Re: Follow-up question for tonight's ISAAC observing plan...Re: no CISCO observations on Nov.14

From: Saul Perlmutter (saul@lbl.gov)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 19:25:25 PST

  • Next message: Mamoru Doi: "possible conpensation nights"

    Hi Mamoru and Kentaro -- and Chris,
          What do you think the chances are now that you will be able to do any of
    071 (or even complete your main 017 target) at Subaru/CISCO? If the odds are
    beginning to look bad, then perhaps Chris should raise the priority of 071, even
    with some thin cirrus, just to try to get _something_ on it in J- band. But
    you guys all know better than me whether this is worthwhile --so Mamoru and
    Kentaro, can you give us your opinion on the best odds?
        Thanks, --Saul

    Chris Lidman wrote:

    > 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 - 19:24:27 PST