Subject: Response to Tony about KBOs

From: Beatrice Muller

Submitted: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 10:09:42 -0700 (MST)

Message number: 162 (previous: 161, next: 163 up: Index)

Tony,

I used the nominal strawperson observation protocol for my simulations.
I have not done any minimal requirement calculations yet.
There will be a trade-off between longer integrations, coverage and
time resolution. Longer integrations will give better photometry for
the brighter objects. It will also increase the number of objects (with
unimproved photometry). Without any calculations to back this up I would
maintain that the trade-off between larger area and shorter integration vs.
smaller area vs. longer integration is equal. 
Using only half the area at half the pace might push the revisit rate
below the minimum observations required.
More simulations would be needed to address these points in detail.

Beatrice Mueller 


Tony Tyson wrote:
>Hi Beatrice,
> 
>You do not give the required observation protocol.  Is there
>a revisit rate below which this fails?  If so, what is the
>corresponding limit on A*Omega?  i.e. a throughput of 260
>m^2deg^2 permits exposures as short as 10 sec and coverage of
>14000 sq.deg. every 4 nights.  But Half that throughput means
>over 20 sec exposures and coverage of half that area at half
>the pace or a smaller area.
> 
>Tony


LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST    Mailing List Server   LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST
LSST
LSST  This is message 162 in the lsst-general archive, URL
LSST         http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dss/LSST/lsst-general/msg.162.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