for the Director's CD-1 Review of the DES-DECam Project

July 25-27, 2006

+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| * | **Recommendation**                 | **Ass | **S      | *       |
| * |                                    | igned | tatus/** | *Date** |
| \ |                                    | To**  |          |         |
| # |                                    |       | **       |         |
| * |                                    |       | Action** |         |
| * |                                    |       |          |         |
+===+====================================+=======+==========+=========+
|   | Science Requirements               |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 1 | A clear connection should be made  |       |          |         |
|   | between the two levels of science  |       |          |         |
|   | requirements and the subsequent    |       |          |         |
|   | decision-making process of the     |       |          |         |
|   | project as it proceeds into        |       |          |         |
|   | development. Is achievement of     |       |          |         |
|   | "substantial success" sufficient   |       |          |         |
|   | for the project or not?            |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 2 | A more detailed calibration error  |       |          |         |
|   | budget should be developed for     |       |          |         |
|   | CD-2. This should include explicit |       |          |         |
|   | simulations that demonstrate the   |       |          |         |
|   | required photometric precision can |       |          |         |
|   | be achieved at all points in the   |       |          |         |
|   | survey region. If the photometric  |       |          |         |
|   | precision will be heterogeneous    |       |          |         |
|   | over the survey region, the        |       |          |         |
|   | science implications should be     |       |          |         |
|   | addressed.                         |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 3 | A set of more extensive science    |       |          |         |
|   | trades should be performed for     |       |          |         |
|   | technical choices that leave       |       |          |         |
|   | global performance unchanged --    |       |          |         |
|   | e.g. total field versus packing    |       |          |         |
|   | efficiency, versus efficiency in   |       |          |         |
|   | the use of observing time, quantum |       |          |         |
|   | efficiency in the various bands,   |       |          |         |
|   | etc. Each technical requirement    |       |          |         |
|   | should have a clear science        |       |          |         |
|   | rationale.                         |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 4 | The MOU with NOAO should include a |       |          |         |
|   | detailed discussion of science     |       |          |         |
|   | requirements for the use of the    |       |          |         |
|   | DECam by the general user          |       |          |         |
|   | community. These requirements      |       |          |         |
|   | should be identified and           |       |          |         |
|   | enunciated very soon to ensure     |       |          |         |
|   | that they can be met by the        |       |          |         |
|   | present design.                    |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
|   | WBS 1.2 -- Focal Plane Detectors   |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 5 | The project should add an          |       |          |         |
|   | additional lot of CCDs to their    |       |          |         |
|   | baseline program, including all    |       |          |         |
|   | the steps needed to make these     |       |          |         |
|   | CCDs ready for deployment into the |       |          |         |
|   | camera (wafer production at DALSA, |       |          |         |
|   | processing at LBNL, packaging and  |       |          |         |
|   | testing at FNAL).                  |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+

+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| * | **Recommendation**                 | **Ass | **S      | *       |
| * |                                    | igned | tatus/** | *Date** |
| \ |                                    | To**  |          |         |
| # |                                    |       | **       |         |
| * |                                    |       | Action** |         |
| * |                                    |       |          |         |
+===+====================================+=======+==========+=========+
| 6 | The team should justify its choice |       |          |         |
|   | of 250-microns for the CCD         |       |          |         |
|   | thickness (as compared to thicker) |       |          |         |
|   | and should indicate that it plans  |       |          |         |
|   | to investigate the trade in NIR-QE |       |          |         |
|   | vs. dark current that can be had   |       |          |         |
|   | at a warmer operating temperature  |       |          |         |
|   | of, say, -80C.                     |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 7 | The project needs to carefully     |       |          |         |
|   | consider their decision on whether |       |          |         |
|   | to go with the re-polished Wacker  |       |          |         |
|   | material or the new wafers with    |       |          |         |
|   | polybackseal. This decision should |       |          |         |
|   | be made after extensive test data  |       |          |         |
|   | are available for the new          |       |          |         |
|   | polybackseal devices (e.g. 1 or 2  |       |          |         |
|   | working devices does not           |       |          |         |
|   | constitute an extensive set of     |       |          |         |
|   | test data). Similarly, test data   |       |          |         |
|   | need to be acquired for the        |       |          |         |
|   | re-polished Wacker devices. After  |       |          |         |
|   | reviewing the specification for    |       |          |         |
|   | wafer repolishing, we also         |       |          |         |
|   | recommend that a minimum amount of |       |          |         |
|   | material to be removed be called   |       |          |         |
|   | out in the spec (e.g. the spec     |       |          |         |
|   | currently calls out only a maximum |       |          |         |
|   | amount of 10 microns to be removed |       |          |         |
