From: Tony Spadafora (ALSpadafora@lbl.gov)
Date: Thu Dec 04 2003 - 17:26:28 PST
Looks reasonable, except the point at :
>>> +15 days ACS ~2 orbits March 3 (=4.063)
is during the 2nd week of the black out, when only "a few SAA-impacted
orbits would be accepted". I assume we would not want use that but
would instead move this point to the first post-blackout date, Mar 8.
-Tony
On Dec 4, 2003, at 4:55 PM, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
> 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 - 17:26:39 PST