From: Anthony Gonzalez (anthony@astro.ufl.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 15:49:38 PDT
I second Henk's comments. From the cluster side we'll learn
very little from more imaging of MS1054, and there are multiple
good options for z>1 clusters to observe instead.
-Anthony
> Dear All,
>
> Although MS1054 is very dear to me, I must strongly object to
> considering MS1054. There are two, in my opinion, important reasons
> for that.
>
> First, the project is not all about supernovae and MS1054 has been
> already studied to death with ACS and WFPC2 and hence little new cluster
> science will come out of this (it already has two good weak lensing
> analyses published on it).
>
> Second, the proposal focused on higher redshift clusters. If we were
> to go this low (in redshift I mean), I am sure Mike would have
> some interesting RCS clusters to consider instead. Clusters such as
> MS1054 are not unique provided you sample enough volume...
>
> Cheers,
> Henk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Oct 19 2005 - 15:32:56 PDT