[alma-config] Fw: transporter issues / configuration

[Min Yun]

Hi everyone,

Would you agree that the requirements for the close packing of
the compact configuration are nearly independent of any 
discussion we are having for the intermediate configuarion 
design?  Unless there is any specific objection,  I will compose 
an e-mail outlining the requirements to 
Jaap and others immediately rather than waiting on this
discussion until the Tucson meeting.



				-- Min
				
				
------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------

Received: from iraux2.iram.fr (root at iraux2.iram.fr [193.48.252.22]) by 
zia.aoc.NRAO.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05023 for <myun at aoc.nrao.edu>; 
Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:59:09 -0700 (MST)
Received: from pctcp72 (pctcp72.iram.fr [193.48.252.202]) by iraux2.iram.fr 
(8.9.1/jtpda-5.3.2) with SMTP id SAA23410 for <myun at aoc.nrao.edu>; Wed, 23 Feb 
2000 18:03:34 +0100 (MET)
Message-ID: <008101bf7e1f$ec482420$cafc30c1 at pctcp72.iram.fr>
From: "Stephane Guilloteau" <guillote at iram.fr>
To: "Min Yun" <myun at zia.aoc.NRAO.EDU>
Subject: Fw: transporter issues / configuration
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:03:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Length: 2055


-----Original Message-----
From: Jacob Baars <jbaars at eso.org>
To: pnapier at nrao.edu <pnapier at nrao.edu>
Cc: rkurz at eso.org <rkurz at eso.org>; demerson at nrao.edu <demerson at nrao.edu>;
guillote at iram.fr <guillote at iram.fr>; Torben Andersen
<torben.andersen at astro.lu.se>
Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 3:57 PM
Subject: transporter issues


>Dear Peter,
>
>in discussing next week's meeting with Torben Andersen and in ironing
>out a few semantic misunderstandings, Torben brought up the point of
>the connection between ALMA baseline configuration, in particular the
>"close packing", transporter design and antenna design.
>He has expressed his points in an email, which I copy below.
>
>I would like to ask you to consider his points in the context of the
>Configuration Review meeting which is scheduled for 20 and 21 March
>in Tucson.
>For your information, the EU antenna PDR, which he mentions, is
>planned for the first half of June 2000.
>
>I look forward to seeing you, and all other colleagues, here next
>week. Brian has already arrived.
>Have a good trip.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jaap
>
>===================================================
>In connection with the ALMA System Design meeting on Monday, I took it for
>granted that "Power Distribution" had to do with site power distribution
>and "Packaging" was related to close antenna packing. After our discussion
>I now understand that this was not the case and is not dealt with at the
>meeting.
>
>The antenna design has an interaction with the transporter design which
>again interacts with the close packing configuration. Thus, for our work
>with the prototype antenna contractors, I feel that we soon need some
>decisions on the close packing configuration, hopefully well before antenna
>PDR. In fact, with the present transporter design and close packing
>configuration, we cannot transport any antenna to any location (without
>removing one or more other antennas).
>
>Conclusion: A debate on close packing configuration and its interaction
>with site infrastructure is timely?
>
>Rgds
>Torben
>


------------- End Forwarded Message -------------