Variables: inputs needed for summary

[AshishMahabal]

Hello @lundmb, @keatonb, @phartigan, @pmmcgehee, @ShashiKanbur,

Can you please answer Zeljko's question (#494) as they pertain to your metrics and objects of interest as applicable? Answer as many as possible though not all may pertain to your case(s). That will help us with the summary of what has been accomplished so far.

A general call to this effect had gone out to TVS earlier and a few members had replied. Other members should feel free to reply as well.

[keatonb]

Hi @AshishMahabal

I strongly agree with @StephenRidgway's responses, adding one comment that I repeat here from the email exchange last week regarding question 3:

For many types of variables, I think one of the major strengths that LSST brings to the table (over, say, Kepler) is amplitude measurements through many filters. I explore this for the pulsating white dwarf case study in Section 5.3 of the white paper. By doubling the exposure time of the u-band observations and bringing them out of the read-noise-dominated regime, the increase in the relatively small number of objects that reach meaningful S/N in u' outweighs the decrease in the number of objects that reach significant S/N in other bands. For this reason, I advocate for the 60s u' band visits. I imagine that the benefit is similar for other variables and transients, though this can be tested by analyzing available OpSIM outputs with MAF.

Best,
Keaton

[pmmcgehee]

I'll have a look at the PMS issues, including how LSST can (or not) recover
color variations in irregular variables.

Greetings to the Tucson hordes.
Peregrine

On Aug 18, 2016 16:13, "Ashish Mahabal" [email protected] wrote:

Hello @lundmb https://github.com/lundmb, @keatonb
https://github.com/keatonb, @phartigan https://github.com/phartigan,
@pmmcgehee https://github.com/pmmcgehee, @ShashiKanbur
https://github.com/ShashiKanbur,

Can you please answer Zeljko's question (#494)
#494
as they pertain to your metrics and objects of interest as applicable?
Answer as many as possible though not all may pertain to your case(s). That
will help us with the summary of what has been accomplished so far.

A general call to this effect had gone out to TVS earlier and a few
members had replied. Other members should feel free to reply as well.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#526,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANP_2bCosJA1YtBifa5ODqs07o4X1hopks5qhOcbgaJpZM4JoAWG
.

[tonytyson]

This helps photometric redshifts as well.
Tony

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 18, 2016, at 18:22, Keaton Bell [email protected] wrote:

Hi @AshishMahabal

I strongly agree with @StephenRidgway's responses, adding one comment that I repeat here from the email exchange last week regarding question 3:

For many types of variables, I think one of the major strengths that LSST brings to the table (over, say, Kepler) is amplitude measurements through many filters. I explore this for the pulsating white dwarf case study in Section 5.3 of the white paper. By doubling the exposure time of the u-band observations and bringing them out of the read-noise-dominated regime, the increase in the relatively small number of objects that reach meaningful S/N in u' outweighs the decrease in the number of objects that reach significant S/N in other bands. For this reason, I advocate for the 60s u' band visits. I imagine that the benefit is similar for other variables and transients, though this can be tested by analyzing available OpSIM outputs with MAF.

Best,
Keaton

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[phartigan]

I replied to this on August 12. Here is a copy of what I sent:

Dear Anish,

My comments on your bullet points for young stars variability. Much of this
already covered in our writeup, but a few were not, so I've added some
comments.

Regards,

Pat Hartigan

1. Can you place constraints on the tradeoff between the sky coverage
   and coadded depth?
   For example, should we maximize the sky coverage (to ~30,000 sq. deg.,
   as e.g. Pan-STARRS)
   or the number of detected galaxies (the current baseline with 18,000
   sq. deg.)?

Most young stars congregate into clusters in specific regions, though
there is an older
population that is more distributed. The vast majority are within ~ 25
degrees of the
galactic plane.

2. Can you place constraints on the trade between uniformity of
   sampling and frequency of
   sampling? For example, a rolling cadence can provide enhanced sample
   rates over part or all
   of the survey part of the time, at the cost of reduced sample rate the
   rest of the time (while
   maintaining the nominal total visit counts).

We discuss this in our section. To obtain the best constraints on
periods, a time-intensive
(~ one week/year) campaign on a few selected regions is warranted.
Nominal coverage over the
galactic plane will suffice to identify eruptive variables.

3. Can you place constraints on the tradeoff between the single-visit
   depth and the number
   of visits? Especially in the u band, where longer exposures would
   minimize the impact of the
   readout noise.

