[mmaimcal]re: reconfiguring

[Bryan Butler]

On 2002.12.11 08:36 Mark Holdaway wrote:
> > 
> > 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.  

i agree.  one or the other.  but you might get more time savings
one way vs. the other...

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

i submit that we can't.  we've always (well, at least consciously since
the grenoble meeting) been carrying around the idea of having the most
flexible system possible because we *know* that it will change over time.
now, that doesn't excuse us from the responsibility of coming up with
the best scheme that we can to begin with, but we know that it will
change, and almost certainly in unpredictable ways.

> 
>                 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).

yep - this is the key.  but, i don't know that we have to make a scheme
to begin with that is necessarily flexible intrinsically.  the
flexibility is built into the pad layout, in many ways, which was
the big reason (in my mind, at least) why the 'zoom-spirals' won out
over the nested donuts...


	-bryan