|   | but does not call out a minimum    |       |          |         |
|   | amount that must be removed).      |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 8 | Adequate resources (primarily      |       |          |         |
|   | experienced personnel) need to be  |       |          |         |
|   | provided to carry out CCD testing, |       |          |         |
|   | characterization and optimization. |       |          |         |
|   | This process can be divided into   |       |          |         |
|   | two distinct areas: 1) R&D testing |       |          |         |
|   | to explore and understand the      |       |          |         |
|   | performance of the LBNL CCDs over  |       |          |         |
|   | a wide range of operating          |       |          |         |
|   | parameters, 2) production testing  |       |          |         |
|   | which is an automated set of tasks |       |          |         |
|   | that generates a large data set of |       |          |         |
|   | images that are analyzed to select |       |          |         |
|   | the best CCDs with their optimal   |       |          |         |
|   | operating parameters. These two    |       |          |         |
|   | areas are coupled, with the first  |       |          |         |
|   | needing to be carried out before   |       |          |         |
|   | one can design and implement the   |       |          |         |
|   | best automated production testing  |       |          |         |
|   | plan. The team should prepare a    |       |          |         |
|   | detailed test plan showing what    |       |          |         |
|   | data will be collected, and how    |       |          |         |
|   | these data will be used to         |       |          |         |
|   | determine the device properties    |       |          |         |
|   | and to converge on an optimal set  |       |          |         |
|   | of operating parameters for each   |       |          |         |
|   | device.                            |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+

+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| * | **Recommendation**                 | **Ass | **S      | *       |
| * |                                    | igned | tatus/** | *Date** |
| \ |                                    | To**  |          |         |
| # |                                    |       | **       |         |
| * |                                    |       | Action** |         |
| * |                                    |       |          |         |
+===+====================================+=======+==========+=========+
| 9 | The DECam team should include Fe55 |       |          |         |
|   | x-ray testing as one of the core   |       |          |         |
|   | techniques used to characterize    |       |          |         |
|   | the CCDs. A complete set of Fe55   |       |          |         |
|   | data should be collected and       |       |          |         |
|   | analyzed for each detector. It     |       |          |         |
|   | would be essential to further      |       |          |         |
|   | characterize a subset of devices   |       |          |         |
|   | using lower-energy x-rays, or      |       |          |         |
|   | UV/blue photons to probe the back  |       |          |         |
|   | surface and insure a field-free    |       |          |         |
|   | region does not exist.             |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 1 | A means should be identified to    |       |          |         |
| 0 | strain relieve the surface-mounted |       |          |         |
|   | Nanonics connector on the ALN      |       |          |         |
|   | board. Metalized traces on ceramic |       |          |         |
|   | are much more delicate than copper |       |          |         |
|   | traces on FR-4 or polyimide, and   |       |          |         |
|   | it will be quite easy to pull this |       |          |         |
|   | connector right off the ALN if any |       |          |         |
|   | shear force is encountered during  |       |          |         |
|   | mating and unmating, or by pulling |       |          |         |
|   | on the mating flexcable.           |       |          |         |
|   | Therefore, we recommend that the   |       |          |         |
|   | number of mating and unmating      |       |          |         |
|   | cycles of this joint should be     |       |          |         |
|   | minimized. This can be achieved by |       |          |         |
|   | using a connector saver at all     |       |          |         |
|   | times on the device package for    |       |          |         |
|   | all device testing. The connector  |       |          |         |
|   | saver should only be removed for   |       |          |         |
|   | the final installation in the      |       |          |         |
|   | camera focalplane. The mating and  |       |          |         |
|   | unmating cycles can also be        |       |          |         |
|   | minimized if the team decides to   |       |          |         |
|   | attach the long flexcable to the   |       |          |         |
|   | package and leave it there at all  |       |          |         |
|   | times for device testing and       |       |          |         |
|   | handling. This approach, however,  |       |          |         |
|   | may complicate the device handling |       |          |         |
|   | and storage and focalplane loading |       |          |         |
|   | process. The Nanonics connector    |       |          |         |
|   | should also be strain relieved,    |       |          |         |
|   | perhaps by potting the base of the |       |          |         |
|   | connector into the invar block.    |       |          |         |
|   | This does not preclude using a     |       |          |         |
|   | connector saver, as damage to the  |       |          |         |
|   | connector itself is also a risk    |       |          |         |
|   | (as opposed to damage to the       |       |          |         |
|   | surface-mount joint), but it at    |       |          |         |
|   | least minimizes one of the risk    |       |          |         |
|   | areas.                             |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 1 | We recommend that in most cases,   |       |          |         |
| 1 | the 3^rd^ or 4^th^ design          |       |          |         |
|   | iteration was unlikely to be       |       |          |         |
|   | needed and should be considered to |       |          |         |
|   | be part of the contingency.        |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
|   | WBS 1.5.2 CCD Camera               |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 1 | A list of focalplane metrology     |       |          |         |
