Details for the Configuration Design Review

 

1) Date and Place


Date: January 24 and 25 2002

Location: Array Operations Center, Socorro, N. M.
 

2) Attendant List

   Bryan Butler
  John Conway
  Stephane Guilloteau
  Mark Holdaway
  Leonia Kogan
  Angel Otarola?
   Koh-Ichiro Morita
  Simon Radford
  Seiichi Sakamoto
  Adrian Webster
  Al Wootten
  Mel Wright
 Douglas Bock
David Woody
Mike Holstine
Bill Porter
Dick Sramek
Jeff Kingsley
Jeff Mangum
Gie Han Tan
Peter Gray
Tim Cornwell
Brian Glendenning
Michael Rupen
Rick Perley
Crystal Brogan
 

Not confirmed

Steven Heddle  "Steven Heddle" <steven@kw15.co.uk>
Francois Viallefond
Frederic Boone <frederic_boone@yahoo.fr>
Frazer Owen

Review Committee

External Members
Douglas Bock of the Allen Array Group, David Woody of OVRO/CARMA,  and Mel Wright of OVRO/CARMA have agreed to serve as external referees.
Internal Members
  S. Guilloteau
  A. Wootten
  S. Radford
  Dick Sramek
 Jeff Kingsley
Peter Gray
Brian Glendenning
Gie Han Tan
 

3) Primary Documents

 Leonia Kogan's compact configuration:
      One Road
      Another design

 John Conway's intermediate configurations:
       No 13 on John's page.
       Pad position list.
   See  John's simulations page
            John promises new material Monday...

   Adrian Webster's configurations:
        Webster Memo on Hybrid Array
        Hybrid Configuration pad positions.
 

   Frederic Boone's configurations:

       Boone Memo on Array Design
       Boone Pad Positions
      

4) Goal of the meeting:

Select a baseline design to continue with detailed implementation work ...
CDR Review Guidelines Version 2 - 98November09 P. J. Napier
 The purpose of the CDR of an MMA Subsystem is principally to review 3
    questions:
(1) Are the detailed requirements for the subsystem complete and adequate?
(2) Will the design selected for implementation on the test array meet the
     requirements?
(3) Are interfaces to other subsystems defined adequately and completely?
(4) Has adequate attention been given to the produceability and maintainability
     of the subsystem?
Meeting organization and attendance to be the same as a PDR. MMA199901-0010

I think that we should leave this meeting with one design and one philosophy to guide iterative changes.  This design will then be passed to engineers.  When we understand contraints imposed by the site construction plan and iterate those into the design, the ALMA Configuration Design will be complete.

Agenda of PDR:

Report of PDR:

From the latter report:

GOALS & DELIVERABLES

 

 

The ALMA configuration design should include
 

- location of the pads

- the length of roads, using a maximum 15 % grade to the road layout

- a tentative layout of the conduits, which should limit the number of road crossings

- the location of the ACA (the design of the ACA configuration is a separate package)

- a suggested location of the buildings

- considering the current ALMA planning, the deadline is September 1st, 2001.

Task division should be agreed upon with the ALMA management ASAP. Considering the work done up to now, three groups appear in a position to provide a design: NRAO (L.Kogan), OSO (J.Conway) and DEMIRM (F.Boone & F.Viallefond).

The committee stresses that the design is a global process so that all configurations should be matched together. A possible working scheme is to define the COMPACT configuration first, and to progress continuously to the most extended one. This requires proper collaboration between the various participants to the effort.