From: Chris Lidman (clidman@eso.org)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 16:43:34 PST
Dear Saul,
This is a difficult call. SuF02-071, which, given its magnitude, probably
needs clear conditions. However, given the priority of our program relative
to other programs, I do not think we can get 10 hours of clear time on this
object over the next few nights. We may have to accept thin cirrus to get
any data at all. Since the object is faint, I am pessimistic about our
chance
on getting useful data on this target.
SuF02-019 and SuF02-001 are brighter and can be done with some cirrus.
As it currently stands, I have asked SuF02-071 to be observed in clear
conditions
and the other SNe to be observed in thin cirrus. The alternative is to
accept thin
cirrus for Suf02-071 and put this as the highest priority target.
Cheers, Chris.
Saul Perlmutter wrote:
> Hello Chris,
> One quick addition to Mamoru's email: When we were discussing the
> CISCO & ISAAC plan, we were also thinking that the absolute highest
> priority was to complete the high-redshift SNe, -071 and -017, with all
> the other supernovae only getting IR observations if there really is
> enough CISCO & ISAAC time available. (We cannot use the high-redshift
> SNe unless we get the J-band data, while the lower-redshift SNe would be
> useful anyway.) So we don't want to take any risk of using up the ISAAC
> time on the lower-redshift supernovae if you don't think there would
> still be enough time to complete the high-redshift SNe in the worst-case
> scenario that CISCO doesn't manage to get either of them. (Also, we
> really want these two high-redshift supernovae observed near maximum, of
> course, and we were aiming to get the one that is being observed at the
> end of November with HST another time with ISAAC at the end of November
> to match.)
>
> I think your current plan doesn't yet run into this problem -- but
> I'm not quite sure, since I don't know how the fact that we are not the
> highest ISAAC priority of figures into this calculation. What do you
> think?
>
> --Saul
>
> Chris Lidman wrote:
>
> > Dear Mamuro,
> > I need to correct my previous e-mail. For SuF02-017, please read
> > SuF02-071.
> >
> > Cheers, Chris.
> >
> > Chris Lidman wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Mamuro,
> > > I will ask Paranal to observe
> > >
> > > SuF02-017 if the conditions are clear - 10 hour integration
> > >
> > > SuF02-001 if the conditions are not clear (ie thin cirrus) - 3 hour
> > > integration
> > >
> > > SuF02-019 if the conditions are not clear - 3 hour integration.
> > >
> > > There is a bit of this cirrus at the moment.
> > >
> > > Cheers, Chris.
> > >
> > > Mamoru Doi wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Chris,
> > > >
> > > > We had no useful observations with CISCO on Nov.14.
> > > > Again there was a trouble of the telescope (possibly
> > > > the IR secondary support) and we saw strong astigmatism.
> > > > We spent half night for Mirror analysis. The image quality
> > > > was acceptable in the middle of the night. But then we had
> > > > cloudy/hazy sky.
> > > >
> > > > We will change the secondary from IR to optical, which is
> > > > more reliable with little disadvantages for CISCO J-band
> > > > observations.
> > > >
> > > > -Mamoru and Kentaro
> > > >
> > > > Mamoru Doi
> > > > Institute of Astronomy
> > > > School of Science
> > > > University of Tokyo
> > > > voice +81-422-34-5084
> > > > fax. +81-422-34-5041
> > > > doi@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Nov 15 2002 - 16:40:30 PST