Reposting from Google Group in case people missed it there. -- Gordon
Now that a number of new people have signed up for the mailing list,
this is a good time to try to get some much needed feedback on a
number of questions. If you weren't at the VLASS meeting at AAS
and/or haven't read the whitepapers, we encourage you to at least read
the ones led by Richards and Jarvis as that is the starting point from
which we are working and we'll assume basic knowledge of what was
proposed there. The idea that we'll be discussing is the one that was
started at AAS, namely that of building our own wedding cake rather
than having separate groups vying for deep vs. wide and potentially
canceling each other out (or not being optimally synergistic). The
constraints are >2000 hours (which can be done now anyway), <10000
hours (which already may be too long), and completing the survey in
<10 years (ideally <5).
See the initial welcome message for some basic questions to get us started.
If you aren't registered with a gmail account, you can also see that
message posted on the VLASS forum at
https://science.nrao.edu/science/survey ... ion-forums
Instead of lots of e-mails back and forth, we've created a spreadsheet
where you can post thoughts on the pros/cons of various
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... sp=sharing
Ideally, you would "sign" your comments (or color-code them) so we
know who to go to for further discussion. Feel free to elaborate in
an e-mail response and to add your own technical questions/issues.
Two big things came up during the VLASS meeting at AAS.
The first is if it makes sense to have a full-sky component (we had only
proposed a FIRST-like area). Specifically would it be degenerate with
existing surveys (e.g., NVSS) or future surveys (e.g., EMU and WODAN)
or would the resolution and S-band data make it sufficiently unique?
Second is the matter of S vs. L band. The Richards whitepaper
argues for S-band. While L would be better for an average population with
alpha=-0.7, other aspects of S-band arguably trump that. However, some
more discussion would be appropriate. Also the Jarvis whitepaper makes a
convincing case that the deep part of the wedding case should instead be
Right now we are focusing on these and other technical issues. Once those
have been answered, we'll concentrate on science. As such, please
post any comments on these initial questions in the next ~7 days (by
Tuesday March 11). A revised whitepaper is due on Friday 21 March.
Gordon & Jackie
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest