Difference between revisions of "BRC Optical Ground-Based Follow-Up"
m |
m |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
In order to plan for ground-based follow-up of our targets, we have many things to consider. | In order to plan for ground-based follow-up of our targets, we have many things to consider. | ||
− | *Are the objects visible (ever) from the observatory(ies) to which we have access? Ex 1: the CG4 object from last year is a Southern Hemisphere object, so unless you have access to a Southern Hemisphere telescope, that's not possible. Ex 2: the BRC objects are Northern Hemisphere (both of them). When are they visible from the LCOGT telescope in Hawaii? See airmasses calculation below. | + | *Are the objects visible (ever) from the observatory(ies) to which we have access? |
+ | **Ex 1: the CG4 object from last year is a Southern Hemisphere object, so unless you have access to a Southern Hemisphere telescope, that's not possible. | ||
+ | **Ex 2: the BRC objects are Northern Hemisphere (both of them). When are they visible from the LCOGT telescope in Hawaii? See airmasses calculation below to help in answering that question. | ||
+ | *What filters are available at the telescope? And, which are best suited to the science we want to accomplish? | ||
+ | **JD says that they have currently: Sloan u,g,r,i, Halpha, and PannStarrs z,y. | ||
+ | **Any constraints on the Wien side of the SED will help us, so anything optical is scientifically helpful. | ||
+ | **I have no experience with z and y. | ||
+ | **While young stars are often bright in Halpha (and you know that from Ogura's papers), pretty much everything is fainter in narrow band filters (such as Halpha) than broad-band filters (such as the Sloan filters). So, anything will take much longer to detect to sufficient signal-to-noise in Halpha than in the other filters. It will take less time for us to get measurements in the broadband filters. | ||
+ | **I have some experience with the Sloan filters, so I know (for example) how to convert them into the right units for addition to the SEDs. Recall the shape of a stellar SED. Assuming all of our targets are really stars, will they be brighter at u or i? | ||
+ | **JD says that he is willing to do two filters for us. Which two would you do? I vote for r and i. Can you figure out why? | ||
+ | *What is the spatial extent of sources on the sky that we care about? | ||
+ | **We don't have a final list of sources yet. But recall that a single IRAC field of view is 5 arcminutes on a side, and the region that we care most about (with four IRAC bands) is basically a single IRAC field of view. There are serendipitously obtained patches of just 2 bands offset from the main field; each of those patches is also basically a single IRAC field of view, so basically also 5 arcmin on a side. The centers of the serendipitously obtained fields are both a little more than 5 arcminutes offset from the center of the main field. | ||
+ | *What is the spatial extent of a single pointing of the ground-based telescope? | ||
+ | **In this case, 9 arcmin. So with a single pointing, we can obtain essentially the entire region with 4-band IRAC coverage in one of our fields, even if the fields are rotated nearly 45 degrees with respect to each other. So, great! No need to tile a large region with the LCOGT telescope. | ||
+ | *What is the surface density of the sources in our field of view, and what is the spatial resolution of the optical telescope? | ||
+ | **Recall the [[Resolution]] discussion to understand why this matters. | ||
+ | **The spatial resolution of IRAC is ~1.2-1.5 arcsec. There may be sources spaced closer together than that, but we wouldn't be able to tell based on the IRAC data. | ||
+ | **The spatial resolution of the LCOGT telescope is 1.1 arcsec, and is seeing-limited. So, if we have a bad weather night, then the resolution will be worse, but seems to commonly be comparable to IRAC. So we're good here too. | ||
+ | *What are the integration times we need? | ||
+ | *Who will do the observing? (and from where?) | ||
+ | *In what format will we get the data back? On what timescale? | ||
+ | *Who will process the data (and how)? | ||
Revision as of 23:41, 10 August 2011
Big Picture
Optical data can be incredibly helpful in weeding out garbage from our YSO selection. Remember that Spitzer is phenomenally efficient, and with just a few seconds can reach objects at the edge of the Universe. Recall the discussion in the CG4 paper, and just at a gut level how much nicer the SEDs look if we have optical data too. Recall the stuff on the Resolution page (specifically example 4) and how much high spatial resolution matters. High spatial resolution optical imaging may allow us to determine that some of these objects are actually resolved galaxies. Once we add their photometry to the SEDs, the shape of the SEDs may allow us to determine that some of these objects are actually AGN and not YSOs.
The Las Cumbres Faulkes Telescope on Haleakala (specifially JD Armstrong) has kindly offered to help us get optical ground-based follow-up observations. We need to plan coherently (professionally!) for these observations to ensure we get the best quality data in the least amount of time possible. ("Ooops we screwed up" will not generally get you additional telescope time.)
Planning Observations
In order to plan for ground-based follow-up of our targets, we have many things to consider.
- Are the objects visible (ever) from the observatory(ies) to which we have access?
- Ex 1: the CG4 object from last year is a Southern Hemisphere object, so unless you have access to a Southern Hemisphere telescope, that's not possible.
- Ex 2: the BRC objects are Northern Hemisphere (both of them). When are they visible from the LCOGT telescope in Hawaii? See airmasses calculation below to help in answering that question.
- What filters are available at the telescope? And, which are best suited to the science we want to accomplish?
- JD says that they have currently: Sloan u,g,r,i, Halpha, and PannStarrs z,y.
- Any constraints on the Wien side of the SED will help us, so anything optical is scientifically helpful.
- I have no experience with z and y.
- While young stars are often bright in Halpha (and you know that from Ogura's papers), pretty much everything is fainter in narrow band filters (such as Halpha) than broad-band filters (such as the Sloan filters). So, anything will take much longer to detect to sufficient signal-to-noise in Halpha than in the other filters. It will take less time for us to get measurements in the broadband filters.
- I have some experience with the Sloan filters, so I know (for example) how to convert them into the right units for addition to the SEDs. Recall the shape of a stellar SED. Assuming all of our targets are really stars, will they be brighter at u or i?
- JD says that he is willing to do two filters for us. Which two would you do? I vote for r and i. Can you figure out why?
- What is the spatial extent of sources on the sky that we care about?
- We don't have a final list of sources yet. But recall that a single IRAC field of view is 5 arcminutes on a side, and the region that we care most about (with four IRAC bands) is basically a single IRAC field of view. There are serendipitously obtained patches of just 2 bands offset from the main field; each of those patches is also basically a single IRAC field of view, so basically also 5 arcmin on a side. The centers of the serendipitously obtained fields are both a little more than 5 arcminutes offset from the center of the main field.
- What is the spatial extent of a single pointing of the ground-based telescope?
- In this case, 9 arcmin. So with a single pointing, we can obtain essentially the entire region with 4-band IRAC coverage in one of our fields, even if the fields are rotated nearly 45 degrees with respect to each other. So, great! No need to tile a large region with the LCOGT telescope.
- What is the surface density of the sources in our field of view, and what is the spatial resolution of the optical telescope?
- Recall the Resolution discussion to understand why this matters.
- The spatial resolution of IRAC is ~1.2-1.5 arcsec. There may be sources spaced closer together than that, but we wouldn't be able to tell based on the IRAC data.
- The spatial resolution of the LCOGT telescope is 1.1 arcsec, and is seeing-limited. So, if we have a bad weather night, then the resolution will be worse, but seems to commonly be comparable to IRAC. So we're good here too.
- What are the integration times we need?
- Who will do the observing? (and from where?)
- In what format will we get the data back? On what timescale?
- Who will process the data (and how)?
Hourly almanac (airmasses) for our targets
calculated for Hawaii.