| 2 | specifications needs to be         |       |          |         |
|   | prepared.                          |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+

+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| * | **Recommendation**                 | **Ass | **S      | *       |
| * |                                    | igned | tatus/** | *Date** |
| \ |                                    | To**  |          |         |
| # |                                    |       | **       |         |
| * |                                    |       | Action** |         |
| * |                                    |       |          |         |
+===+====================================+=======+==========+=========+
| 1 | Results of thermal modeling and    |       |          |         |
| 3 | FEA analysis should be presented   |       |          |         |
|   | to show that the camera focalplane |       |          |         |
|   | meets spec.                        |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
|   | WBS 1.3 Front End Electronics      |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 1 | Gain as much experience as         |       |          |         |
| 4 | possible, as early as possible in  |       |          |         |
|   | the project, with the electronics  |       |          |         |
|   | and associated software, by using  |       |          |         |
|   | these for CCD characterization     |       |          |         |
|   | etc. Configurations as close as    |       |          |         |
|   | possible to that of the final      |       |          |         |
|   | instrument should be used in       |       |          |         |
|   | qualification tests.               |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 1 | Aim to produce the final design in |       |          |         |
| 5 | the first iteration with the       |       |          |         |
|   | second PCB design cycle fixing     |       |          |         |
|   | problems found. The third cycle    |       |          |         |
|   | should be retained as              |       |          |         |
|   | *contingency* only. This will      |       |          |         |
|   | maximize experience with boards    |       |          |         |
|   | during CCD, software, and system   |       |          |         |
|   | testing, while minimizing the risk |       |          |         |
|   | of introducing new faults during   |       |          |         |
|   | the final cycle(s). This may also  |       |          |         |
|   | lead to a cost saving by           |       |          |         |
|   | eliminating the 3rd iterations.    |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 1 | Create a clear set of acceptance   |       |          |         |
| 6 | testing criteria for each stage of |       |          |         |
|   | board development, which includes  |       |          |         |
|   | all components to be included.     |       |          |         |
|   | Design reviews between steps       |       |          |         |
|   | should include comparison of       |       |          |         |
|   | results with these criteria and    |       |          |         |
|   | provide branch points such as      |       |          |         |
|   | eliminating design iterations or   |       |          |         |
|   | implementing fallback solutions.   |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 1 | In addition to the 135 clocks,     |       |          |         |
| 7 | include several sequencer outputs  |       |          |         |
|   | (digital levels only) on front     |       |          |         |
|   | panel connectors to be used for    |       |          |         |
|   | such things as triggering          |       |          |         |
|   | oscilloscopes (eg Frame Start), or |       |          |         |
|   | operating a shutter in the lab,    |       |          |         |
|   | unless these features already      |       |          |         |
|   | exist.                             |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+

+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| * | **Recommendation**                 | **Ass | **S      | *       |
| * |                                    | igned | tatus/** | *Date** |
| \ |                                    | To**  |          |         |
| # |                                    |       | **       |         |
| * |                                    |       | Action** |         |
| * |                                    |       |          |         |
+===+====================================+=======+==========+=========+
| 1 | Test clocks and biases for noise   |       |          |         |
| 8 | performance by looping back        |       |          |         |
|   | directly into the video preamp (AC |       |          |         |
|   | coupling, stopped at high then low |       |          |         |
|   | level). Acceptable noise is        |       |          |         |
|   | defined as being much less than    |       |          |         |
|   | that of the CCD output after the   |       |          |         |
|   | clock in question has been         |       |          |         |
|   | attenuated by the clock            |       |          |         |
|   | feed-through ratio. (This needs to |       |          |         |
|   | be determined empirically.) An     |       |          |         |
|   | analog multiplexor can be used to  |       |          |         |
|   | scan through all clock outputs     |       |          |         |
|   | automatically. Notes:              |       |          |         |
|   |                                    |       |          |         |
|   | -   While technically a sufficient |       |          |         |
|   |     test, simply accepting a clock |       |          |         |
|   |     board because CCD performance  |       |          |         |
|   |     appears not to be degraded,    |       |          |         |
|   |     gives little information on    |       |          |         |
|   |     noise margin.                  |       |          |         |
|   |                                    |       |          |         |
|   | -   Furthermore the test with the  |       |          |         |
|   |     CCD works only when the test   |       |          |         |
|   |     system and CCD have already    |       |          |         |
|   |     demonstrated low noise, and    |       |          |         |
|   |     only tests a subset of the     |       |          |         |
|   |     clocks                         |       |          |         |
|   |                                    |       |          |         |
|   | -   It is preferable to use the    |       |          |         |
