3.1.3 FRD meeting video conf. (29 Aug. 2007)

Time : 3:00 p.m. -4:30 p.m.

Attendees : 	Caltech :VNV, RD
		Keck: PW, CN

Action Items from last meeting(blue indicates that it is still to be done, red indicates that its already done):

Action: Viswa will complete this KAON 566 and post by 8/28 
Action: Viswa will incorporate Don/Brian's informal memo into his SplitRelay packaging KAON by EOD 8/28
Action: Don will write up CR optical relay package KAON by EOD 9/6 
Action: Rich will add surface tables to KAON 499 by EOD 8/28 (along with nice new schematics) - Done 8/27.
Action: Peter read draft section and provide feedback to Chris by EOD 8/27
Dekany to add summary of changes, possible with footnotes for cells by 8/28
Done. KAON 504 concluded 180" diameter TFoV. Is a mark against Upgrade K1 architecture (since the rotator is limited to 120" diameter.)
Done. Was discussed by AOWG and seems okay in terms of science field of view
Done. Was discussed by AOWG and seems okay in terms of science field of view
Action: Max to document in an appropriate format (ScRD vs. KAON?) by 8/30
Action: Don will draft a full cost estimate of the entire CascadedRelay by EOD 8/27 --> See new add on below.
Don will add a new column (off to the right) that is the Keck 1 Upgrade cost by EOD 8/27
Don will complete a draft of uplink AO TS by EOD 8/30
Action: Chris and Viswa should read SRD v13 by EOD 8/27; Chris to punchlist discrepancies and follow-up with Don
[Note: It was subsequently decided to hold one more WBS 3.1.3 telecon to wrap up outstanding 3.1.3 deliverables - tentatively 8/29/07 at 3pm PDT by video (please inform Rich of your whereabouts for the meeting.)

Review of HWs from last meeting

RGD: Revised KAON499 has been posted w/ Keck 1 upgrade has the ADC removable from its path.

PW: VV to wrap up KAON #506  split relay packaging (and K mirror/ TT stability issue) - DG, CL and BB have a memo on split relay. Combine it w/ the split relay packaging. Spend an hr. to clean up the document.

PW/ RGD: DG needs to finish a few memos/ KAONs.

RGD: Antonin to update his emissivity KAON to change in temp. to match the surface counts in KAON 499. But its not important as the temperature dependence is not critical.

PW: DG to cost for the DMs. DM is a costly item, 20x20 5 mm pitch and 5 um surface (w/ 4 um requirement). - DONE

RGD: We have to be persistant to get info. from Xinetics, for CILAS is known to expensive. 

CN: We have info. based on a older quote. The costs are comparable between the Xinetics and CILAS quotes (converting Euros to USDs at the current rate).

RGD: DG still to get cost estimates for the Cascaded relay and compare the # with K1 upgrade. Its high priority. 

Action Item : VNV should take a trip to SC for a day to do costing (preferably next week).

RGD: DG, BB to write up the Cascaded relay optical design.

VV: Should we send the additional requirements (that were seen from writing the FRD) on the optical relay to BB, RK and DG.

PW/ RGD: Do we need a separate document for Cascaded relay? The costing is higher priority. The SDM and 3.2 will do a lot of the what the document will serve.

CN: FRD - PW read draft and provided feedback. Status - lots of feedback has been received after the team meeting. Inputs from Jason and Erik and RGD need to be folded it into FRD. We are behind on releasing it, a week from today is more realistic. 

VV: We must send out the list of major assumptions for the EC to glance at. 

PW: Shouldn't include the design drawing(s). 

RGD: There are some #s that are arch. dependent. 

CN: I am sure people will flag some assumptions. 

CN : We better get the FRD done rather than sending out assumptions now.

RGD: DLM is going to contribute a large part of the FRD. Is there any discussions required between VV, CN and DLM?

CN: DLM has talked to me. Is there a deliverable called "Concept of operations document or a observing scenarios doc."? before requirements. 

RGD: CN can write DLM and see what is actually required and what is feasible to be done.

PW: DLM is going to write the observing scenarios document.

RGD: FRD is higher priority than the risk register. Risk register is necessary at the point of getting to the SD phase when we are thinking about mitigating risks.

RGD: CN is to document that 30" NF FoV. TWFS must be behind the second stage of the cascaded relay, it must work with a 30" dia. FoV. There is some pressure from the TWFS requirements.

PW: We currently send 10% to the TWFS and it sometimes reads for a minute and it doesn't work well.

RGD: We need Wavefront error budgets for the TWFS and Tomo. null and blind modes. 
 
PW: It seems like we need to pick off a TWFS needs a larger sensor.

RGD/ VV: this is a 5x5 sensor. the sensor can be a IR sensor. Arch./ switchyard/ configuration mgmt issues are a problem.

PW: The config. is a systems arch. group issue.

PW/ RGD: We don't have the next 2nd level of systems engineering. This is needed! can't believe we missed it. 

CN: There is a idea about producing a FRD verification task. There must be some time allocated for running small calculations/ EBS tasks/ transmission etc. must be documented.

RGD: 3.1.3 didn't capture all the 2nd level systems studies to flow-down requirements to the next level.

RGD: PW must raise the issue of allocating time for next level of flow downs systems engineering.

PW: Thats part of  the FRD

RGD: There is about 80 hrs. of FRD support that can be used for this purpose.

CN/ PW: Will work on the details from the EBS

VV/ RGD: The TWFS and TT(FA)s need more detailed EB.

PW/ RGD: DG must complete the uplink TS. this is a big issue since it will impact the error budget if the spot is sharpened. 

RGD: 8/30 agenda as a spot for the uplink TS

RGD: There are so many ways to improve the LGS return.

RGD: We need a spot size error budget.

PW: RGD to send out the spot size error budget if that helps.

RGD: Will send out what i have, its may not be user friendly.

RGD: VNV and CN must read SRD.

CN/ PW: There are some questions about the SRD that have been addressed to DG. 

RGD: SRD WFE is not connected to sky coverage. Based on the science case the are some parameters that are different (like LGS asterism size). 

CN: Generic comments about the (SRD) requirements. Will send it out to DG with cc: to PW and RGD.

PW: Sys. arch looks good. But some milestones are lagging behind.

RGD: To meet milestone(s), don't we need a SDM V 1.0 in early Sept.?