From: VAFadeyev@lbl.gov
Date: Mon Oct 20 2003 - 00:45:47 PDT
Hi Saul,
please find the attached note, which attempts
to answer the questions. It is based on Rachel's
newer and better S/N estimates.
The 2nd questions is not answered. There seems
to be some software restrictions for such
substentially negative dates.
Cheers,
vitaliy
----- Original Message -----
From: Saul Perlmutter <saul@LBL.gov>
Date: Saturday, October 18, 2003 0:07 am
Subject: Re: Optimization of observations for the HST search
> Hi Vitaliy, Is it easy for you to check the following things?--
> First, if you assume that you will not be able to get another
> observation for at least 7 days
> after the discovery does that change anything? (This might be
> the delay necessary to run the
> search, find the supernova, and request the HST to put the follow-
> up on the calendar.)
> Second, in the cases in which the supernova is found after
> maximum, does it help determine
> "stretch" if you include the 3/4-of-an-orbit from 45 days-before-
> discovery (i.e., from the
> "reference" image taken in the previous iteration of the search)?
> Third, what happens if you only use 7 (or fewer) orbits for the
> lower-redshift supernovae?
> Fourth, did you check whether you want the sequence of
> observations to stop at 45 days past
> discovery? Would it be better to extend the schedule of "follow-
> up" orbits beyond that date
> -- or, alternatively, to end them earlier than your current examples?
>
> --Saul
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 20 2003 - 00:46:08 PDT