[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological]

Re: skils recommendations

Hi all
 
(I appreciate that discussions re field selection etc are meant to take
place in the science discussion group, but so far very few people appear
to have subscribed there so here comes.  In the meantime - people -
please do subscribe to the science discussion list that JJ has set up).
 
To answer Ray's comments re overlap with SIRTF public data:
 
> Note that XMM-LSS and ELAIS N-2 are proposed to be in, and that gives
> us 15 square degrees. That's a lot of territory for many things.
 
It wasn't entirely clear to me whether ELAIS N-2 would be included or
was just being considered as a possibility.  On a somewhat related
note:  15 square degrees may appear to be a lot... However, given that
the survey will take place over 5 years, does it mean that that we will
have only 3 sq deg of overlap in the crucial first year - i.e. when the
SIRTF data are most fresh and relevant?
 
> The minimum airmass of Chandra, HDF, Lockman, Lonsdale are all ~>1.4,
 
Actually,  both the Lockman Hole and Lonsdale Hole fields are at an
airmass of <1.4 for ~4 hours out of every 24.
 
Clearly, we don't want to put all the fields out of the reach of the
VLT, but, conversely, we shouldn't be driven completely by southern
access.  Placing some fields in the north will give us a lot of
complementary data for free, which is not the case if we have all the
fields at the equator.
 
> doable but not ideal. The northern fields are of course not visible
> from Chile where all the French VLT firepower is. Canada has pretty limited
> 8m followup capability for the next year or two.
 
All the more reason for having some northern fields with additional
unique data.  The SIRTF public fields would let Canadians do science
where we wouldn't have to compete directly against the overwhelming VLT
superiority that the French have.
 
> SWIRE is somewhat shallow for many things so it can't be a big driver.
> Of course the other way to look at it is that the CFHTLS is a big
> driver for future SIRTF proposals! Put one in!
 
Agreed that SWIRE is not as deep as is needed for some purposes.  But
then, it isn't too shabby --- after all, it is designed to detect normal
galaxies out to z~3.
 
It seems to me that, due to worries over cosmic variance, the number of
independent CFHTLS fields will go up.  Surely, *some* of these new
fields could be made to coincide with additional SIRTF public data,
while others can be placed with other constraints in mind.
 
 
Marcin


Back to the Mailing Lists page