Re: lightcurve simulations - 24 Oct meeting

From: Tony Spadafora (alspadafora@lbl.gov)
Date: Fri Oct 24 2003 - 11:57:25 PDT

  • Next message: Robert A. Knop Jr.: "Re: lightcurve simulations - 24 Oct meeting"

    It may be a small effect, but the first followup point would probably be
    more like 10 days rather than the 7 assumed below (and it could be
    worse if not timed optimally). This is set by HST calendar - Wed
    morning deadline for coords for the following week's schedule.

    For example (arbitrary dates to count back from first followup):

    search: Jan 23-24 (-9:-11 d before followup) [assume all 15 orbits in
    1-2 days]
    Jan 25 - 27 [access data, subtractions, analysis, decision ]
    submit coordinates morning Wed Jan 28 (-5:-6 d)
    followup #1: Mon-Tues Feb 2-3 [allow 2 day window]

    Rob - is the following assumed three day turn-around from search
    observation to decision reasonable?

    -Tony

    "Rachel G." wrote:
    >
    > These are the results from Z-band lightcurves plus ONE color point
    > taken at the first follow-up epoch after each search.
    >
    > Spacing along the light curve is such that the follow-up begins 7 days
    > after discovery and continues in 4 equally spaced intervals
    > up until the next search only.
    >
    > I have included a light curve point from the previous search epoch if
    > it is allowed by the templates, however, I should lop this point off
    > in a few cases where the SNR falls below 5 or so. Similarly, the
    > subsequent search point should also be dropped in some cases.
    >
    > In the following, none of the light curves with discovery at
    > rest d=-7 or d=-4 include a previous search point. So these
    > are 6-point light curves. For z < 1.4, the d=-1 curves also
    > do not include a previous search point.
    >
    > Exposure time for the search epochs are 3/4 orbits. The orbit totals
    > below are the sums of the follow-up only.
    >
    > Specific cases calculated :
    >
    > Redshift = 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
    > Discovery date = -7 -4 -1 +2 +5
    >
    > Number of points per lightcurve include discovery and possible
    > adjacent search data: = 7 if previous search point available
    > = 6 if previous search point *not* available
    >
    > For z = 1.2 used Z -> B as approximate restframe filter ; J -> V
    > For z > 1.3 used Z -> U as approximate restframe filter ; J -> B
    >
    > ACS orbits per lightcurve points based on SNR lower limits
    > (to be described in complete memo)
    >
    > Lightcurve observations are equally spaced in the *observer*
    > frame between discovery date and next search date (i.e., 45 days)
    >
    > In a 2nd table, I also show what happens with 3 vs. 1 J-band
    > color points.
    >
    > Quick check to do after this meeting :
    > Throw out previous *and* subsequent search points to get worst
    > case scenario.
    >
    > Bear in mind these are not simulated randomized errors.
    >
    > Table Legend:
    > z = redshift
    > d1 = discovery epoch
    > oZ = ACS follow-up orbits
    > oJ = NICMOS color orbits
    > s = stretch (ds = error)
    > m_B = magnitude (Z-band = rest U (z>1.2) or B (z=1.2))
    > m_B = 2nd color (J-band = rest B (z>1.2) or V (z=1.2))
    > d_mR = rest U- or B-band error
    > mBcorr = k-corrected mag (dcorr = error)
    > tmax = fitted date of max (dtmax = error)
    > R-I = U-B or B-V (dR-I = error)
    >
    > z d1 oZ oJ s ds m_B m_R d_mR mBcorr dcorr tmax dtmax R-I dR-I
    > ---- --- -- -- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ------ ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
    > 1.20 -7 4 1 1.000 0.050 25.34 23.88 0.03 25.36 0.11 0.00 0.75 0.069 0.046
