Remove bad acqs processing and acqs failed N times warnings

[jeanconn]

Description

Remove bad acqs processing and acqs failed N times warnings.

The acquisition failure counts don't include any of our modern understanding of acquisition probability and are unhelpful at this point.

Interface impacts

Testing

Unit tests

• Mac

(ska3-latest) flame:starcheck jean$ pytest
============================================================================ test session starts =============================================================================
platform darwin -- Python 3.12.8, pytest-8.3.4, pluggy-1.5.0
rootdir: /Users/jean/git
configfile: pytest.ini
plugins: socket-0.7.0, anyio-4.7.0, timeout-2.3.1
collected 14 items                                                                                                                                                           

starcheck/tests/test_state_checks.py .............                                                                                                                     [ 92%]
starcheck/tests/test_utils.py .                                                                                                                                        [100%]

============================================================================= 14 passed in 3.79s =============================================================================
(ska3-latest) flame:starcheck jean$ git rev-parse HEAD
e96999e568dc2ada53056163b638b902b1c75c90

Independent check of unit tests by [REVIEWER NAME]

• [PLATFORM]:

Functional tests

I ran the last two weeks as both regression and functional test. The diffs are as-expected with these Bad Acquisition Star warnings removed from the new output and no errors.

https://icxc.cfa.harvard.edu/aspect/test_review_outputs/starcheck/starcheck-pr456/combined_diff.txt

[jeanconn]

@javierggt and @taldcroft - I think out of discussion yesterday that it made sense to just pull the acquisition N fails warnings (since they are not informed at all by modern probabilities etc). Do you agree? If so, this seems trivial.

[taldcroft]

🎉

[taldcroft]

Awesome!