Difference: Oct18Run ( vs. 1)

While impressive, we have to consider:

• Neither the RCF program , the I-band coverage or the MSIP plans are approved for future seasons. We will now need to justify future usage (to the extent this is even up for discussion).
• The deeper SEDM limit will both be good and bad for a general SN program. With the current limits one could not do much else except for the RCF study, while the next proposal period will be much more competitive in terms of other proposals asking for time to go after faint/new transients.
• Even projecting the current sample a few years ahead and assuming we complete the photometric calibration, will not yield a world-class cosmology SN sample. For 2019 and 2020 we have to double (or preferably tripple) the discovery rate. Furthermore, this needs much better selection control than we currenty have (we just take what RCF + random other programs find).

How do we get there?

• Use the subset of current SNe with little host-contamination to evaluate lightcurve quality. How far off are we from the 1% we used in proposals?
• Can we construct a deeper SNIa search and spectroscopic campaign?

To be able to answer these questions during the winter off-months we have to get the data now. Specifically we would like to know?

• Can we reliably search down to the ZTF detection limit such that we monitor SNe rise and trigger around 19.5? (this is the limit projections are build from)
• How well do we select SNe Ia in this search?
• What is the practical success rate for the SEDM at this depth? (In varying weather, host background and considering potential delays in execution).
• What is the practical success rate for the SNIFS at this depth? (In varying weather, host background and considering potential delays in execution).
• What is the practical success rate for the LCO at this depth? (In varying weather, host background and considering potential delays in execution).

-- JakobNordin - 05 Sep 2018