From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Mon May 06 2002 - 15:54:12 PDT
> So, if Rob thinks that we can do a deep search with cross-telescope
> subtractions -- and that this is a better choice than a year-old-ref
> CTIO-field search or a search of the Subaru fields from last month -- then
> this would lean us back towards taking CFHT fields tonight.
Allright.
Default plan then at CTIO is to do H1 and H4 (which overlap the CFHT
fields). That is more likely to produce deep z~1 supernovae than using
the CTIO fields is. The time will not be wasted, since although CFHT
*will* do them again, doing them at CTIO will help ensure that we get
enough time to get spectra of these guys. I hope.
If the seeing is bad (worse than 1.2"), then do H2 and H3 at CTIO.
If we change our mind, then we may be doing Sub1, Sub2, Sub3, and/or
Sub4. However, assume for the moment that we aren't doing that, but are
doing CFHT.
Reason to do CFHT over Subaru deep fields: CFHT is going to get the
lightcurve with the rolling search (we hope). We need to find them in
order to get spectra. Somebody please let me know if there is a flaw in
this reasoning.
(Note: if we do decide to search the Subaru fields with CTIO, it will
take me an extra day to get the deep field subtractions done. There
will still be scanning starting on Tuesday, however, since the CTIO
shallow fields will get subtracted Tuesday morning.)
-Rob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 06 2002 - 15:54:25 PDT