|   |     video signal path to monitor   |       |          |         |
|   |     clock and bias quality since   |       |          |         |
|   |     digital interference within    |       |          |         |
|   |     the controller is invisible,   |       |          |         |
|   |     since it is synchronous.       |       |          |         |
|   |     Furthermore, the video chain   |       |          |         |
|   |     has better resolution, noise   |       |          |         |
|   |     and dynamic range than most    |       |          |         |
|   |     lab instruments.               |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+

+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| * | **Recommendation**                 | **Ass | **S      | *       |
| * |                                    | igned | tatus/** | *Date** |
| \ |                                    | To**  |          |         |
| # |                                    |       | **       |         |
| * |                                    |       | Action** |         |
| * |                                    |       |          |         |
+===+====================================+=======+==========+=========+
| 1 | Verify the efficacy of the         |       |          |         |
| 9 | multi-controller synchronization   |       |          |         |
|   | mechanisms, which must be employed |       |          |         |
|   | to prevent degradation of noise    |       |          |         |
|   | performance when multiple master   |       |          |         |
|   | control boards are used together.  |       |          |         |
|   | This should be done during the     |       |          |         |
|   | testing of the first PCB versions  |       |          |         |
|   | in case the problem requires a     |       |          |         |
|   | design modification. As a          |       |          |         |
|   | baseline, search for beat          |       |          |         |
|   | frequencies by Fourier             |       |          |         |
|   | transforming the data stream from  |       |          |         |
|   | the CCD. (If significant sources   |       |          |         |
|   | of interference are found, the     |       |          |         |
|   | test can be repeated in the        |       |          |         |
|   | bias/clock loop-back               |       |          |         |
|   | configurations and with shorted    |       |          |         |
|   | video input to identify the        |       |          |         |
|   | coupling path.) The test must then |       |          |         |
|   | be repeated with *multiple*        |       |          |         |
|   | controllers (backplanes) operated  |       |          |         |
|   | in sync in the same crate, to see  |       |          |         |
|   | if new harmonics appear.           |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 2 | Revise the text of the CDR to      |       |          |         |
| 0 | focus on the baseline design then  |       |          |         |
|   | describe the justification for the |       |          |         |
|   | choice of Monsoon and for          |       |          |         |
|   | redesigning boards.                |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 2 | Incorporate load resistor for CCD  |       |          |         |
| 1 | source follower and a low noise    |       |          |         |
|   | p-channel JFET source follower and |       |          |         |
|   | its load resistor into the CCD     |       |          |         |
|   | package or on the CCD end flex     |       |          |         |
|   | cable (stiffener).                 |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
|   | **Gliders, Alignment and Focus     |       |          |         |
|   | CCDs**                             |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 2 | Consult with Rolando Cantarutti at |       |          |         |
| 2 | CTIO who is an established expert. |       |          |         |
|   | He will be able to offer examples  |       |          |         |
|   | of well developed guider software  |       |          |         |
|   | (as used on SOAR and Blanco        |       |          |         |
|   | telescopes)..                      |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+

+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| * | **Recommendation**                 | **Ass | **S      | *       |
| * |                                    | igned | tatus/** | *Date** |
| \ |                                    | To**  |          |         |
| # |                                    |       | **       |         |
| * |                                    |       | Action** |         |
| * |                                    |       |          |         |
+===+====================================+=======+==========+=========+
| 2 | Be aware that guider sensitivity   |       |          |         |
| 3 | is an issue, which is likely to    |       |          |         |
|   | arise in discussions of non-DES    |       |          |         |
|   | programs where narrower band       |       |          |         |
|   | filters are likely to be used.     |       |          |         |
|   |                                    |       |          |         |
|   | -   Consider full frame cross      |       |          |         |
|   |     correlation of the guider CCDs |       |          |         |
|   |     to achieve higher precision    |       |          |         |
|   |     and/or eliminate the need for  |       |          |         |
|   |     automatic guide star           |       |          |         |
|   |     selection.                     |       |          |         |
|   |                                    |       |          |         |
|   | -   Allow for the possibility of   |       |          |         |
|   |     using a subset of the science  |       |          |         |
|   |     field for guiding in the event |       |          |         |
|   |     that brighter guide stars (or  |       |          |         |
|   |     cross correlation of larger    |       |          |         |
|   |     area) are needed for narrow    |       |          |         |
|   |     filters: allocate CCDs to      |       |          |         |
|   |     "controllers" to optimize the  |       |          |         |
|   |     shape of the residual science  |       |          |         |
|   |     field.                         |       |          |         |
|   |                                    |       |          |         |
|   | -   Consider what would be needed  |       |          |         |
|   |     to support the selection of a  |       |          |         |
|   |     single science CCD (or a group |       |          |         |
