Subject: Re: A comparison of different missions

From: Michael Strauss

Submitted: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:53:08 -0400

Message number: 230 (previous: 229, next: 231 up: Index)

Alan W Harris writes:
 > At 07:34 PM 6/10/2004, Michael Strauss wrote:
 > >Hello all,
 > >   As we discussed in the phonecon today, we wanted to include in the
 > >SWG document a simple summary/comparison of various of the proposed missions
 > >which address the LSST science goals.
 > >...............
 > >As I indicated, I am eager to get to closure on this, so *please* respond 
 > >in the
 > >next 24 hours.
 > 
 > Excellent quick response addition.  I have only a couple nits to pick.  In 
 > the abstract, you state the 8.4m-LSST has a three-degree FOV, but in the 
 > talbe you state 10 sq. deg.  In the telecon today, Tony indicated that the 
 > 10 sq-deg design has been adopted.  You should be consistent and give the 
 > corresponding linear diameter in the abstract (or state in terms of sq. 
 > deg. both places).  I worry that throughout the report we may have results 
 > stated based on the 3-deg design, so there is the potential for small 
 > inconsistencies throughout.  It might be better to stae up front that the 
 > report was written on the basis of a 3-deg FOV even though now a 3.5 deg 
 > FOV is the nominal design.  
Yes, I'm aware of this inconsistency.  I will try to smooth it over.
The 8.4m LSST appendix is written with the 3 degree number in mind; it
currently has a somewhat awkward 'note added in proof' describing the
transition to 3.5 degrees.  I'll try to make this a bit clearer. 

My only other small quibble is on p. 2, you 
 > state the target date for completing the "Spaceguard Goal" is 2010.  The 
 > target date nominally accepted is 2008.  There's a fairly long story behind 
 > the choice of this date, but it suffices in the introduction to simply 
 > state it, but should be correctly given.
An easy change!


 > 
 > A more general matter is the statement on p. 3, 4 lines up from bottom, 
 > "...and to assess whether these drivers will remain compelling over the 
 > timescale that such a facility could be built."   I think this is an 
 > excellent "sound bite" statement of the work ahead, as opposed to the 
 > content of the present report.  Perhaps some words to make that distinction 
 > clear would be in order.
Agreed.  Jeremy's suggestion to put this stuff in the 'work ahead'
chapter will solve this problem. 

LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST    Mailing List Server   LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST
LSST
LSST  This is message 230 in the lsst-general archive, URL
LSST         http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dss/LSST/lsst-general/msg.230.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