[mmaimcal]re: reconfiguring

[Mark Holdaway]

> 
> i would guess that we might not want to sit in the full resolution Y+
> for a full 2 months.  cut that in half, perhaps.  just a thought.
> unfortunately, that doesn't solve the problem, since you only gain
> 4 weeks per year from that.
> 
> i would attempt to up the number of moves per week, probably.  how
> about 10 moves per week (3 each on M/W/F, and 1 extra one, whichever
> day allows it [i.e., if it's OK on monday, do it]).  this buys you
> an extra 25% on the marching.  this, along with the decreased time
> in the full Y+, might save you enough to cycle through sensibly
> (my rough numbers provide: 7.5 weeks COMPACT; 14.5 weeks march OUT;
> 3.5 weeks Y+; 14.5 weeks march IN = 40 weeks.).  hmmm.  as mark
> points out, this is a 3 year cycle to go through seasons...  going
> to 12 moves per week, which is 4 per day on M/W/F gives you a total
> move time of 35 weeks, which gives you seasonal cycling in a 2 year
> timescale - that might be quick enough.
> 
> how many intermediates are there between the outermost conway config
> (4 or 5 km max baseline) and the full Y+?  we've discussed before
> skipping those intermediates.  how much time is saved if you do that?

There are now 42 antennas that must be moved from the 4km config to
the Y+.  I am guessing that we don't want to BOTH cut the time in the
Y+ AND speed our way through the intermediates.  

Perhaps a better question to ask would be:
how can we predict proposal pressure?

                or

how can we make a reconfiguration scheme which will
be flexible enough to respond to changes in proposal pressure,
while maintaining certain properties we are happy with
(ie, seaonal cycling).

   -Mark