|   |     of three) anywhere in the      |       |          |         |
|   |     field for guiding.             |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 2 | Allocate all focus/alignment CCDs  |       |          |         |
| 4 | to the same controller (changing   |       |          |         |
|   | cable layout accordingly) to       |       |          |         |
|   | protect against the case where a   |       |          |         |
|   | different readout cadence is       |       |          |         |
|   | required                           |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
|   | WBS 1.6 Survey Image System        |       |          |         |
|   | Process Integration (SISPI)        |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 2 | Analyze the need for computing     |       |          |         |
| 5 | professional developers to advance |       |          |         |
|   | the design of the data acquisition |       |          |         |
|   | and control system. In our         |       |          |         |
|   | estimation the project will        |       |          |         |
|   | require 1-2 Computing Professional |       |          |         |
|   | FTEs for 3 years to design and     |       |          |         |
|   | develop the required software      |       |          |         |
|   | systems.                           |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+

+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| * | **Recommendation**                 | **Ass | **S      | *       |
| * |                                    | igned | tatus/** | *Date** |
| \ |                                    | To**  |          |         |
| # |                                    |       | **       |         |
| * |                                    |       | Action** |         |
| * |                                    |       |          |         |
+===+====================================+=======+==========+=========+
| 2 | We recommend that the SISPI        |       |          |         |
| 6 | Project clearly identify internal  |       |          |         |
|   | DES project science and operations |       |          |         |
|   | members (including astronomical    |       |          |         |
|   | observers and those with telescope |       |          |         |
|   | operations expertise) who will     |       |          |         |
|   | constitute the necessary user      |       |          |         |
|   | group to support the development   |       |          |         |
|   | of requirements, design, testing,  |       |          |         |
|   | and deployment of the SISPI        |       |          |         |
|   | System.                            |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 2 | We recommend that the SISPI        |       |          |         |
| 7 | project work closely with NOAO to  |       |          |         |
|   | identify a User Advisory Group for |       |          |         |
|   | the SISPI project with whom they   |       |          |         |
|   | work closely in the design,        |       |          |         |
|   | development, and testing of the    |       |          |         |
|   | system to assure it integrates     |       |          |         |
|   | within the telescope environment   |       |          |         |
|   | and supports the needs of the      |       |          |         |
|   | general user community.            |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 2 | We recommend that the SISPI        |       |          |         |
| 8 | project develop a clear set of     |       |          |         |
|   | requirements from which the high   |       |          |         |
|   | level design will flow, working in |       |          |         |
|   | conjunction with the internal and  |       |          |         |
|   | external user advisors as noted in |       |          |         |
|   | recommendations 26 and 27 above.   |       |          |         |
|   | We note that as the schedule shows |       |          |         |
|   | the development of the high level  |       |          |         |
|   | design of SISPI by December 2006,  |       |          |         |
|   | it is critical that the system     |       |          |         |
|   | requirements be developed *before* |       |          |         |
|   | the initiation of the design work. |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 2 | Develop software execution speed   |       |          |         |
| 9 | budget, broken down by task. These |       |          |         |
|   | requirements must ensure that      |       |          |         |
|   | neither survey nor calibration     |       |          |         |
|   | speed (eg twilight sky flats) are  |       |          |         |
|   | not significantly impacted.        |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 3 | Ensure that system initialization  |       |          |         |
| 0 | time, including return to prior    |       |          |         |
|   | setup, are short enough (\<20sec?) |       |          |         |
|   | to have minimal impact on system   |       |          |         |
|   | testing and debugging.             |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 3 | Designate a person to be           |       |          |         |
| 1 | responsible for hardware software  |       |          |         |
|   | initialization/configuration.      |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
|   | MOU Topics                         |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 3 | Ensure that robust humidity        |       |          |         |
| 2 | control is provided both in the    |       |          |         |
|   | CTIO computer room and adjoining   |       |          |         |
|   | control room.                      |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 3 | Specify the networking and         |       |          |         |
| 3 | security requirements (firewall,   |       |          |         |
|   | access management).                |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+

+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| * | **Recommendation**                 | **Ass | **S      | *       |
| * |                                    | igned | tatus/** | *Date** |
| \ |                                    | To**  |          |         |
| # |                                    |       | **       |         |
| * |                                    |       | Action** |         |
| * |                                    |       |          |         |
+===+====================================+=======+==========+=========+
| 3 | Define (limits on) software        |       |          |         |
| 4 | support for non-DES use of the     |       |          |         |
