From: Kyle Dawson (kdawson@lbl.gov)
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 16:03:50 PDT
Okay okay!!! I knew it would be controversial...I take it all back.
The arguments against MS1054 make perfect sense, I'll wait for some
candidates from you all. We do have some time to figure out the best
candidates, but as always, the sooner the better.
-Kyle
Anthony Gonzalez wrote:
>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 - 16:05:07 PDT