Hi All, For the set of astronomy investigations listed, it is my contention that LSST DM is responsible for enabling this science in the most direct manner. So, Dave's contention about astrometry is correct (it will be there). A use case would be give me PMs of all stars in a particular part of the sky and with stated limits on magnitudes and colors.
Just as the user doesn't say 'calculate the proper motions of ...', she will also not say, 'calculate the magnitudes and colors of...' , but rather say ' give me the magnitudes and colors of stars in some cone'. The issue comes when we get to things like weak lensing or large scale structure. How far does LSST go in enabling this science? I stand by the six criteria we came up with last year. These will enable lots of non-core science and by having LSST provide astrometry, phot-z's, shapes (ellipticities), magnitudes, detection efficiencies, etc. They won't have to be recomputed by the many comsumers, thus saving a lot of computation. Polling the current NOAO TACs will certainly provide a snapshot of the science people are interested in and think NOAO telescopes can approach. This is certainly a subset of what LSST should enable. All of the above is not quite what Jeff was asking for. My guess is that public and educational queries for simple properties (like CMDs, color images, cosmic cinematography,...) will be the biggest stress on the DB. It will be as big as we let it be. cheers, Kem > Hello all, > > I am once again wrestling with sizing DM for the construction proposal, in > particular on the query/community access side. I am addressing this email > back to the Data Products Working Group, which has the responsibility for > expressing the use cases in this area. > > I have cut and pasted the current section of the DM FRS in this area. I > would envision one representative query/use case for each item in this > list, > along with an estimate of how often that query will be requested and the > content/size of the dataset returned. We badly need this information to > have a model for the query processing sizing and for impact on the > database > schema. To date, we have been using various pre-cursor models (e.g. SDSS) > and I am not satisfied that any of these are close corollaries. > > "1.1.1.1 Community Science Products > > While it is impossible to describe all the uses to which LSST data > products > might be applied and all possible derived data products, we have created a > representative set of scenarios that would be supported by LSST, either > directly with LSST-produced data products, or by the community, deriving > them from LSST data products. LSST will provide for these scenarios by > means of data interfaces and query and search tools. The details of > these > scenarios are available as part of the UML model. For present purposes, > we > merely give an indication of the types of astronomy involved: > > · Resolved stellar populations > o Pulsating and eclipsing > o CMDs > o Nova > o Luminosity functions > o Planetary transits > · Low-Z universe > o Novae and supernovae > o Groups and clusters of galaxies > o Low-Z large scale structure > o AGNs > · Dark Energy/Dark Matter > o Weak lensing > o Photo-Zs > · Transient Universe > o GRBs > o SNe, Novae and orphan GRBS > o Micro-lensing > · Solar System > o KBOs > o MBOs > o NEOs > o Comets > · Milky Way Map > o Deep luminosity functions > o Streams and tidal tails > o Proper motions > o Parallax > o Deep CMDs > o ISM and reddening studies" > > Following up on a conversation I had with Phil Pinto, he has suggested we > enlist the aid of the NOAO TAC panel chairs to flesh out the queries/use > cases for community science the next time they meet in Tucson. I am also > interested in your reaction to this idea. Thanks! > > Jeff > > > > _______________________________________________ > LSST-data mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data > _______________________________________________ LSST-data mailing list [email protected] http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data
