[mmaimcal] meeting next week

[Simon Radford]

I don't think an(other) internal discussion of antenna size would be at
all productive. The preference seems strongly determined by who shows up
to these meetings. And we should be building the array the community
wants, so we need outside input.

I repeat my call for compromise. These arrays all have about 7000 m^2:
90 x 10 m, 75 x 11 m (36 ft!), and 64 x 12 m. Construction costs are the
same within our current uncertainty. The antenna specifications get
progressively harder as the diameter goes up, but the operations cost
goes up with the number of elements. If the specifications are met, the
imaging and other properties of any of the arrays seem unlikely to be
drastically different from the others.

Our current 10 m diameter is 25% larger than our original 8 m, and the
European 12 m is 25% smaller than their original 16 m. So if we partner
with the Europeans, I suggest we go up to 11 m (37% up from 8 m) and
they come down to 11 m (31% down original 16 m), we bury the hatchet,
and we get on with development.

Simon