Re: 9727, plan windows (fwd)

From: Rachel G. (gibbo@panisse.lbl.gov)
Date: Tue Mar 09 2004 - 12:34:35 PST

  • Next message: Rachel G.: "Re: 9727, plan windows (fwd)"

    Hi Bill,

            Should we be concerned about whether the bulk of the
    visits will occur in the early part of this interval?
    We'll have little time to conduct the search and send you
    follow-up observations if no data are taken before 3-4
    April.

            Also, since I've not personally dealt with
    activating ToO's before, I should discuss with you soon how
    best to proceed once we've decided on which candidate to
    follow. I know there is a procedure to do this via the web,
    but I assume we'll work more directly with you on that,
    correct?

    Rachel

    On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, William Januszewski wrote:

    > Hi Rachel,
    >
    > I made one additional change to visits 22 - 36 of proposal 9727. Specifying a
    > between of April 1 - 4 means that it can actually only execute on April 1, 2,
    > and 3. Not April 4. I've opened up the between to be BETWEEN 01-APR-2004 TO
    > 05-APR-2004. This will allow the search visits to execute up until April 4,
    > 23:59 hrs UT, as was originally agreed on.
    >
    > Bill
    >
    > >
    > >
    > > Very good. Thanks, Bill.
    > >
    > >On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, William Januszewski wrote:
    > >
    > >> Hi Rachel,
    > >>
    > >> The special requirement for singles, and specifying a spacific guide star
    > pair,
    > >> only needs to be place on the first exposure in a visit. Even if the visit
    > was 5
    > >> orbits long it would continue to use the star(s) specified assuming the guide
    > >> star acqs were normal.
    > >>
    > >> Cheers,
    > >> Bill
    > >>
    > >> >
    > >> >Hi Bill,
    > >> >
    > >> > I've reviewed the Phase II you sent and all looks
    > >> >good... although I did notice for the visits in which you've
    > >> >specified single guide stars, that the F775W exposure
    > >> >doesn't also contain this spec. Since it is the 2nd
    > >> >exposure in the series (same pointing, orient, and occuring
    > >> >during the same orbit) I assume it would be redundant to
    > >> >respecify the guide star, and the same one will continue to
    > >> >be used as long as it worked the first time. Is this
    > >> >correct?
    > >> >
    > >> >Rachel
    > >> >
    > >> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
    > >> >Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 12:19:49 -0800 (PST)
    > >> >From: Rachel G. <gibbo@jimbean.lbl.gov>
    > >> >Reply-To: Rachel G. <ragibbons@lbl.gov>
    > >> >To: William Januszewski <williamj@stsci.edu>
    > >> >Subject: Re: 9727, plan windows
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >Hi Bill,
    > >> >
    > >> > I will review the Phase II and get back to you in a
    > >> >day or two.
    > >> >
    > >> >Many, many, thanks!
    > >> >
    > >> >Rachel
    > >> >
    > >> >On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, William Januszewski wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Hi Rachel,
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Right after I sent the last email I noticed the plan windows for the
    > visits
    > >> had
    > >> >> not been updated yet. All the visits are set to execute between April 1
    > and 4
    > >> >> even though the last email didn't look that way.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Cheers,
    > >> >> Bill
    > >> >>
    > >> >> PS, I've attached the latest version of the phase 2 that I have, so you
    > have
    > >> it
    > >> >> now too. :)
    > >> >>
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 10 2004 - 14:18:35 PST