[mmaimcal]Re: configurations

[Al Wootten]

Hi Bryan, others

I think that the suggestions Mel had were examples of some of the
items in your list.  I forwarded this to the configuration presenters
as an indication of the discussion topics for each array.  I'd like
to see all these points addressed, so providing a list to each presenter
seems the best way to assure ourselves that there will be answers
at the review.

Clear skies,
Al
Bryan Butler writes:
 > 
 > 
 > all,
 > 
 > i'm a bit hesitant to make an 'official' scorecard.  it makes it look
 > like there is a real _competition_ between particular designs.  is this
 > what we want to promote?  i would also think that the panel members would
 > want to come up with their own versions, rather than having one dictated
 > to them...
 > 
 > if forced to do so, however, i would make a scorecard more thusly:
 > 
 > 1 - science
 > 
 >    does it meet the PDR recommendations on resolution, UV sampling, etc?
 >    (compact array should maximize brightness sensitivity; intermediates
 >    should have gaussian uv density; extended should have maximum resolution
 >    without forcing any fiber runs > 25 km)
 > 
 >    beam metrics
 > 
 >    uv metrics
 > 
 >    simulation results
 > 
 > 2 - cost
 > 
 >    number of pads minimized (this is really a bit of a red herring though,
 >    until we have better cost estimates for foundations as a function of
 >    location on the site)
 > 
 >    is there apparent difficulty getting to some locations (implying longer
 >    roads and cable runs)?
 > 
 > 3 - operations
 > 
 >    is one design easier to operate and maintain than another?
 > 
 > 4 - flexibility & robustness
 > 
 >    how robust is the overall design philosophy to changes?
 > 
 >    how robust are particular designs to antennas being dead or pads being
 >    unusable?
 > 
 >    is the configuration style flexible ('fixed' vs. 'flowing' types)?
 > 
 >    are the 'hybrids' reasonable - including N-S elongation, and the
 >    hybrid between the largest intermediate and the extended configuration?
 > 
 >    what about 'multi-configuration' (which loses some of its meaning in
 >    the 'flowing' antenna move style) capability?
 > 
 > 
 > you can argue about the contents of each of the 4 categories, but i'm
 > pretty sure that the above 4 are the ones that really need to be compared
 > to each other when deciding on the configuration, both in design philosophy
 > and in the particular design.  this is nothing new, others have been pointing
 > all of this out for years - i have just put it into the 'scorecard' 
 > formalism...
 > 
 > 
 > 	-bryan
 >