Thanks for the clarification. That is a sensible approach. - Kirk
> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:05:14 -0700 > From: Zeljko Ivezic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [LSST-data] the number of LSST stars > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > > Kirk, > > > We cannot assume that there is no compelling science in a scenario > > that has yet to be investigated very thoroughly and for which LSST > > can (and should) provide definitive all-sky data (i.e., to find > > long-term variable phenomena in very faint objects --> > > e.g., brown dwarfs, L/T dwarfs, rotating Oort cloud objects, > > stochastic accretion of infalling gas on the most distant > > massive black holes = baby QSO's ... and who knows what?). > > > > So, I do agree that this is not a strong driver, but let us not > > exclude the possibility. > > I do agree that we should not exclude the possibility for > doing things that may not excite us at the moment. In this > case, I said that it wasn't a strong driver because we can > do the same thing at the single-epoch catalog level. It is > true that by coadding ~10 single exposures one would go > ~1 mag deeper, but it wouldn't be a completely new territory. > We would probably have a pretty good idea what to expect from > the latter approach based on the results from the former. > If it happens to be exceedingly interesting, than we can > certainly move in that direction. By its nature, this is not > a time-sensitive project (on scales of ~yrs), and since we > keep all the images, nothing would be lost. > > Cheers, > > Zeljko _______________________________________________ LSST-data mailing list [email protected] http://www.lsstmail.org/mailman/listinfo/lsst-data
