From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 01 2004 - 08:09:42 PDT
Hey guys-- in light of this, please rework the thing you did yesterday
using *19* orbits, and send it on to adam asap.
-Rob
----- Forwarded message from adam riess <ariess@stsci.edu> -----
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 10:37:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: adam riess <ariess@stsci.edu>
Subject: search priority
To: robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu, gibbo@panisse.lbl.gov
Cc: saul@lbl.gov, ariess@stsci.edu
Dear Team,
We need to work out priority now before the next search starts
in 5 days. The plan Saul and I worked out last year
was simple: we use the ratio of orbits remaining
for the two teams to decide the fraction of tiles in searches 3 and 4
for which each team has priority.
So we have 19 orbits left and you guys have 60-(25 or 26 orbits used)~34 or
35.
So that gives us priority on 35% of the tiles left or 5 of the 15
tiles and you guys get priority on the other 10.
The last step was to select (we said by random number generator)
which are our 5 and which are your 10.
It might make more sense if we make each of our chunks contiguous
in case we might try to fit in 2 nearby SNe without grabbing someone
else's priority.
(For example we could take TILT-TILE 10,14,13,9,16 or some
group of 5).
I don't care so much but I want to resolve this in the next ~2 days
so we don't run into the search and so we can
see from the schedule when our priority tiles need to be searched.
So Vandy's please respond asap so we can resolve this.
-Adam
----- 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 : Thu Jul 01 2004 - 08:10:24 PDT