|   | instrument, both during            |       |          |         |
|   | development and during operations  |       |          |         |
|   | phase.                             |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
|   | WBS 1.4 - Optics                   |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 3 | Define the required filter         |       |          |         |
| 5 | bandpass and throughput            |       |          |         |
|   | homogeneity over the camera field  |       |          |         |
|   | of view and incorporate that into  |       |          |         |
|   | the filer procurement process.     |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
|   | WBS 1.5 -- Opto Mechanical System  |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 3 | A full-time instrument scientist   |       |          |         |
| 6 | or systems engineer should be      |       |          |         |
|   | identified (hired, if necessary).  |       |          |         |
|   | This person should take            |       |          |         |
|   | responsibility for high-level      |       |          |         |
|   | requirements and engineering       |       |          |         |
|   | interfaces of all L2 subsystems    |       |          |         |
|   | with the goal of coordinating      |       |          |         |
|   | interface control, managing        |       |          |         |
|   | changes, and monitoring scientific |       |          |         |
|   | requirements in the context of     |       |          |         |
|   | engineering compromises.           |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 3 | Create an interface control        |       |          |         |
| 7 | document with procedures for       |       |          |         |
|   | changing and adding to it.         |       |          |         |
|   | Interface documents between        |       |          |         |
|   | components and organizations       |       |          |         |
|   | should be a high priority. This is |       |          |         |
|   | a job for the instrument           |       |          |         |
|   | scientist/systems engineer.        |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 3 | The committee believes a full      |       |          |         |
| 8 | assembly and test at Fermilab      |       |          |         |
|   | (without corrector lenses but with |       |          |         |
|   | appropriate masses) before         |       |          |         |
|   | shipment to CTIO should be         |       |          |         |
|   | considered. If final assembly at   |       |          |         |
|   | CTIO remains the baseline, careful |       |          |         |
|   | and thorough planning of           |       |          |         |
|   | sub-system acceptance testing must |       |          |         |
|   | be completed.                      |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 3 | Develop a high-level final         |       |          |         |
| 9 | assembly and test plan sufficient  |       |          |         |
|   | to call out specific goals (read   |       |          |         |
|   | out the detectors and move the     |       |          |         |
|   | hexapods at the same time, e.g.)   |       |          |         |
|   | and make reasonable schedule       |       |          |         |
|   | estimates.                         |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 4 | "Commissioning" should not include |       |          |         |
| 0 | the final assembly and test phase  |       |          |         |
|   | (although a re-assembly is         |       |          |         |
|   | probably needed). Assembly and     |       |          |         |
|   | test should be a separate task.    |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 4 | After determining that you've done |       |          |         |
| 1 | everything you can to reduce the   |       |          |         |
|   | heat load, bring the appropriate   |       |          |         |
|   | people together, including the     |       |          |         |
|   | CTIO team (who will maintain and   |       |          |         |
|   | operate it), to pare the list of   |       |          |         |
|   | potential cooling systems.         |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+

+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| * | **Recommendation**                 | **Ass | **S      | *       |
| * |                                    | igned | tatus/** | *Date** |
| \ |                                    | To**  |          |         |
| # |                                    |       | **       |         |
| * |                                    |       | Action** |         |
| * |                                    |       |          |         |
+===+====================================+=======+==========+=========+
| 4 | Think seriously about how to avoid |       |          |         |
| 2 | icing the window. Dewpoint         |       |          |         |
|   | sensors, window heaters, or        |       |          |         |
|   | hermetically seal the space        |       |          |         |
|   | between C4 and C5, silica gel      |       |          |         |
|   | canisters, etc.                    |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 4 | There's an effect, probably minor, |       |          |         |
| 3 | on the refractive index of the     |       |          |         |
|   | window. Showing this is not a      |       |          |         |
|   | problem is worth doing.            |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 4 | Make sure your coatings are        |       |          |         |
| 4 | water-resistant.                   |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 4 | The hexapod design should be very  |       |          |         |
| 5 | carefully checked for possible     |       |          |         |
|   | problems due to the proposed       |       |          |         |
|   | attachment scheme. This is not     |       |          |         |
|   | necessarily a bad choice but be    |       |          |         |
|   | sure you understand the issues     |       |          |         |
|   | (what bad things can happen if the |       |          |         |
|   | control system fails) and have a   |       |          |         |
|   | way to avoid serious damage        |       |          |         |
|   | (breakaway systems, etc.) if you   |       |          |         |
|   | decide to go this route.           |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 4 | A three-point scheme would be      |       |          |         |
| 6 | preferable if it is practical.     |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