All the numbers for this are in our section.

4. Can you place constraints on the Galactic plane coverage (spatial
   coverage, temporal
   sampling, visits per band)?

Nominal sampling is fine for eruptive variable detection. The
advantages and requirements
of a directed ~week-long campaign on a specific region are described
in our section.

5. Can you place constraints on the fractions of observing time
   allocated to each band?

The exposure time ratios in each band are noted in our section.

6. Can you place constraints on the cadence for deep drilling fields?

Again, discussed in our section where we describe a dedicated project
on a specific
region.

7. Assuming two visits per night, should they be obtained in the same
   band or not?

For the nominal sampling it doesn't matter too much. If they are taken
in the same band
it means better sampling for periods. With different bands it means a
lightcurve in two bands,
which is also useful. It's probably a wash, and we can follow whatever
the drivers are for
other science.

8. Would your science benefit from a special cadence prescription
   during commissioning or
   early in the survey, such as: acquiring a full 10-yr count of visits
   for a small area (either in all or in selected bands); a greatly
   enhanced cadence for a small area?

Yes, definitely. We ought to see what we can get out of a dedicated ~week long
LSST cadence on a single region. If the results are impressive we
could do that on a different
region every year (or even return to the same region)

9. Do you have constraints for sampling of observing conditions (e.g.
   seeing, dark sky,
   airmass), possibly as a function of band, etc.?

Better seeing helps with unresolved binaries and for regions where
contamination comes
into play, for example, in the plane but away from dark clouds. Some
of the fainter objects
will be affected if the Moon is very bright and close. However
generally these constraints
are probably in a 'typical' category and not as stringent as those for
say, deep lensing.

10. Do you have science drivers that would require real-time exposure
    time optimization
    to obtain nearly constant single-visit limiting depth?

Don't think so.

Hello @lundmb, @keatonb, @phartigan, @pmmcgehee, @ShashiKanbur,

Can you please answer Zeljko's question
(#494) as they pertain to your metrics and objects of interest as applicable? Answer as many as possible though not all may pertain to your case(s). That will help us with the summary of what has been accomplished so
far.

A general call to this effect had gone out to TVS earlier and a few
members had replied. Other members should feel free to reply as well.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#526

[pmmcgehee]

Hi Ashish and all,

I am following up on Pat's recent repost concerning young stars,
specifically the outlined proposed dense coverage (section 5.4.3). YSO with
ongoing disk accretion exhibit irregular magnitude and color variations on
time scales of a few days or shorter. While the nominal LSST cadence will
suffice for detection of this class of objects, characterization is greater
enhanced by having color information. This issue is common across a variety
of non-periodic variables including CVs and AGN. I note that in Section
8.2.2 (AGN/AGB Selection and Census/Metrics) the following is proposed,
which could be adopted for studying the impact of YSO selection and science.

"3) Assess the effect of non-simultaneous colors on AGN selection. First,
the term color should be clearly defined. Potential definitions include the
difference between the co-adds in two bands for the entire survey (or at a
certain point in time during the survey), the difference between the median
magnitude in each band during the survey, or the difference between
observations in two bands that are closely spaced in time. Next, each
source would be represented as an ellipse in color-color space. The aim is
to assess the sizes of the ellipses and how these sizes could be minimized
by perturbing the current cadence."

This concerns Zeljko's questions 2,4,6, and 8, which Pat points to the
dense coverage observations. The proposal outline is
"These goals can be accomplished by having a week every year where one or
more selected fields
are observed once every 30 minutes in u, r and z. A young star with a 2-day
period sampled every
30 minutes provides a data point every 0.01 in phase. For the best-case
scenario, observing for 7
nights and 10 hours per night would yield 140 photometric points in each
filter."
I concur that this is a suitable selection of filters and observation
timings for study of both diskless and disked YSOs, but the schedule for
filter switching is not specified.

A question for the operations experts - in the context of a specialized
7-day observing program, what are the constraints on the scheduling of
filter switching?

Best regards,
Peregrine

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:17 AM, phartigan [email protected]
wrote:

1. Can you place constraints on the tradeoff between the sky coverage
   and coadded depth?
   For example, should we maximize the sky coverage (to ~30,000 sq. deg.,
   as e.g. Pan-STARRS)
   or the number of detected galaxies (the current baseline with 18,000
   sq. deg.)?

