VLASS Calculator

claw
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:18 pm

VLASS Calculator

Postby claw » Wed Mar 26, 2014 12:57 pm

Hi Everyone,
In the interest of coordinating planning between working groups, visualizing the VLASS proposals, and optimizing proposals, I've put together a calculator for VLASS planning. The calculator is in the format of an IPython notebook, which is essentially a Python script with visualizations built in. The key point is that it is easy to see the assumptions used and rerun the calculations.
Take a look at the current snapshot of the notebook at http://goo.gl/k8TGom. At present, only I can re-run the analysis, but it is trivial to do so. Ultimately, I'd like to make it possible for any of you to run it.
For now, I'd love to have feedback:
-- You'll note that the total survey time I calculate for the Transients Wide surveys are systematically higher than the latest draft Gregg circulated. Any thoughts on why?
-- This is a first draft, so I'd appreciate a check of my assumptions
-- Are there other visualizations you'd like to see?

thanks,
casey

bevinashley
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:51 pm

Re: VLASS Calculator

Postby bevinashley » Mon Apr 14, 2014 3:32 pm

April 14th by Casey Law:

I've added these new "consensus" specifications to the VLASS
calculator notebook at http://goo.gl/k8TGom. Comments welcome.
My first impression is that this consensus works pretty well. Depth
and cadence go hand in hand, so that is a win-win for the EG and
transients communities. The extension to low-dec for the GC/bulge is
easy, although at that depth it gets costly. I'd need to read more
about what that depth gets us for Galactic science.
Skipping dec>75d still sounds strange to me. I don't get the
argument that it is hard to observe there; weighting of data is
simple. I'm afraid that the EG community is thinking mostly about
radio populations (which I can see may justify a uniform beam and
sensitivity). However, we shouldn't forget that a true all-sky map (at
least north of dec=-10) is a resource for the entire astronomy
community. The appeal to the non-radio astronomers, which by some
arguments amounts to >25% of all NRAO publications, is what makes the
VLASS conceivable to NRAO management.
In light of that, it is encouraging that the EG community was
willing to let go of the deep field. It struck me too scientifically
narrow to be part of a "sky survey". Dropping it will let us to a
better job on the big stuff.


Return to “Transients & Variability Working Group”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest