Sloan Digital Sky Survey
Controls & Interlocks 
Operational Readiness Review
July 14-15, 1999

The controls and interlocks system for the SDSS 2.5m telescope is nearly complete and commissioning is in progress.  At this point, we would like to review the system implementation and current level of performance, and consider possible refinements. This will be a follow on to the Controls and Interlocks System Design Review held April 24-25, 1997.

We will devote approximately one day and a half to presentations and discussion.  On the afternoon of the second day the reviewers will meet in executive session to discuss their findings and prepare recommendations.   Following this executive session, we will finish the review with a brief close-out meeting during which the reviewers can highlight their comments and concerns.   

Presentations during the review will include the following:

Telescope Motion Control
    Servo system design
    Software
    Hardware

Interlocks
    Low-level interlocks
    High-level interlocks
    Motion control processor/interlocks interface

Telescope Performance Monitor
 

For each subsystem, the presenters will be asked to address the following topics:

1) Requirements and specifications
2) Description of the as-built design
3) Status of the implementation
4) Technical difficulties
5) Performance
6) Possible changes and refinements
7) Reliability and serviceability
8) Plans for completion
9) Failure modes and safety issues
10) Operations documentation

Presentation materials will be made available on the web prior to the review.

The reviewers are:

Patrick Wallace (Rutherford Laboratory)
Alan Schier (Consultant)
Jeffrey Percival (University of Wisconsin)
Ed Bell (NOAO)
Jeff  Peterson (CMU)

Among the issues we would like the reviewers to address are the following:

1) Does the design as implemented meet the performance requirements?

2) Given the commissioning experience could any of the requirements be modified without compromising the objectives of the survey?

3) Are there technical changes and improvements that would improveperformance or operational effectiveness?

4) Does the implementation lend itself to safe and reliable operation?
 

Following the review a summary report of the findings and recommendations will be circulated to the reviewers for comment.  The completed summary report, together with comments and action items, will be posted on the web.

Last modified 07/01/99
boroski@fnal.gov