From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Fri Dec 05 2003 - 10:57:05 PST
----- Forwarded message from adam riess <ariess@stsci.edu> -----
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 19:35:18 -0500 (EST)
From: adam riess <ariess@stsci.edu>
Subject: Re: HST LRP assumptions about 9727 & 9728 execution in 2004
To: ariess@stsci.edu, robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
Cc: hstserch@lbl.gov
The main challenge will be that anything we do after mid-May
will have the forced +/-5 degree orientation restriction.
so if you move later we will have trouble
in more searches.
This might be manageable if we select the dates to match the orient
and then repeat every 45+/-2 days
but follow-up will be more challenging with the grism
without the ability to roll, don't you think?
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
Note that we can follow-up ~March 3 they say
since its SAA impacted is not an issue (i.e., not a total blackout)
>Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 18:25:45 -0600
>From: "Robert A. Knop Jr." <robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu>
>To: adam riess <ariess@stsci.edu>
>Cc: jordan@stsci.edu, williamj@stsci.edu, hstserch@lbl.gov
>Subject: Re: HST LRP assumptions about 9727 & 9728 execution in 2004
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Disposition: inline
>User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
>
>On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 07:22:43PM -0500, adam riess wrote:
>> Ian,Bill,
>>
>> To know if this will work we
>> need to see/check the orients allowed
>> over this range. The issue would be the 4th epoch which may not be available
>> at 0,45,90,135,180,etc degrees orient with only +/-5 degree tolerance.
>>
>>
>> Also, are the visibilities okay?
>
>One other worry-- the Feb 23 to Mar 7 gap will be a serious problem for
>follow-up of supernovae discovered in a Jan 11 search. (I don't know
>what cadence of follow-up Adam has in his program, but it would
>interfere with the plans that we have in ours.) I would like us to
>explore the possibility of moving everything back so that the first
>activation was on March 11, and another activation was added at the same
>spacing after the last one. How would observability be for these fields
>into the beginning of Sepetember (which is where follow-up would extened
>if we don't start until March 11)?
>
>-Rob
>
>--
>--Prof. Robert Knop
> Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University
> robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
----- End forwarded message -----
-- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Dec 05 2003 - 10:57:18 PST