From: Rachel G. (gibbo@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Sun Oct 19 2003 - 12:29:55 PDT
Hi Vitaliy,
For at least the first search, we'll have to predict
how best to follow up a particular candidate based solely on
discovery magnitude and information from the GOODS reference
data (such as host type and possible photometric redshift).
We then activate the appropriate portion of our submitted
program. It was my understanding that we would not be able
to continuously update our observing scheme due to the tight
scheduling of HST time.
However, if we find the follow up for a candidate
begins a bit late such that sparse coverage on the rise
warrants getting data beyond the observing sequence we
activated (including the next search point), there *may* be
enough time to submit another request for a late-time point.
This was something we were going to find out about once we
submit our program.
For the subsequent searches, we'll have more
information at our disposal to hopefully more easily rule
out such cases.
Rachel
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 VAFadeyev@lbl.gov wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> it seems that we may want to implement
> a "prompt reduction" scheme during the search.
> I.e. try to continuously follow and update
> the preliminary lightcurve as soon as the data
> are available.
>
> For the budget of orbits and the final accuracy,
> it is important to know whether a supernova was
> caught on the rise and whether we want to improve
> the stretch accuracy by adding more late-time
> observation.
>
> Perhaps this was realized before, but I thought
> to mention this anyway.
>
> Cheers,
> vitaliy
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 19 2003 - 12:30:09 PDT