    > 1.20 -4 4 1 1.000 0.057 25.34 23.88 0.02 25.36 0.11 0.00 1.30 0.084 0.044
    > 1.20 -1 4 1 1.000 0.072 25.34 23.88 0.02 25.36 0.13 0.00 2.14 0.105 0.044
    > 1.20 2 4 1 1.000 0.033 25.34 23.88 0.03 25.36 0.08 0.00 1.23 0.099 0.048
    > 1.20 5 4 1 1.000 0.035 25.34 23.88 0.06 25.36 0.12 0.00 0.97 0.075 0.057
    > 1.30 -7 4 1 1.000 0.063 25.15 24.18 0.03 25.18 0.13 0.00 0.96 0.247 0.052
    > 1.30 -4 4 1 1.000 0.073 25.15 24.18 0.03 25.18 0.14 0.00 1.60 0.247 0.050
    > 1.30 -1 4 1 1.000 0.087 25.15 24.18 0.03 25.18 0.14 0.00 2.59 0.247 0.050
    > 1.30 2 4 1 1.000 0.033 25.15 24.18 0.04 25.18 0.09 0.00 1.20 0.247 0.054
    > 1.30 5 5 1 1.000 0.042 25.15 24.18 0.07 25.18 0.14 0.00 1.04 0.247 0.065
    > 1.40 -7 4 1 1.000 0.079 25.35 24.40 0.04 25.38 0.17 0.00 1.15 0.306 0.060
    > 1.40 -4 5 1 1.000 0.090 25.35 24.40 0.03 25.38 0.17 0.00 2.03 0.306 0.057
    > 1.40 -1 6 1 1.000 0.079 25.35 24.40 0.04 25.38 0.14 0.00 2.31 0.306 0.057
    > 1.40 2 6 1 1.000 0.035 25.35 24.40 0.05 25.38 0.10 0.00 1.26 0.306 0.062
    > 1.40 5 8 1 1.000 0.046 25.35 24.40 0.07 25.38 0.15 0.00 1.02 0.306 0.073
    > 1.50 -7 8 1 1.000 0.092 25.53 24.72 0.03 25.56 0.18 0.00 1.49 0.450 0.066
    > 1.50 -4 8 1 1.000 0.103 25.53 24.72 0.03 25.56 0.18 0.00 2.35 0.450 0.064
    > 1.50 -1 8 1 1.000 0.082 25.53 24.72 0.05 25.56 0.15 0.00 2.44 0.450 0.066
    > 1.50 2 9 1 1.000 0.041 25.53 24.72 0.07 25.56 0.13 0.00 1.46 0.450 0.072
    > 1.50 5 12 1 1.000 0.055 25.53 24.72 0.09 25.56 0.19 0.00 1.22 0.450 0.087
    >
    > The next table shows how 3 color points vs. 1 (case above) affect the
    > color error. N.b., in general the stretch error is very slightly better.
    >
    > z d1 oZ oJ s ds m_B m_R d_mR mBcorr dcorr tmax dtmax R-I dR-I
    > ---- --- -- -- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ------ ----- ---- ----- ----- -----
    > 1.20 -7 4 3 0.998 0.045 25.33 23.88 0.03 25.36 0.10 0.00 0.61 0.085 0.033
    > 1.20 -4 4 3 0.996 0.058 25.33 23.88 0.02 25.35 0.12 0.00 1.25 0.091 0.033
    > 1.20 -1 4 3 0.996 0.073 25.33 23.87 0.03 25.35 0.12 0.00 2.22 0.092 0.033
    > 1.20 2 4 3 0.997 0.031 25.33 23.87 0.04 25.35 0.08 -0.25 1.22 0.084 0.037
    > 1.20 5 4 3 0.999 0.032 25.33 23.88 0.06 25.36 0.11 0.00 0.92 0.072 0.043
    > 1.30 -7 4 3 1.000 0.059 25.15 24.18 0.03 25.18 0.13 0.00 0.83 0.247 0.038
    > 1.30 -4 4 3 1.000 0.070 25.15 24.18 0.03 25.18 0.13 0.00 1.46 0.247 0.037
    > 1.30 -1 4 3 1.000 0.086 25.15 24.18 0.03 25.18 0.15 0.00 2.45 0.247 0.038
    > 1.30 2 4 3 1.000 0.034 25.15 24.18 0.05 25.18 0.09 0.00 1.31 0.247 0.042
    > 1.30 5 5 3 1.000 0.039 25.15 24.18 0.06 25.18 0.13 0.00 1.01 0.247 0.050
    > 1.40 -7 4 3 1.000 0.076 25.35 24.40 0.04 25.38 0.16 0.00 1.00 0.306 0.045
    > 1.40 -4 5 3 1.000 0.089 25.35 24.40 0.03 25.38 0.17 0.00 1.81 0.306 0.043
    > 1.40 -1 6 3 1.000 0.069 25.35 24.40 0.03 25.38 0.13 0.00 1.91 0.306 0.042
    > 1.40 2 6 3 1.000 0.032 25.35 24.40 0.05 25.38 0.09 0.00 1.16 0.306 0.047
    > 1.40 5 8 3 1.000 0.042 25.35 24.40 0.07 25.38 0.14 0.00 0.97 0.306 0.056
    > 1.50 -7 8 3 1.000 0.081 25.53 24.72 0.03 25.56 0.16 0.00 1.17 0.450 0.043
    > 1.50 -4 8 3 1.000 0.099 25.53 24.72 0.03 25.56 0.17 0.00 2.17 0.450 0.043
    > 1.50 -1 8 3 1.000 0.078 25.53 24.72 0.04 25.56 0.14 0.00 2.24 0.450 0.046
    > 1.50 2 9 3 1.000 0.036 25.53 24.72 0.06 25.56 0.11 0.00 1.32 0.450 0.054
    > 1.50 5 12 3 1.000 0.049 25.53 24.72 0.09 25.56 0.17 0.00 1.13 0.450 0.068
    >
    > Rachel 

    -- 
Tony Spadafora                                ALSpadafora@lbl.gov 
Physics Division                              Tel: (510) 495-2316 
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab                FAX: (510) 486-6738 
1 Cyclotron Road BLDG 50R5032
Berkeley, CA 94720-8160

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 24 2003 - 11:57:34 PDT