[mmaimcal] Re: subarrays

[Larry D'Addario]

The recent emails from Brian and Michael seem to confirm my suspicion,
where I said:

 > ...  If, as I suspect, there is no such need but the
 > number is just the largest one for which anyone could imagine a use,
 > then we need not consider it at all.

The mere fact that you can think of a way to use some capability does
not mean that we should build it (except in the unusual case that it's
truely free).  Let me remind you of a general principle on which there
seemed to be wide agreement when it was discussed in other contexts:

If there is some significant science that cannot be done without some
specific feature of the instrument, then that feature must be
seriously considered.  (Even then, the cost must be traded off against
benefits, including whether the science could be done by some other
instrument.)  But if the feature would merely *speed up* the
observations or make them more convenient, so that the same science
could nevertheless be done without it, then including the feature
should have very low priority.

Can you suggest some valuable science that cannot be done at all if we
have only 2 subarrays?

--Larry