Sloan magnitudes + OK for the outline of the CFHLS???

[Christian Veillet <veillet@cfht.hawaii.edu>]

Hello!
 
I would like to second David's email. We need to know if the outline proposed these past two days has the favor of the mswg. I
would prefer an active answer more than assuming you agree if you don't answer.
 
The presentation made by Ray for the Canadian forum is one possibility (see the forward I made to the group).
 
An alternative is to present the CFHLS as I did in my email yesterday, with three surveys
1- weak lensing (230 nights)
2- ultra deep (240 if alone)
3- sne factory (240 if alone)  
 
120 nights saved if 2+3 are done together, for a total of 590 nights (1+2+3)
 
Any preference? 
 
 
As for magnitudes, r'~R and i'~I+0.22
 
As for the detection limit, one of the advantages of i' versus I is to eliminate the third bunch of sky emission lines starting at
850 nm and getting some darker sky between 690 and 730 nm. We will have less flux from the objects (i' is narrower) but much less
sky background.
Is somebody equipped for photometric simulations? Annie, I thought you would do something about that.
Has somebody any information on these issues?
 
I went through the draft, corrected all the typos etc... Ray, what about the science case now for the SNe factory? A lot of what
was in the fist version is no longer adapted to the present layout of the factory.
 
Others, are you still alive?
 
Aloha
 
Christian
-- 
************************************************************
Dr. Christian Veillet,       CFHT Senior Resident Astronomer
Phone: (808) 885-3161   http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/~veillet/
************************************************************