From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Mon Oct 27 2003 - 04:56:56 PST
Hi -- I just want to note that I think we're spending too much effort on
this at this point. We've been doing this for weeks, and I believe we
know the answer. Stockholm has sent us numbers before, and Rachel has
sent us numbers. I'd be very surprised if we learn anything new that's
worth a lot of additional time. I like the plan of getting 4 lightcurve
points in z and 3 lightcurve points in J; that seems like a reasonable
one based on what we've looked at. Let's move forward!
It's more important to figure out how many grism orbits we really need.
Unless that has been figured out, I believe that's the main thing
holding us up.
We can't afford to delay building the RPS2 and the plan for followup any
longer on wanting to continue lightcurve simulations. We need to get
that plan in! A month ago! Let's not wait for the results of more
simulations before doing that. Let's get working on that. Doing the
simulations is good, but let's please not use it as an excuse to hold
off putting together the RPS2.
-Rob
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:30:55PM +0100, Vallery Stanishev wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Here in Stockholm we are trying to run Monte Carlo simulations to see
> how accurately we can get the light-curve parameters. We intend to
> randomize the simulated fluxes according to the S/N estimations of
> Rachel. Rachel, can you please send us a table with the S/Ns you
> estimate for given redshift and magnitude in Z and NICMOS bands? Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Vallery, Jakob & Ariel
-- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 27 2003 - 04:57:11 PST