Community feedback: importance of u-band coverage

u-band-coverage
Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f61a2936718>

(Willclarkson) #1

There is a concern within the TVS/SMWLV community that the LSST u-band coverage may hamper a range of science cases requiring short-wavelength depth and/or variability coverage. This featured prominently at the joint TVS/SMWLV workshop (at the University of Delaware, 2019 October 14-18).

To help organize community feedback on this issue, as well as hopefully provoke development of new metrics/figures-of-merit (and simulation proposals?), we are posting here the link to the informal strategy whitepaper resulting from the UDel TVS/SMWLV discussion. Anyone with the link (below) can contribute to this document: it’s being posted with the intention of provoking input from the science community.

So - input is welcome! If you do make a contribution to this document, please add your name to the author list at the end of the document.

LSST_strategy_uBand_caseForCoverage (google doc, openly editable)

(@sjoert, @mdallora, @jgizis, @fed, @tylerapritchard,@yoachim - please feel free to edit this post if I have misrepresented anything! I will next send this by email to the co-authors I wasn’t able to find on Community.)

Cheers

Will


(Willclarkson) #2

Hi all - the sharing settings on this doc have been fixed: anyone with the link should now be able to edit this file. Apologies for the earlier confusion!

The structure of this doc has been updated slightly: there’s now a section 2 for main survey regions that don’t requre repeat visits in u-band. If you feel your material fits better into that section, please feel free to move it. @mdallora I suspect your material might fit better into that section now. cc @lgirardi


(Massimo Dall'Ora) #3

@willclarkson I fully agree, thanks: even if hot subdwarf can be variable stars, their typical timescale can be too short for a single 30s exposure. So, we are interested in them mostly as population tracers, than variable objects.