Subject: Re: One Observing Algorithm or Many?

From: Tony Tyson

Submitted: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:19:35 -0400

Message number: 122 (previous: 121, next: 123 up: Index)

Robert,

I think you are right re variable and updated cadence (we have been
discussing that for some time).  But the LSST is way oversubscribed
for its first decade now with just a few programs.  So I disagree
with the notion that LSST should be run in the usual TAC mode.
That makes as little sense for LSST as it would have made for SDSS,
for essentially the same reason.  We want to have data that is
homogeneous,
well calibrated, and serves as broad a community as possible.
LSST covers the entire visible sky often enough that it will follow
up its own discoveries photometrically.

Tony

Robert Nemiroff wrote:
> 
> I agree that the exact cadence(s) should not be fixed now, and that the
> proposal should identify various cadences of interest.  But I think there
> is significant utility in deciding soon whether there should, in theory, be
> one cadence or many.  It seems to me inevitable that there will be many,
> that people are beginning to assume this already, and so I suggest being
> explicit about it.
> 
> Why bother?  For one thing, multiple cadences make LSST *more*
> open not only to addressing specific science returns, but also open to
> evolving opportunities and the input of the greater astronomical community.
> As a specific example, I suggested previously a program where
> "Guest Investigators" will be allowed to propose cadences/filters of their own
> interest.  I would guess such a program would help the proposal, even
> given that all data becomes instantly public domain.  This only makes
> sense if the decision for multiple cadences has been made.
> 
> - Robert Nemiroff
> 
> > Comment: If we insist on fixing on the LSST cadence 8 years before
> > we use the telescope, I think we are making a big mistake.   Maybe
> > my brain has turned to mush with all the discussions (good, bad,
> > indifferent), but it seems that the costed proposal, due 18 months
> > from now, does not require that this issue be settled.  Rather, the
> > proposal should identify various cadences of interest, and show that
> > the proposed system can operate efficiently using them.
> > [Message 116]
> 
> LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST    Mailing List Server   LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST
> LSST
> LSST  This is message 120 in the lsst-general archive, URL
> LSST         http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dss/LSST/lsst-general/msg.120.html
> LSST         http://www.astro.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/LSSTmailinglists.pl/show_subscription?list=lsst-general
> LSST  The index is at http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dss/LSST/lsst-general/INDEX.html
> LSST  To join/leave the list, send mail to lsst-request@astro.princeton.edu
> LSST  To post a message, mail it to lsst-general@astro.princeton.edu
> LSST
> LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST

LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST    Mailing List Server   LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST
LSST
LSST  This is message 122 in the lsst-general archive, URL
LSST         http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dss/LSST/lsst-general/msg.122.html
LSST         http://www.astro.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/LSSTmailinglists.pl/show_subscription?list=lsst-general
LSST  The index is at http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dss/LSST/lsst-general/INDEX.html
LSST  To join/leave the list, send mail to lsst-request@astro.princeton.edu
LSST  To post a message, mail it to lsst-general@astro.princeton.edu
LSST
LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST