Subject: Minutes of SWG meeting in Seattle

From: Michael Strauss

Submitted: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:26:04 -0400

Message number: 270 (previous: 269, next: 271 up: Index)

During the meeting of the (8.4m) LSST science meeting that was held in
Seattle last week, we held a brief (1.5 hour) meeting of the LSST SWG
on Monday evening (September 20).  The following are rough notes from
this meeting.  

			-Michael Strauss

	Attending: Green, Wolff, Mould, C. Smith, Connolly, Strauss,
	Stubbs, Ivezic, Cook, Monet, Garnavich, Tyson; apologies if I
	missed your name! 

  We started by writing down a series of questions that the LSST SWG
  might tackle next:

 1.  How does LSST fit into the current and next generation of
 surveys?  Both synergy and competition?  How much of LSST science
 goals will be completed by the time LSST gets going? 

	Pan-STARRS
	Dark Energy Camera
	Destiny/SNAP/JDEM
	VST/VISTA
	Legacy/UKIDSS
	Discovery Channel Telescope
	SDSS-II
	Palomar/QUEST
	GAIA
 
  Do we need to revisit the question of figures of merit?  A different
  figure of merit for each goal? 

 2.  How much of LSST science can be done with A Omega of 50?  100?
 200? 

 3.  What about follow-up?  Shri Kulkarni took us to task for not
 making explicit that full follow-up of GRB's is an enormous amount of
 work, including optical/near-IR spectroscopy, and X-ray and radio
 light curves. 

 We tackled more generally the question of the continued role of the
 SWG.  Jeremy said that he wanted us to continue discussing the
 abstract role, not tied to any particular implementation of the
 LSST.  The above questions allow this to be done.  It is emphatically
 *not* our job to evaluate proposals, and/or decide between different
 implementations.  

Chris Stubbs argued forcefully that:
    -We need to argue and make explicit our synergy with other
    surveys/instruments, and not just optical: LOFAR, EXIST, ALMA were
    all mentioned. 
    -An important plus for the LSST is not just measured in science
    leverage a la figures of merit, but getting data products out to
    the broad astronomical community, and to the general public.
    -More broadly, we need to connect up to the physics community.
    They are very interested in LSST, and we have to get them actively
    involved. 
    -More broadly, we need to make the case that LSST is in the broad
    interests of the nation, in a multi-disciplinary sense.  We need
    to arm the astronomy folks at the NSF with the compelling argument
    that explains why LSST should be done, when it is competing with
    big experiments in oceanography 
    and physics.  Jeremy was enthusiastic about this one, saying that
    the NOAO long-range planning committee was given a similar charge,
    based on the Brinkman report that called for a proper
    prioritization and method of deciding on proposed big projects
    within NSF.  Chris volunteered to take a stab at writing this up. 
    -We can also give to the NSF a series of guidelines/criteria for
    judging proposals for the LSST.  This will be useful for those
    writing the proposals; it will give them something to aim
    for/respond to. 

Tony and I will take a stab at figures of merit.  It will be good to
get the SNAP and Pan-STARRS people in on this discussion as well.
Jeremy pointed out that it would be good not to just put these figures
of merit on a relative scale ("your etendue is not as big as mine
is"), but also on an absolute scale, i.e., turning operational figures
of merit into error bars of quantities like w.  This is *much* more
difficult, of course.  Tony said that he has simulation software in
place for doing much of this, at least in the context of weak
lensing. 

  We discussed when/where the next meeting should be held.  To
  coincide with the AAS meeting in San Diego is one possibility.
  Another one, to get the physics community involved, is to make it
  coincide with the APS meeting (April 16-19 in Tampa, Florida).  

  We talked about whether the SWG needs additional expertise.
  Variability/multi-wavelength capabilities was mentioned.  In this
  regard, names that came up included John Carlstrom, Josh Grindlay,
  Rick White, and Ken Chambers. 

LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST    Mailing List Server   LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST LSST
LSST
LSST  This is message 270 in the lsst-general archive, URL
LSST         http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dss/LSST/lsst-general/msg.270.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