Subject: weak lensing and SNe chapters

From: Jeremy Mould

Submitted: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 18:29:35 -0700

Message number: 182 (previous: 181, next: 183 up: Index)

Nice work, Michael et al. When added to the solar system part of the DRM
you completed in November, and the TBD variable universe chapter
we'll have a description of a science mission which 
is both compelling (as sought by NSF) and realistic (i.e. achievable in
a stated time.) Here are some comments on the matters you highlighted.

Page 1. 70 times better than WMAP is based on delta w = 0.05 in 7.2.4 
and Table 2. Do we need to be specific about WMAP (year 1) ?

Page 9. WL-useful density of galaxies as a function of seeing. 
Both this question and the next one call for more advanced simulations.
These can be promised in later work by the SWG.

Page 11. What shear error is "good enough" ? Again this is an
advanced simulation issue. The experimenters will need to think
whether they can get their factor of ten gain from raw image control
improvements or improved calibration strategies.
 
Page 15. What about VISTA ? is one of the explicit subjects for SWG
study. To quote the charge:
"Establish the scientific relationship between LSST and other major 
facilities (for example SNAP, Gemini, PanStarrs, GSMT, VISTA etc)"
This subject is one the SWG could well address in detail in 2004.
This could be made clear in section 7.9, or wherever you move that section.

Page 19. I'm guessing your remark is a challenge to Peter Garnavich
to add a reference like Garnavich astro-ph 0400001.

Section 8.5. This needs to be replaced. I'll do this, based on astro-ph
0305008. Sending me your tex file might accelerate that.

Page 21. As I said, I think the question of when different science goals
are achieved and how is a next year's issue. Like the JWST DRM, the
LSST DRM is a line in the sand, which LSST implementations or precursors
can measure themselves against.

Looking ahead to tackling this question of comparisons, a good approach 
may be to draw a roadmap of synoptic survey science. Each of the projects 
can be put on the roadmap with its expected achievements. Some of these
are known relatively well (e.g. Pan Starrs NEA completeness was predicted
by Nick Kaiser for a NASA committee last summer.) Others will need some
analysis, and the SWG might want to call for presentations by VISTA etc
at a meeting we could organize in Tucson, or Denver (AAS), or somewhere. 

Anyway, I think all that's ahead of us, rather than in this document.
A happy new year to all SWG members. May the sun shine on SSTs, large & small.
Jeremy


LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST    Mailing List Server   LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST
LSST
LSST  This is message 182 in the lsst-general archive, URL
LSST         http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dss/LSST/lsst-general/msg.182.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