|   | WBS 1.8 -- CTIO Integration        |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 4 | The project should provide the     |       |          |         |
| 7 | capability to deal with a          |       |          |         |
|   | worst-case situation in which the  |       |          |         |
|   | primary mirror shifts around by    |       |          |         |
|   | the amount that it did before the  |       |          |         |
|   | recent work on the support system. |       |          |         |
|   | The donut images from the focus    |       |          |         |
|   | CCDs should be used to measure     |       |          |         |
|   | coma as well as de-focus, and      |       |          |         |
|   | there should be a means of feeding |       |          |         |
|   | the coma signal as well as the     |       |          |         |
|   | focus signal to the hexapod for    |       |          |         |
|   | closed-loop corrections.           |       |          |         |
|   | Astigmatism should also be         |       |          |         |
|   | measured from the focus images;    |       |          |         |
|   | this signal could in principal be  |       |          |         |
|   | used (very easily) to drive        |       |          |         |
|   | closed-loop astigmatism correction |       |          |         |
|   | with the existing active optics    |       |          |         |
|   | system on the primary mirror, but  |       |          |         |
|   | at minimum can be used to          |       |          |         |
|   | continuously improve the lookup    |       |          |         |
|   | table that is used by that system. |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 4 | Understand the impact of a         |       |          |         |
| 8 | mis-aligned telescope. What are    |       |          |         |
|   | the combinations, if any, of Dec   |       |          |         |
|   | and exposure time that affect the  |       |          |         |
|   | weak lensing analysis. Determine   |       |          |         |
|   | the polar alignment requirement.   |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+

+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| * | **Recommendation**                 | **Ass | **S      | *       |
| * |                                    | igned | tatus/** | *Date** |
| \ |                                    | To**  |          |         |
| # |                                    |       | **       |         |
| * |                                    |       | Action** |         |
| * |                                    |       |          |         |
+===+====================================+=======+==========+=========+
|   | WBS 1.1 Project Management - Cost  |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 4 | Reassign contingency factors from  |       |          |         |
| 9 | the bottom up based on understood  |       |          |         |
|   | uncertainties to be developed in a |       |          |         |
|   | risk assessment.                   |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 5 | Reconsider methodologies for       |       |          |         |
| 0 | calculating lower and upper bounds |       |          |         |
|   | on total project cost to comply    |       |          |         |
|   | with DOE's CD-1 requirement of     |       |          |         |
|   | supporting information for         |       |          |         |
|   | determining cost range.            |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 5 | Maintain consistency in            |       |          |         |
| 1 | presentation of costs between WBS  |       |          |         |
|   | Level 2 presentations, Project     |       |          |         |
|   | Management rollups, and complete   |       |          |         |
|   | WBS cost chart.                    |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 5 | Consult with Fermilab Directorate  |       |          |         |
| 2 | on best method for differentiating |       |          |         |
|   | R&D base and contingency costs     |       |          |         |
|   | from MIE costs.                    |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 5 | Evaluate and include costs for WBS |       |          |         |
| 3 | 1.8 (CTIO Integration) M&S.        |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 5 | Allocate 3^rd^ iterations of Front |       |          |         |
| 4 | End electronics and possibly other |       |          |         |
|   | systems as contingency.            |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 5 | Revisit travel costs in the        |       |          |         |
| 5 | Project Management section of the  |       |          |         |
|   | WBS considering reviews, vendor    |       |          |         |
|   | visits, and site visits.           |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 5 | Include cost of an additional lot  |       |          |         |
| 6 | of CCDs as discussed in section on |       |          |         |
|   | WBS 1.2 in this report.            |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 5 | Include costs for a Systems        |       |          |         |
| 7 | Engineer, Computing Professionals, |       |          |         |
|   | and additional resources for CCDs. |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
|   | WBS 1.1 Project Management -       |       |          |         |
|   | Schedule                           |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 5 | The DECam project needs to         |       |          |         |
| 8 | implement their risk management    |       |          |         |
|   | plan as soon as possible to assure |       |          |         |
|   | that risk mitigation plans have    |       |          |         |
|   | been incorporated into the base    |       |          |         |
|   | schedule and that schedule         |       |          |         |
|   | contingency has been developed     |       |          |         |
|   | based on the risk assessment. A    |       |          |         |
|   | similar recommendation was         |       |          |         |
|   | identified in the prior 2004       |       |          |         |
|   | Director's Review.                 |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+

+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| * | **Recommendation**                 | **Ass | **S      | *       |
| * |                                    | igned | tatus/** | *Date** |
| \ |                                    | To**  |          |         |
| # |                                    |       | **       |         |
| * |                                    |       | Action** |         |
