From: Megan Donahue (donahue@pa.msu.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 20:17:49 PDT
All the comments sound sensible to me...I'll change my vote on MS1054
too.
I mainly wanted to report that my April observing run did not turn up
any "monsters" like
MS1054-03. We have some interesting candidates, but the richness of
these systems is
such that you (and I) would want spectroscopic redshift confirmation
before spending 5 HST
orbits. I will be meeting up with Piero (who is also on this project)
-- the earliest we
could confirm redshifts would be early spring, even if we convinced
someone to take
a spectrum or two in their slow time.
There is another very rich, compact, EMSS cluster at z=0.8, MS1137+66.
It's a beauty
with a big BCG, centrally concentrated. It has WFPC2 data, R and I
band. I think it's the
one that Saul found a supernova in on March 17 1996 and found out I had
proprietary
data for it. Or was that Richard Ellis? I'm getting old. I forget.
It's also got strong lensing arc(s). I've been trying to get more
spectroscopy for this
cluster for years it seems -- it's a really nice system, but the
spectroscopy needs big
glass, and the TACs are both disappointed it's only one system AND that
it takes
a lot of time.
It might have similar issues to MS1054, the main one being it's at
z=0.78 not 1.0, but
I thought I'd put it out there if there was interest in that type of
cluster.
MS1054 is not unique (I sure hope not!!), but we still had to search
about 800 square
degrees to find it.
- Megan
On Oct 19, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Kyle Dawson wrote:
> 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 - 20:16:37 PDT