From: clidman@eso.org
Date: Thu May 09 2002 - 08:32:24 PDT
Hi Saul,
They have just finished the first hour on S02-002. Conditions are clear and the
IQ is better than 0.6. The host of S02-002 is much brighter than that of S02-032.
I will ask them to integrate for 3 hours and 20 minutes.
Cheers, Chris.
Saul Perlmutter wrote:
> Hi Chris, Just to confirm our current plan-- Are we getting that 3 hours or so of
> ISAAC on S02-002 tonight? I think that the argument we discussed (see previoius
> email, repeated below) at least indicated we should go ahead with this, and then we
> can continue to discuss how best to use the last 9 or so hours remaining. --Saul
>
> Saul Perlmutter wrote:
>
> > One extra bit of info on this discussion: Our best fit to S02-002's spectrum
> > from April 12 was to a supernova a week or so before max (restframe). This would
> > imply that it is now ~4 days past max, which seems like a good time to get more IR
> > data. Since this is a "bird in hand" high-redshift SN, it seems like we should
> > probably try to get some more signal-to-noise on it beyond the NIRI's ~4 hours so
> > far. When Chris and I discussed it, we figured that it might make sense to try
> > to get about another 3 or so hours on this one tonight, and then still have about
> > 9 hours left for another high-redshift SN still to be discovered this coming week.
> >
> > Now that we have realized the problem with the SDF supernovae not being observable
> > at VLT this might make the argument to complete S02-002 even stronger.
> >
> > Ariel Goobar wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > On Wed, 8 May 2002, Greg Aldering wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > How much ISSAC time remains? The possible uses of that time are as follows:
> > > Chris will give you a more accurate estimate but it must be close to
> > > 20 hs as we got 25 hours in total.
> > >
> > > item 2) would suck up ~10-12 hours
> > > item 4) -"- ~1 hour /SN (we asked for time for two)
> > > item 3) would be comparable to 2) for each SN. I also know that
> > > Chris thinks we need to get OK from ESO if we were to do a final ref
> > > from last year, as this is one of the programs for which we were *not*
> > > given time for this spring.
> > >
> > > Thus items 1 + 2 + 4 seem doable. Chris will probably want to comment
> > > on this.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 1) continue S02-002
> > > > 2) observe a z ~ 1.2 SN in the 14h+05d if one is found there and not in SDF
> > > > 3) obtain final references for Boccherini, and possibly Satie
> > > > 4) observe a z ~ 0.5 SN
> > > >
> > > > If S02-002 was discovered at max, then it is now about 10 days after
> > > > max, so it will start to fade quickly. If there is time to do item #2
> > > > and #3, as well as #1, then we should (re)start on S02-002 right away.
> > > > Otherwise, within one week we should know whether or not item #2 will
> > > > be implemented. If it is not, then we can restart on S02-002.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > By the way, do we have a problem - is Gemini the only telescope that can
> > > > follow a z ~ 1.2 SN if it is in the SDF? Since there isn't NIRI time this
> > > > month, how are we going to observe this SN, since, as Ariel pointed out,
> > > > VLT can't observe it?
> > >
> > > What about NICMOS? Any chance we get to use it now?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Ariel
> > >
> > > >
> > > > - Greg
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ___________________________________________________________________
> > > Ariel Goobar (ariel@physto.se)
> > > FYSIKUM, Stockholm University
> > > Stockholm Center for Physics, Astronomy & Biotechnology
> > > tel: +46 8 55378659
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed May 08 2002 - 20:25:35 PDT