Most young stars congregate into clusters in specific regions, though
there is an older
population that is more distributed. The vast majority are within ~ 25
degrees of the
galactic plane.

2. Can you place constraints on the trade between uniformity of
   sampling and frequency of
   sampling? For example, a rolling cadence can provide enhanced sample
   rates over part or all
   of the survey part of the time, at the cost of reduced sample rate the
   rest of the time (while
   maintaining the nominal total visit counts).

We discuss this in our section. To obtain the best constraints on
periods, a time-intensive
(~ one week/year) campaign on a few selected regions is warranted.
Nominal coverage over the
galactic plane will suffice to identify eruptive variables.

3. Can you place constraints on the tradeoff between the single-visit
   depth and the number
   of visits? Especially in the u band, where longer exposures would
   minimize the impact of the
   readout noise.

All the numbers for this are in our section.

4. Can you place constraints on the Galactic plane coverage (spatial
   coverage, temporal
   sampling, visits per band)?

Nominal sampling is fine for eruptive variable detection. The
advantages and requirements
of a directed ~week-long campaign on a specific region are described
in our section.

5. Can you place constraints on the fractions of observing time
   allocated to each band?

The exposure time ratios in each band are noted in our section.

6. Can you place constraints on the cadence for deep drilling fields?

Again, discussed in our section where we describe a dedicated project
on a specific
region.

7. Assuming two visits per night, should they be obtained in the same
   band or not?

For the nominal sampling it doesn't matter too much. If they are taken
in the same band
it means better sampling for periods. With different bands it means a
lightcurve in two bands,
which is also useful. It's probably a wash, and we can follow whatever
the drivers are for
other science.

8. Would your science benefit from a special cadence prescription
   during commissioning or
   early in the survey, such as: acquiring a full 10-yr count of visits
   for a small area (either in all or in selected bands); a greatly
   enhanced cadence for a small area?

Yes, definitely. We ought to see what we can get out of a dedicated ~week
long
LSST cadence on a single region. If the results are impressive we
could do that on a different
region every year (or even return to the same region)

9. Do you have constraints for sampling of observing conditions (e.g.
   seeing, dark sky,
   airmass), possibly as a function of band, etc.?

Better seeing helps with unresolved binaries and for regions where
contamination comes
into play, for example, in the plane but away from dark clouds. Some
of the fainter objects
will be affected if the Moon is very bright and close. However
generally these constraints
are probably in a 'typical' category and not as stringent as those for
say, deep lensing.

10. Do you have science drivers that would require real-time exposure
    time optimization
    to obtain nearly constant single-visit limiting depth?

Don't think so.

Hello @lundmb, @keatonb, @phartigan, @pmmcgehee, @ShashiKanbur,

Can you please answer Zeljko's question
[(#494)](https://github.com/LSSTScienceCollaborations/
ObservingStrategy/issues/494) as they pertain to your metrics and objects
of interest as applicable? Answer as many as possible though not all may
pertain to your case(s). That will help us with the summary of what has
been accomplished so
far.

A general call to this effect had gone out to TVS earlier and a few
members had replied. Other members should feel free to reply as well.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/LSSTScienceCollaborations/
ObservingStrategy/issues/526

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#526 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANP_2T4aK8d76-l4NYdbAhGIvoN-gCY3ks5qhViZgaJpZM4JoAWG
.

Dr. Peregrine M. McGehee
Santa Clarita, CA (626) 993-4199

[phartigan]

All,

On YSO issues...
It is definitely worthwhile to have reliable colors. For YSO's there
is no evidence that 'simultaneous' needs to be closer than an hour. But they
should be done on the same night if we can. In the u, r, z plan we
described in the
document and Peregrine reiterated below, I had assumed that the intensive
monitoring phase would be a week where each of u, r, and z were followed each
night. So effectively these all generate simultaneous colors.

