Detailed Requirements for the Technical Justification of the Community Survey

The Technical Justification for the Community Survey (CS) may be up to 8 pages in length. It must clearly describe the feasibility of the proposed program and provide sufficient detail for evaluation. CFHT may contact teams during the review process to request additional information if further details are required to fully assess the technical feasibility.

MegaCam

Must include:

  1. The minimum number of hours, and corresponding number of nights, required to achieve the primary science goals.
  2. The total number of hours, and corresponding number of nights, requested.
  3. A discussion of the program's robustness to a reduced data acquisition rate or to evolving instrumental performance.
  4. The criteria used to select the fields or targets, including but not limited to, declination (which impacts observability window and Image Quality), magnitude of the targets, scientific value of the fields or targets, and existing data that will be used to supplement the CS observations.
  5. The justification for the Image Quality requested for the primary, secondary, and tertiary goals for MegaCam observations, and a table that presents an estimate of the percentage of the time requested per bin of Image Quality (e.g., percentage of the time with IQ < 0.6", IQ < 0.8", IQ < 1", IQ < 1.2", IQ > 1.2").
  6. The justification for MegaCam observations that deviate from the standard operations between the 12-degree twilights (e.g., LSB mode) and any additional constraints (e.g., a minimum number of consecutive exposures). Proposals should either mention for how the time between 12 degree and 18 degree twilight will be used, or provide a clear justification if this interval will not be used.
  7. Confirmation that the appropriate ETC was used to calculate exposure times and that overheads were included, or a justification if an alternative method was used. Examples from ETC outputs should be provided in the designated Kealahou section.
  8. A Data and Project Management plan (See Section 9 in the Call for Proposal).
  9. A description of Support Offered to the QSO Team by CS Teams (see Section 10 in the Call for Proposal).

May include:

  • A table estimating the number of hours requested per RA bin (e.g., in 2-hour bins).
  • Justification for the choice of MegaCam filters.
  • Justification for not using the SNR mode for some or all targets/fields.
  • Justification and estimates for time requested under dark skies (no or minimal Moon), with the assumption that the remainder can be taken with up to 50% Moon illumination.
  • Justification for the maximum extinction acceptable, including a table estimating the percentage of hours requested under different extinction levels (e.g., no extinction, up to 0.2 mag, up to 0.5 mag). By default, observations are assumed feasible up to 0.5 mag extinction for MegaCam.
  • The percentage of observations that can be taken under Snapshot conditions (IQ > 1.2" and/or extinction >0.5 mag for MegaCam, >1 mag for Wenaokeao). Snapshot observations do not count toward the allocation and are effectively free.
  • If time is not spread evenly across semesters, a table showing the estimated number of hours requested per semester.
  • For time domain science, an estimate of the number of alerts per month must be given and the response time expected must also be mentioned.
  • Proposals performing monitoring should provide (1) an estimate of the number of iterations requested per semester and in total, (2) the cadence (period) of the observations, and (3) any other monitoring constraints.
  • Any program with scheduling constraints should explicitly state (1) if there is a desired minimum length for the observing runs; (2) if there is a need to have observations on consecutive nights; (3) if there is a need for observations to be taken over more than 2 consecutive hours (e.g. for transits); (4) if there is a need for a moon phase not normally scheduled for the required instrument (e.g., for observations at a given date where the instrument would not normally be available because of the Moon phase.)

Wenaokeao

Must include:

  1. The minimum number of hours, and corresponding number of nights, required to achieve the primary science goals.
  2. The total number of hours, and corresponding number of nights, requested.
  3. A discussion of the program's robustness to a reduced data acquisition rate or to evolving instrumental performance.
  4. An explanation of how the minimum and total number of hours requested were calculated, taking into account that for simultaneous ESPaDOnS + SPIRou observations (Wenaokeao Mode 3), only the longest observations (on either ESPaDOnS or SPIRou) are to be counted.
  5. The criteria used to select the fields or targets, including but not limited to, declination (which impacts observability window and Image Quality), magnitude of the targets, scientific value of the fields or targets, and existing data that will be used to supplement the CS observations.
  6. The justification for Wenaokeao observations that deviate from the standard operations between the 8-degree twilights and any additional constraints (e.g., a minimum number of consecutive exposures). Proposals should either mention for how the time between 8 degree and 18 degree twilight will be used, or provide a clear justification if this interval will not be used.
  7. Confirmation that the appropriate ETC was used to calculate exposure times and that overheads were included, or a justification if an alternative method was used. Examples from ETC outputs should be provided in the designated Kealahou section.
  8. A Data and Project Management plan (See Section 9 in the Call for Proposal)
  9. A description of Support Offered to the QSO Team by CS Teams (see Section 10 in the Call for Proposal).

May include:

  • A table estimating the number of hours requested per RA bin (e.g., in 2-hour bins).
  • Specification of the Stokes parameters requested (V/Q/U/I) for ESPaDOnS and SPIRou observations.
  • Justification for any targets requiring Image Quality better than 1.2" (e.g., close binaries). By default, observations are assumed feasible with IQ better than 1.2".
  • Justification for not using the SNR mode for some or all targets/fields.
  • Justification for the maximum extinction acceptable, including a table estimating the percentage of hours requested under different extinction levels (e.g., no extinction, up to 0.2 mag, up to 0.5 mag). By default, observations are assumed feasible up to 1 mag extinction for Wenaokeao.
  • The percentage of observations that can be taken under Snapshot conditions (IQ > 1.2" and/or extinction >0.5 mag for MegaCam, >1 mag for Wenaokeao). Snapshot observations do not count toward the allocation and are effectively free.
  • If time is not spread evenly across semesters, a table showing the estimated number of hours requested per semester.
  • For exoplanet science that requires time-constrained observations (e.g., transits, eclipses, quadratures), an estimate of the number of time-constrained observations per year must be given together with the likelihood of completion based on weather statistics and bright/dark time available.
  • Proposals performing monitoring should provide (1) an estimate of the number of iterations requested per semester and in total, (2) the cadence (period) of the observations, and (3) any other monitoring constraints.
  • Any program with scheduling constraints should explicitly state (1) if there is a desired minimum length for the observing runs; (2) if there is a need to have observations on consecutive nights; (3) if there is a need for observations to be taken over more than 2 consecutive hours (e.g. for transits); (4) if there is a need for a moon phase not normally scheduled for the required instrument (e.g., for observations at a given date where the instrument would not normally be available because of the Moon phase.)