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" notifications@github.com 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) 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, view it on GitHub https://github.com/LSSTScienceCollaborations/ObservingStrategy/issues/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 notifications@github.com 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: https://github.com/LSSTScienceCollaborations/ObservingStrategy/issues/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 notifications@github.com 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) 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

[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 notifications@github.com 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) 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

[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 notifications@github.com 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 notifications@github.com 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) 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 https://github.com/LSSTScienceCollaborations/ObservingStrategy/issues/526#issuecomment-241216751, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANP_2b2vLDhSuRdGNPhyHfUzvZBqWwtxks5qh0tZgaJpZM4JoAWG .

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