For the eruptive variables I think everyone would be happy if the photometry
was all done on the same night, less happy if it was a few days apart
(maybe ok
if one could interpolate), and unhappy if the gap was more than a
week. Some of
this will depend on how well the archive is used and whether an alert
is triggered
on short notice. If so, then certainly any new FU Ori or EX Ori
variable can be
followed up on another telescope. They are rare enough to warrant following
each one on short notice. But if the FU Ori isn't noticed until 10 months
after the fact, then the opportunity to get lightcurves in many colors
during the
crucial rise phase is lost, and we have to rely on how LSST was
operating at the
time of the discovery.

ph

Hi Ashish and all,

I am following up on Pat's recent repost concerning young stars,
specifically the outlined proposed dense coverage (section 5.4.3). YSO with
ongoing disk accretion exhibit irregular magnitude and color variations on
time scales of a few days or shorter. While the nominal LSST cadence will
suffice for detection of this class of objects, characterization is greater
enhanced by having color information. This issue is common across a variety
of non-periodic variables including CVs and AGN. I note that in Section
8.2.2 (AGN/AGB Selection and Census/Metrics) the following is proposed,
which could be adopted for studying the impact of YSO selection and science.

"3) Assess the effect of non-simultaneous colors on AGN selection. First,
the term color should be clearly defined. Potential definitions include the
difference between the co-adds in two bands for the entire survey (or at a
certain point in time during the survey), the difference between the median
magnitude in each band during the survey, or the difference between
observations in two bands that are closely spaced in time. Next, each
source would be represented as an ellipse in color-color space. The aim is
to assess the sizes of the ellipses and how these sizes could be minimized
by perturbing the current cadence."

This concerns Zeljko's questions 2,4,6, and 8, which Pat points to the
dense coverage observations. The proposal outline is
"These goals can be accomplished by having a week every year where one or
more selected fields
are observed once every 30 minutes in u, r and z. A young star with a 2-day
period sampled every
30 minutes provides a data point every 0.01 in phase. For the best-case
scenario, observing for 7
nights and 10 hours per night would yield 140 photometric points in each
filter."
I concur that this is a suitable selection of filters and observation
timings for study of both diskless and disked YSOs, but the schedule for
filter switching is not specified.

A question for the operations experts - in the context of a specialized
7-day observing program, what are the constraints on the scheduling of
filter switching?

Best regards,
Peregrine

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:17 AM, phartigan [email protected]
wrote:

1. Can you place constraints on the tradeoff between the sky coverage
   and coadded depth?
   For example, should we maximize the sky coverage (to ~30,000 sq. deg.,
   as e.g. Pan-STARRS)
   or the number of detected galaxies (the current baseline with 18,000
   sq. deg.)?

Most young stars congregate into clusters in specific regions, though
there is an older
population that is more distributed. The vast majority are within ~ 25
degrees of the
galactic plane.

2. Can you place constraints on the trade between uniformity of
   sampling and frequency of
   sampling? For example, a rolling cadence can provide enhanced sample
   rates over part or all
   of the survey part of the time, at the cost of reduced sample rate the
   rest of the time (while
   maintaining the nominal total visit counts).

We discuss this in our section. To obtain the best constraints on
periods, a time-intensive
(~ one week/year) campaign on a few selected regions is warranted.
Nominal coverage over the
galactic plane will suffice to identify eruptive variables.

3. Can you place constraints on the tradeoff between the single-visit
   depth and the number
   of visits? Especially in the u band, where longer exposures would
   minimize the impact of the
   readout noise.

All the numbers for this are in our section.

4. Can you place constraints on the Galactic plane coverage (spatial
   coverage, temporal
   sampling, visits per band)?

Nominal sampling is fine for eruptive variable detection. The
advantages and requirements
of a directed ~week-long campaign on a specific region are described
in our section.

5. Can you place constraints on the fractions of observing time
   allocated to each band?

The exposure time ratios in each band are noted in our section.

6. Can you place constraints on the cadence for deep drilling fields?

Again, discussed in our section where we describe a dedicated project
on a specific
region.

7. Assuming two visits per night, should they be obtained in the same
   band or not?

For the nominal sampling it doesn't matter too much. If they are taken
in the same band
it means better sampling for periods. With different bands it means a
lightcurve in two bands,
which is also useful. It's probably a wash, and we can follow whatever
the drivers are for
other science.

8. Would your science benefit from a special cadence prescription
   during commissioning or
   early in the survey, such as: acquiring a full 10-yr count of visits
   for a small area (either in all or in selected bands); a greatly
   enhanced cadence for a small area?

Yes, definitely. We ought to see what we can get out of a dedicated ~week
long
LSST cadence on a single region. If the results are impressive we
could do that on a different
region every year (or even return to the same region)

9. Do you have constraints for sampling of observing conditions (e.g.
   seeing, dark sky,
   airmass), possibly as a function of band, etc.?

Better seeing helps with unresolved binaries and for regions where
contamination comes
into play, for example, in the plane but away from dark clouds. Some
of the fainter objects
will be affected if the Moon is very bright and close. However
generally these constraints
are probably in a 'typical' category and not as stringent as those for
say, deep lensing.

10. Do you have science drivers that would require real-time exposure
    time optimization
    to obtain nearly constant single-visit limiting depth?

Don't think so.

Hello @lundmb, @keatonb, @phartigan, @pmmcgehee, @ShashiKanbur,

Can you please answer Zeljko's question
[(#494)](https://github.com/LSSTScienceCollaborations/
ObservingStrategy/issues/494) as they pertain to your metrics and objects
of interest as applicable? Answer as many as possible though not all may
pertain to your case(s). That will help us with the summary of what has
been accomplished so
far.

A general call to this effect had gone out to TVS earlier and a few
members had replied. Other members should feel free to reply as well.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/LSSTScienceCollaborations/
ObservingStrategy/issues/526

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#526 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANP_2T4aK8d76-l4NYdbAhGIvoN-gCY3ks5qhViZgaJpZM4JoAWG
.

Dr. Peregrine M. McGehee
Santa Clarita, CA (626) 993-4199

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#526 (comment)

[pmmcgehee]

Pat,

Thanks for expanding on the possible filter change timing. That's also an
important point concerning Target of Opportunity follow-up of eruptive YSOs
(FuOR/ExOR). I note that the only discussion in the Observing Strategy
document of using LSST in a ToO mode is in the content of Gravitational
Wave event follow-ups, so presume that other resources will be brought to
bear for star formation studies.

Best regards,
Peregrine

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 11:45 AM, phartigan [email protected]
wrote:

All,

On YSO issues...
It is definitely worthwhile to have reliable colors. For YSO's there
is no evidence that 'simultaneous' needs to be closer than an hour. But
they
should be done on the same night if we can. In the u, r, z plan we
described in the
document and Peregrine reiterated below, I had assumed that the intensive
monitoring phase would be a week where each of u, r, and z were followed
each
night. So effectively these all generate simultaneous colors.

For the eruptive variables I think everyone would be happy if the
photometry
was all done on the same night, less happy if it was a few days apart
(maybe ok
if one could interpolate), and unhappy if the gap was more than a
week. Some of
this will depend on how well the archive is used and whether an alert
is triggered
on short notice. If so, then certainly any new FU Ori or EX Ori
variable can be
followed up on another telescope. They are rare enough to warrant following
each one on short notice. But if the FU Ori isn't noticed until 10 months
after the fact, then the opportunity to get lightcurves in many colors
during the
crucial rise phase is lost, and we have to rely on how LSST was
operating at the
time of the discovery.

ph

Hi Ashish and all,

I am following up on Pat's recent repost concerning young stars,
specifically the outlined proposed dense coverage (section 5.4.3). YSO
with
ongoing disk accretion exhibit irregular magnitude and color variations
on
time scales of a few days or shorter. While the nominal LSST cadence will
suffice for detection of this class of objects, characterization is
greater
enhanced by having color information. This issue is common across a
variety
of non-periodic variables including CVs and AGN. I note that in Section
8.2.2 (AGN/AGB Selection and Census/Metrics) the following is proposed,
which could be adopted for studying the impact of YSO selection and
science.

"3) Assess the effect of non-simultaneous colors on AGN selection. First,
the term color should be clearly defined. Potential definitions include
the
difference between the co-adds in two bands for the entire survey (or at
a
certain point in time during the survey), the difference between the
median
magnitude in each band during the survey, or the difference between
observations in two bands that are closely spaced in time. Next, each
source would be represented as an ellipse in color-color space. The aim
is
to assess the sizes of the ellipses and how these sizes could be
minimized
by perturbing the current cadence."

This concerns Zeljko's questions 2,4,6, and 8, which Pat points to the
dense coverage observations. The proposal outline is
"These goals can be accomplished by having a week every year where one or
more selected fields
are observed once every 30 minutes in u, r and z. A young star with a
2-day
period sampled every
30 minutes provides a data point every 0.01 in phase. For the best-case
scenario, observing for 7
nights and 10 hours per night would yield 140 photometric points in each
filter."
I concur that this is a suitable selection of filters and observation
timings for study of both diskless and disked YSOs, but the schedule for
filter switching is not specified.

