Re: HST LRP assumptions about 9727 & 9728 execution in 2004

From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 04 2003 - 16:55:57 PST

  • Next message: Tony Spadafora: "Re: HST LRP assumptions about 9727 & 9728 execution in 2004"

    On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 06:53:53PM -0600, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
    > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 07:35:18PM -0500, adam riess wrote:
    > > I think the plan they sent is doable
    > > for the first activation
    > >
    > > your activation
    > > would look like
    > >
    > > discovery Jan ~23
    > > peak: grism, ACS, nicmos ~10 orbits Feb 2
    > > +5 days: ACS nicmos again ~5 orbits Feb 12
    > > +10 days ACS ~2 orbits Feb 22
    > > +15 days ACS ~2 orbits March 3
    > > +20 days " March 13
    >
    > OK, you may be right -- is this based on our RPS2? I need to check with
    > Rachel to make sure this fits with the follow-up plan we ended up with.
    > I belive that we were talking about three different NICMOS epochs in our
    > final plan, but to be honest I don't remember it. Rachel's the expert
    > on that.

    Ah -- yeah, in our plan we were interleaving ACS and NICMOS orbits, to
    better sample the lightcurve. We would have to move away from doing
    that; I'd prefer not to if we could avoid it, but this may turn out to
    be the best compromise given the constraints on the other end.

    -Rob

    -- 
    --Prof. Robert Knop
      Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University
      robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 04 2003 - 16:56:08 PST