From: Saul Perlmutter (saul@lbl.gov)
Date: Mon May 24 2004 - 08:52:51 PDT
The next two searches are "owned" proportionately to number of
follow-up orbits not yet used by each group (see attached copy of the
agreement email). I'm not sure how many follow-up orbits Adam's team
already used up in following a supernova from last summer, but probably
significantly fewer than we used on our "z~1.6" SN.
attached mail follows:
...See, why can't the parties in the Middle East be this reasonable?!
adam riess wrote:
> Looks fine, I will try to call the suicide bomber back.
>
> >Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 14:50:08 -0700
> >From: Saul Perlmutter <saul@lbl.gov>
> >X-Accept-Language: en
> >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >To: adam riess <ariess@stsci.edu>, Andrew Fruchter <fruchter@stsci.edu>, Greg
> Aldering <GAldering@LBL.gov>
> >Subject: Any edits for this, Adam?
> >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> >Here's what Adam, Andy and I came up with for the Cycle 12 follow-up
> >priorities of SNe found with HST:
> >
> >_____________________________________________
> >
> >Cycle 11 search: Adam's team has right-of-first-refusal for all
> >supernovae found.
> >
> >Search #1: Saul's team "goes first" for all fields in this search.
> > "Going first" means this team chooses 1st for a SN candidate to
> >follow up, the other team chooses 2nd and 3rd, and the team that "goes
> >first" also chooses 4th. Repeat this until any candidates of interest
> >are used up.
> >
> >Search #2: Adam's team "goes first" for all fields in this search.
> >
> >Search #3: Before this search, randomly assign which team "goes first"
> >for each of the fields, where the number of fields assigned to each team
> >is in proportion to the number of follow-up orbits they have left.
> > Note that for the purposes of this calculation an arbitrary charge
> >of 10% of the number of orbits committed to following a given SN will be
> >assumed "used up" for a final observation of the galaxy after the SN has
> >faded, unless the team guarantees that this SN will not need a final
> >observation.
> >
> >Search #4: Same as search #3.
> >_____________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >Note: If either team follows more SNe found some other way (e.g.
> >Ultra-Deep Field or ground-based telescope searching) then the odds will
> >even out automatically due to the proportional field assignments before
> >Searches #3 and #4. Also note that the round-off error of assigning
> >the last field in a one of these two searches can be handled by giving
> >each team the appropriate odds for being assigned that field (or any
> >other way that seems fair).
> >
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 24 2004 - 08:53:31 PDT