From: Mamoru Doi (doi@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 20:59:31 PST
Hi Saul and Chris,
Tonight weather looks bad at Mauna Kea, a lot of cirrus and
clouds. On the other hand, the telescope team is still working
on the IR secondary(?) problem. Probably we won't have observations
of SNe tonight, but we are going to get compensation nights
(for the actuator and the secondary).
Though there are no formal contacts yet, the candidate
nights are probably Nov.20 and 21 (currently Observatory time).
In that case we will ask two people to carry out
observations, and I will support the observations from Japan.
I can't find Takuya Yamashita, who is in charge of telescope
time allocation right now.
Let me update in a few hours.
-Mamoru and Kentaro
>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
>
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 - 20:59:38 PST