A question for the operations experts - in the context of a specialized
7-day observing program, what are the constraints on the scheduling of
filter switching?

Best regards,
Peregrine

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 12:17 AM, phartigan [email protected]
wrote:

1. Can you place constraints on the tradeoff between the sky coverage
   and coadded depth?
   For example, should we maximize the sky coverage (to ~30,000 sq. deg.,
   as e.g. Pan-STARRS)
   or the number of detected galaxies (the current baseline with 18,000
   sq. deg.)?

Most young stars congregate into clusters in specific regions, though
there is an older
population that is more distributed. The vast majority are within ~ 25
degrees of the
galactic plane.

2. Can you place constraints on the trade between uniformity of
   sampling and frequency of
   sampling? For example, a rolling cadence can provide enhanced sample
   rates over part or all
   of the survey part of the time, at the cost of reduced sample rate the
   rest of the time (while
   maintaining the nominal total visit counts).

We discuss this in our section. To obtain the best constraints on
periods, a time-intensive
(~ one week/year) campaign on a few selected regions is warranted.
Nominal coverage over the
galactic plane will suffice to identify eruptive variables.

3. Can you place constraints on the tradeoff between the single-visit
   depth and the number
   of visits? Especially in the u band, where longer exposures would
   minimize the impact of the
   readout noise.

All the numbers for this are in our section.

4. Can you place constraints on the Galactic plane coverage (spatial
   coverage, temporal
   sampling, visits per band)?

Nominal sampling is fine for eruptive variable detection. The
advantages and requirements
of a directed ~week-long campaign on a specific region are described
in our section.

5. Can you place constraints on the fractions of observing time
   allocated to each band?

The exposure time ratios in each band are noted in our section.

6. Can you place constraints on the cadence for deep drilling fields?

Again, discussed in our section where we describe a dedicated project
on a specific
region.

7. Assuming two visits per night, should they be obtained in the same
   band or not?

For the nominal sampling it doesn't matter too much. If they are taken
in the same band
it means better sampling for periods. With different bands it means a
lightcurve in two bands,
which is also useful. It's probably a wash, and we can follow whatever
the drivers are for
other science.

8. Would your science benefit from a special cadence prescription
   during commissioning or
   early in the survey, such as: acquiring a full 10-yr count of visits
   for a small area (either in all or in selected bands); a greatly
   enhanced cadence for a small area?

Yes, definitely. We ought to see what we can get out of a dedicated
~week
long
LSST cadence on a single region. If the results are impressive we
could do that on a different
region every year (or even return to the same region)

9. Do you have constraints for sampling of observing conditions (e.g.
   seeing, dark sky,
   airmass), possibly as a function of band, etc.?

Better seeing helps with unresolved binaries and for regions where
contamination comes
into play, for example, in the plane but away from dark clouds. Some
of the fainter objects
will be affected if the Moon is very bright and close. However
generally these constraints
are probably in a 'typical' category and not as stringent as those for
say, deep lensing.

10. Do you have science drivers that would require real-time exposure
    time optimization
    to obtain nearly constant single-visit limiting depth?

Don't think so.

Hello @lundmb, @keatonb, @phartigan, @pmmcgehee, @ShashiKanbur,

Can you please answer Zeljko's question
[(#494)](https://github.com/LSSTScienceCollaborations/
ObservingStrategy/issues/494) as they pertain to your metrics and
objects
of interest as applicable? Answer as many as possible though not all may
pertain to your case(s). That will help us with the summary of what has
been accomplished so
far.

A general call to this effect had gone out to TVS earlier and a few
members had replied. Other members should feel free to reply as well.

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/LSSTScienceCollaborations/
ObservingStrategy/issues/526

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<https://github.com/LSSTScienceCollaborations/
ObservingStrategy/issues/526#issuecomment-240946192>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANP_2T4aK8d76-
l4NYdbAhGIvoN-gCY3ks5qhViZgaJpZM4JoAWG>
.

Dr. Peregrine M. McGehee
Santa Clarita, CA (626) 993-4199

You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/LSSTScienceCollaborations/
ObservingStrategy/issues/526#issuecomment-241209523

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#526 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANP_2b2vLDhSuRdGNPhyHfUzvZBqWwtxks5qh0tZgaJpZM4JoAWG
.

Dr. Peregrine M. McGehee
Santa Clarita, CA (626) 993-4199