1 / 4

DRM 2 – what I heard

DRM 2 – what I heard. Fit in a Falcon 9 3 year prime science phase includes a microlensing survey, supernova survey, galactic plane survey and GO program H4 RG – 10 is the baseline device Requires development funding now Weak lensing and the galaxy redshift survey do not drive the design,

omar
Download Presentation

DRM 2 – what I heard

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DRM 2 – what I heard • Fit in a Falcon 9 • 3 year prime science phase includes a microlensing survey, supernova survey, galactic plane survey and GO program • H4 RG – 10 is the baseline device • Requires development funding now • Weak lensing and the galaxy redshift survey do not drive the design, • slitless spectroscopic capability remains for GO and potentially a legacy Galaxy redshift survey that is redward of EUCLID • An IFU will be included only if there is a demonstrable cost savings (in this case it does not drive the slitless spectroscopy)

  2. Things to consider (charge to the subcommittees) • Pixel scale • Larger pixels (angular) = more sky for fewer devices = lower cost • More angle in same pixel physical size means a shorter focal length = faster optics = harder to control aberrations (don’t care if requirements are relaxed) • Telescope design • With weak lensing no longer a design driver, should we reconsider an on-axis telescope design? (more compact) • Time allocations • What are the minimum requirements for lensing, SN, galactic plane survey (how do we fit even these in 3 years)

  3. Things to consider (2) • Wavelength/redshift coverage • Not what we want, but what we need • Shorter dispersed bandpasses = easier = cheaper • Lower spectral resolution = easier = cheaper • Filter complement • If we limit ourselves to higher redshift observations (leaving low redshift to ground/EUCLID)can we use fewer filters

  4. Things to consider

More Related