*** Hourly airmass for brc27 *** Epoch 2000.00: RA 7 04 00.0, dec -11 22 55 Epoch 2011.87: RA 7 04 33.4, dec -11 24 01 At midnight: UT date 2011 Nov 16, Moon 0.72 illum, 31 degr from obj Local UT LMST HA secz par.angl. SunAlt MoonAlt 18 00 4 00 21 18 -9 47 (down) -71.1 -4.8 ... 19 00 5 00 22 18 -8 47 (down) -73.4 ... ... 20 00 6 00 23 18 -7 47 (down) -73.5 ... ... 21 00 7 00 0 18 -6 46 (down) -72.2 ... ... 22 00 8 00 1 18 -5 46 (v.low) -69.9 ... -1.6 23 00 9 00 2 18 -4 46 4.439 -66.3 ... 11.5 0 00 10 00 3 19 -3 46 2.261 -61.0 ... 24.8 1 00 11 00 4 19 -2 46 1.602 -52.8 ... 38.4 2 00 12 00 5 19 -1 46 1.318 -40.0 ... 52.1 3 00 13 00 6 19 -0 45 1.195 -19.8 ... 65.9 4 00 14 00 7 19 0 15 1.172 6.7 ... 79.6 5 00 15 00 8 19 1 15 1.240 30.7 ... 84.8 6 00 16 00 9 20 2 15 1.430 47.0 -7.7 71.6 At midnight: UT date 2011 Dec 16, Moon 0.67 illum, 51 degr from obj Local UT LMST HA secz par.angl. SunAlt MoonAlt 18 00 4 00 23 16 -7 49 (down) -73.5 -4.0 ... 19 00 5 00 0 16 -6 48 (down) -72.3 -17.1 ... 20 00 6 00 1 16 -5 48 (v.low) -70.0 ... ... 21 00 7 00 2 16 -4 48 4.599 -66.5 ... ... 22 00 8 00 3 17 -3 48 2.297 -61.2 ... ... 23 00 9 00 4 17 -2 48 1.616 -53.2 ... 2.1 0 00 10 00 5 17 -1 48 1.324 -40.5 ... 15.7 1 00 11 00 6 17 -0 47 1.197 -20.6 ... 29.4 2 00 12 00 7 17 0 13 1.171 5.7 ... 42.9 3 00 13 00 8 17 1 13 1.236 30.0 ... 56.0 4 00 14 00 9 18 2 13 1.420 46.6 ... 67.7 5 00 15 00 10 18 3 13 1.830 57.0 ... 74.2 6 00 16 00 11 18 4 13 2.884 63.7 -11.5 69.5
*** Hourly airmass for brc34 *** Epoch 2000.00: RA 21 33 30.0, dec +58 04 32 Epoch 2011.62: RA 21 33 50.9, dec +58 07 39 At midnight: UT date 2011 Aug 16, Moon 0.93 illum, 61 degr from obj Local UT LMST HA secz par.angl. SunAlt MoonAlt 19 00 5 00 16 15 -5 19 2.653 -87.8 -3.0 ... 20 00 6 00 17 15 -4 19 1.997 -100.9 -16.4 -1.4 21 00 7 00 18 15 -3 18 1.639 -115.3 ... 12.4 22 00 8 00 19 16 -2 18 1.434 -131.9 ... 26.2 23 00 9 00 20 16 -1 18 1.322 -151.3 ... 39.8 0 00 10 00 21 16 -0 18 1.277 -173.2 ... 52.9 1 00 11 00 22 16 0 42 1.288 164.1 ... 64.6 2 00 12 00 23 16 1 42 1.359 143.1 ... 71.8 3 00 13 00 0 16 2 43 1.504 124.9 ... 69.1 4 00 14 00 1 17 3 43 1.760 109.2 ... 59.1 5 00 15 00 2 17 4 43 2.212 95.4 -14.8 46.5 6 00 16 00 3 17 5 43 3.080 82.7 -1.4 33.2 At midnight: UT date 2011 Sep 16, Moon 0.86 illum, 66 degr from obj Local UT LMST HA secz par.angl. SunAlt MoonAlt 19 00 5 00 18 17 -3 17 1.631 -115.8 -9.2 ... 20 00 6 00 19 17 -2 16 1.430 -132.5 ... ... 21 00 7 00 20 18 -1 16 1.320 -151.9 ... 6.6 22 00 8 00 21 18 -0 16 1.276 -173.9 ... 20.0 23 00 9 00 22 18 0 44 1.289 163.4 ... 33.6 0 00 10 00 23 18 1 44 1.362 142.5 ... 47.4 1 00 11 00 0 18 2 44 1.510 124.3 ... 61.3 2 00 12 00 1 18 3 45 1.771 108.8 ... 75.2 3 00 13 00 2 19 4 45 2.232 95.0 ... 87.5 4 00 14 00 3 19 5 45 3.119 82.3 ... 76.4 5 00 15 00 4 19 6 45 5.239 70.0 -17.1 62.6 6 00 16 00 5 19 7 45 14.754 57.7 -3.1 48.8 At midnight: UT date 2011 Oct 16, Moon 0.84 illum, 79 degr from obj Local UT LMST HA secz par.angl. SunAlt MoonAlt 18 00 4 00 19 15 -2 18 1.435 -131.9 -1.2 ... 19 00 5 00 20 16 -1 18 1.323 -151.2 -15.2 ... 20 00 6 00 21 16 -0 18 1.277 -173.2 ... ... 21 00 7 00 22 16 0 42 1.288 164.2 ... 4.2 22 00 8 00 23 16 1 42 1.358 143.1 ... 17.1 23 00 9 00 0 16 2 42 1.503 124.9 ... 30.3 0 00 10 00 1 16 3 43 1.759 109.3 ... 43.6 1 00 11 00 2 17 4 43 2.211 95.5 ... 57.2 2 00 12 00 3 17 5 43 3.076 82.7 ... 70.8 3 00 13 00 4 17 6 43 5.122 70.4 ... 84.0 4 00 14 00 5 17 7 43 13.931 58.1 ... 81.2 5 00 15 00 6 17 8 43 (down) 45.4 ... 67.7 6 00 16 00 7 17 9 44 (down) 32.1 -4.8 54.1