[mmaimcal] Re: subarrays

[Bryan Butler]

i wrote:
>> i thought michael just provided us with a list of benefits?  i think
>> we could most likely expand it as well.

to which larry replied:

>No, he just provided a list of possible uses.  It was not at all
>quantitative, yet you demand a quantitative cost.  What fraction of
>the time would >2 arrays be useful?  Which of the observations could
>be done in another way with no loss of efficiency?  Are *any* of the
>observations impossible without more subarrays?

"uses" vs "benefits"?  sounds like a semantical argument to me.  i
agree that these are not quantative, but at least we have presented 
a framework.  all we have hear from you is that "it will cost, therefore
it is bad".  we have no even rough idea of what the cost is.  is it
$1000 per antenna?  $10000 per antenna?  $100000 per antenna?  $1M per
antenna?  does it even scale with number of antennas?  does it scale 
linearly with number of subarrays (and why)?  how is the cost affected 
by the decision on a photonic system?  we have heard none of this.

and, i wrote:

>>From your previous email: "sure, we can get by with only 2 subarrays,"

to which larry replied:

>I take it that you are answering my earlier question in the negative:
>you cannot think of any science that is impossible with only 2
>subarrays.  

no this is _not_ what i meant.  i meant that we could "get by" with
only 2 with some sacrifice in the science.  there are certainly bits
of science that can only be done with more than 2 subarrays - time
variable sources are the ones that come immediately to mind.

and, finally, larry also wrote:

>And some things on Michael's list are needed 0% of the time.

according to whom?


	-bryan