Skip to content

Comments on 6.2 (Young Transients) and relationship to 6.4 (GRBs) #681

Description

@rlcs1

Initially I noted that the cadence/filter wishlist for 6.2 differed from that in 6.4 and thought it was inconsistent.
It took me another read-through to see that GRB afterglows (6.4) are not treated in the Young Transients section (6.2), although are mentioned in the second sentence of that section and we do want to get onto them while they are young, so perhaps that needs a statement to clarify/explain. I guess you are meaning LSST-discovered optical transients only, but this could include orphan afterglows. indeed transients discovered elsewhere but visible to LSST would benefit from this cadence study.

Logarithmic visit spacing best suits GRBs, and other power law decay transients. I assumed rolling cadence meant a linear spacing hence combination of an intranight and a internight rolling cadence would come closest to log spacing.

In 6.2, Line 38, was this meant to say hours rather than days? "However, for the small subset of nearby events, we can hope to discover them within a few days of explosion."
Line 101 is missing the word 'is': "reaches a depth that not required"

Thanks, Rhaana Starling

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Type

No type

Projects

No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions