Answers_to_Vendor_Questions.pdf

Answers to vendor questions

Question:

Is the request for strictly a new system, or will a used positioner be considered?

The requirements in the SOW are very discrete relative to the table diameter, T‐slot configuration, and the height of the top surface of the work table to the base. Is this simply a preference or a hard requirement? For instance, our standard low profile rotary table may have a reduced height by a couple inches to allow a greater work envelope above the table.

There was no clear reference or preference that I could see stating that the rotary table may position as both a headstock (faceplate vertical) or a rotary table (faceplate horizontal). We have offered rotary/headstock assemblies facilitating this dual orientation capability. Would this be of value to

NASA?

In regard to the required drive controller stipulated to interface with the rotary motor(s), we are currently checking on the availability of this type of motor arrangement, as well as the associated encoder to match the existing NASA rotary/tilt positioner. This match would better allow the switching of the two positioners without changing configuration software or personality modules on the existing drive controller. However, the motor and/or encoders may no longer be available, so we may need to offer a new drive controller and motor/encoder arrangement. Is this acceptable to propose, or should we consider obtaining a used motor/encoder arrangement with the positioner to provide the match?

Answer:

A used positioner would be acceptable.

The height is a hard requirement, our system is at its lowest Z position with the stated table height. If the vendor’s standard table is lower they could provide some method to raise it, the entire table does not need to be redesigned/rebuilt. The table diameter cannot be larger than specified, as it would limit translation of the Y axis. We could consider something slightly, I.e. 1 inch, smaller. I would prefer to stick with the 6 T‐slot configuration, our current 2 T‐slot arrangement has made fixturing parts a challenge.

A tilt capability would be considered. I would recommend that this be an added cost option so that everyone is competing on a level playing field.

Unless a new motor/encoder is fully compatible with the existing controller it would not be acceptable. We are unable to change the motor controller to accommodate a different motor. The current motors are available as refurbished and NOS. A refurbished motor would be acceptable.