| * |                                    |       |          |         |
+===+====================================+=======+==========+=========+
| 5 | The committee believes that it     |       |          |         |
| 9 | will be difficult for DECam to     |       |          |         |
|   | accomplish all the work required   |       |          |         |
|   | to carry the design forward and to |       |          |         |
|   | be ready for the March 2007        |       |          |         |
|   | baseline review with the current   |       |          |         |
|   | available resources. DECam needs   |       |          |         |
|   | to define what work is required to |       |          |         |
|   | meet the baseline requirements and |       |          |         |
|   | determine what resources are       |       |          |         |
|   | required to accomplish that work.  |       |          |         |
|   | Then work with Lab Management on   |       |          |         |
|   | any resource shortfalls and then   |       |          |         |
|   | determine when the project can be  |       |          |         |
|   | ready for a baseline review.       |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 6 | The committee believes that the    |       |          |         |
| 0 | project can be accomplished in the |       |          |         |
|   | schedule range between March 2010  |       |          |         |
|   | and March 2011 as presented during |       |          |         |
|   | the review. The committee          |       |          |         |
|   | recommends that DECam assure that  |       |          |         |
|   | the reason given to justify the    |       |          |         |
|   | schedule range is better defined   |       |          |         |
|   | with a sound risk basis.           |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 6 | The committee recommends that      |       |          |         |
| 1 | DECam identify the camera's        |       |          |         |
|   | technical specifications needed to |       |          |         |
|   | meet the minimum scientific        |       |          |         |
|   | requirements to assure an          |       |          |         |
|   | instrument can be delivered and    |       |          |         |
|   | pass the acceptance test no later  |       |          |         |
|   | than the upper schedule range of   |       |          |         |
|   | March 2011.                        |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 6 | DECam needs to assess and update   |       |          |         |
| 2 | the project schedule to address    |       |          |         |
|   | the varies schedule mechanic       |       |          |         |
|   | issues discussed in the comment    |       |          |         |
|   | section above.                     |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
|   | WBS 1.1 Project Management -       |       |          |         |
|   | Management                         |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 6 | Recheck the PPEP, PPMP, and CDR    |       |          |         |
| 3 | and make them consistent before    |       |          |         |
|   | submission to DOE, with thresholds |       |          |         |
|   | for change control (cost)          |       |          |         |
|   | established, and Level 3           |       |          |         |
|   | milestones included in the PPMP.   |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 6 | Assignment of a Project Engineer   |       |          |         |
| 4 | and possibly a Systems Engineer to |       |          |         |
|   | the Project Office should be made  |       |          |         |
|   | soon.                              |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 6 | Assignment of an ES&H professional |       |          |         |
| 5 | to the Project Office should be    |       |          |         |
|   | made soon.                         |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 6 | The Project Office planning should |       |          |         |
| 6 | include staffing for Project       |       |          |         |
|   | closeout through CD-4, and should  |       |          |         |
|   | re-examine the travel requirements |       |          |         |
|   | for the entire project.            |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+

+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| * | **Recommendation**                 | **Ass | **S      | *       |
| * |                                    | igned | tatus/** | *Date** |
| \ |                                    | To**  |          |         |
| # |                                    |       | **       |         |
| * |                                    |       | Action** |         |
| * |                                    |       |          |         |
+===+====================================+=======+==========+=========+
| 6 | Project management should          |       |          |         |
| 7 | determine if a performance         |       |          |         |
|   | management system is required, and |       |          |         |
|   | begin to implement a certifiable   |       |          |         |
|   | EVMS if so.                        |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 6 | A Quality Assurance Plan should be |       |          |         |
| 8 | developed, and QA oversight        |       |          |         |
|   | responsibilities assigned.         |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 6 | The Project Office should          |       |          |         |
| 9 | implement the Risk Management Plan |       |          |         |
|   | well before CD-2, to engage the    |       |          |         |
|   | level 2 managers in identifying    |       |          |         |
|   | and managing project risks, and to |       |          |         |
|   | develop more accurate cost and     |       |          |         |
|   | schedule contingencies.            |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 7 | A one page master schedule showing |       |          |         |
| 0 | the high level tasks and the       |       |          |         |
|   | project critical path should be    |       |          |         |
|   | made.                              |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+
| 7 | The Project should plan to begin   |       |          |         |
| 1 | monthly reporting by the end of    |       |          |         |
|   | 2006 so that it is a routine, well |       |          |         |
|   | understood process by the time the |       |          |         |
|   | CD-2 review happens.               |       |          |         |
+---+------------------------------------+-------+----------+---------+