From: Wayne T. Reiersen
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 10:59 AM
To: Wayne T. Reiersen; Geoffrey J. Gettelfinger; Thomas G. Brown
Cc: Ronald L. Strykowsky; Hutch Neilson; Bradley E. Nelson; Erik D.
Perry
Subject: A course correction re: Base support structure design

Folks,

 

Following discussions with Erik, Geoff, and Ron (Tom is out this week), I would like to propose the following course corrections:

 

1.	Keep the work for figuring out how we are going to do final assembly consistent with the stellarator core design in Tom’s bailiwick, but under his Design Integration job.  The output of this activity would be a set of requirements for the assembly sled on which the design would be based.
2.	Move the work for designing and procuring the assembly sled to WBS 76 (with Erik as RLM) but do not start the design work until the requirements are better understood.
3.	Geoff is best positioned to provide an updated estimate for the design and procurement of the assembly sled and I would like for him to do so (rather than Tom) for this re-baselining exercise.

 

Thanks for your input and cooperation,

 

Wayne

 

________________________________

From: Wayne T. Reiersen 
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 10:30 AM
To: Geoffrey J. Gettelfinger; Thomas G. Brown
Cc: Ronald L. Strykowsky; Hutch Neilson; Bradley E. Nelson; Erik D. Perry
Subject: Base support structure design

 

Tom and Geoff,

 

A while back, we decided to change the base support structure design.  Instead of having a sled that served as assembly tooling and the permanent support, we went to permanent supports under the ends of the field period and a temporary sled.  The primary motivation was to improve access for diagnostics.  It has turned out to be a better location for the gravity supports.  The temporary sled is now only assembly tooling.  Tom is responsible for figuring out how we are going to do final assembly consistent with the stellarator core design.  Given this responsibility, I would like to assign responsibility for the design of the assembly tooling to Tom rather than have him try to articulate his requirements to Geoff to produce a design.  (BTW, this scope also includes how we are going to manipulate the spacer during machine assembly.) This is the pattern we are following for field period assembly.  I am just extending it to machine assembly.  Geoff would still be responsible for the design of the permanent supports.

 

Presently, the design effort is covered under Job 1701 – Cryostat and Base Support Structure Design.  The procurement is covered under Job 1752 – Base Support Structure Procurement.  When we made this change, we expected it would be approximately cost neutral.  I would like to open a new job for Machine Assembly Tooling Design and Procurement under WBS 76.  Tom would be the job manager.  Nelson would be the RLM.  I would like to keep the tooling design effort under the umbrella of stellarator core design because of the tight coupling between the design of the experimental hardware and the tooling required to assembly it.  The new job would be analogous to the Job 1803 – FPA Tooling and Constructability.  

 

Geoff should re-estimate his design job to reflect the reduced scope.  Tom should schedule and estimate the design work for the assembly tooling.  We do not have designs yet on which to base estimates for the hardware costs so I am asking Ron to work with Tom and Geoff to split the hardware costs appropriately between Job 1752 and the new job for Machine Assembly Tooling Design and Procurement.

 

If you feel this change is ill advised, please let me know.  Thanks for your attention to this matter,

 

Wayne