Repository navigation
Create NEO optimized opsim runs #120
Description
There are some alternative cadences we'd like to investigate:
0: Do NES in r band only (with WFD cadence - in 2/3/4 'pairs') [increase NEO completeness]
1: Sweet Spot survey - do sweet spot observations (60-90 degrees solar elongation) along ecliptic during twilight (this would be only during some seasons, depending on moon, sun, and avoid ecliptic in north) [access different NEO populations].
2: A series of NEO dedicated surveys - a 12 year survey, using deepest filters for NEOs (figure out what best SNR there is in each band for various weather/sky conditions) [increase NEO completeness, serve as a comparison point for "max NEO completeness possible"].
For all cadences, skip Milky Way, and relax airmass constraints to ~1.8. Also consider exposure time lengthening (to account for airmass and sky brightness increases away from zenith). Re-visit fields after 3-5 nights.
Cadence 1) - varying declination limits (+/-30 around Ecliptic, subject to airmass constraint -- probably only +10 above ecliptic in north)
1a) require same-night pairs, ~1 hour separation
1b) require triplets
1c) require quads, <2 hour separation
Cadence 2) - PS-style dec limits (+20 / -70 )
2a) require same-night pairs
2b) require triplets
2c) require quads, <2 hour separation
Cadence 3) - Field of regard includes opposition-centered box, +/- 30 deg. height in Dec, +/- 20 deg. width, plus 10-degree wide ecliptic strip.
3a) require same-night pairs
3b) require triplets
3c) require quads, <2 hour separation
Activity
migueldvb commentedon Feb 18, 2016
These alternative observing strategies sound very interesting! Is there any change that the results from some of them, specially the northern ecliptic in r band with WFD cadence, could be included in the whitepaper?
drphilmarshall commentedon Feb 18, 2016
Hi Miguel, Lynne:
The plan is to include results in the white paper only based on OpSim
outputs that we already have, but to also write in that paper about the
OpSim runs we would like to see. New runs that we suggest (as Lynne is
doing here) could be carried out by the summer, so that we would have some
new strategies to test with our metrics then. I guess those results could
then be folded into a version 2 of the white paper, in the fall perhaps.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Miguel de Val-Borro <
notifications@github.com> wrote:
migueldvb commentedon Feb 18, 2016
That is a good plan. Thanks for the clarification. There are a couple of places in the paper that refer to the OpSim v3.2.1 results. I guess that these should be replaced by the newest v3.3.5 set of runs that are actually discussed?
drphilmarshall commentedon Feb 18, 2016
If at all possible, yes! Also, to avoid confusion we should refer to OpSim
runs by their name (eg enigma_1189) - there's a macro that enables easy
cross referencing I believe. Only the initial description of ecah run need
mention the version of the code that was used.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Miguel de Val-Borro <
notifications@github.com> wrote:
drphilmarshall commentedon Apr 28, 2016
Hi @rhiannonlynne - can this issue be closed, or punted to the Tucson 2016 milestone? Thanks!
rhiannonlynne commentedon Apr 28, 2016
Punt to Tucson 2016 milestone please.
drphilmarshall commentedon Apr 28, 2016
Wheeee! :-)
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Lynne Jones notifications@github.com
wrote: