From: Rachel A. Gibbons (ragibbons@lbl.gov)
Date: Thu Jul 01 2004 - 10:23:17 PDT
Hi,
If we're going to group tiles together (I prefer this idea), why not
have the other team take priority on any grouping which includes 2 of the
middle tiles, as Adam proposed :
top 5 (tiles 32-36)
bottom 5 (21,22,24,25,27 - since 23 isn't being observed this time)
or side options such as (27,28,31,32,35).
Randomizing the positions may look nice, but doesn't mean anything
statistically.
Also, I think worrying too much about weighting by the search area
covered in the May search is not necessary. Grouping like I have should
be close to doing that given the symmetry of the tile positions.
Remember, the exact HST pointing won't necessarily line up with the map
(especially tile 30 since it'll be taken at a 6D tilt), so the precision
to which you measured the tile coverage overanalyses this.
Make sure Adam has included all follow-up orbits that have and will be
used on current candidates. I see, for example, they will execute another
orbit over the weekend. Probably Adam included this in his total.
I won't be in to the office until later today, since I have a lot to
do to get ready for my trip tomorrow. So please don't wait for my further
opinion on this.
Ciao,
Rachel
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
> 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 -----
>
>
-- ------------------------------ Dr. R. A. Gibbons Lawrence Berkeley National Lab 1 Cyclotron Rd MS 50R5032 Berkeley, CA 94720-8160 USA Tel 510.486.7416 ------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jul 01 2004 - 10:26:09 PDT