What we have learned from the Spring 1999 Nearby SN Campaign. 1) We only want to deal with *candidates* with mag < 19 and with ref/new baselines less than 3 weeks, and with confirmed Ia's having z < 0.1 NEAT is the only program capable of delivering a reasonable number of bright SNe. MOSAIC, Spacewatch, QUEST, and EROS all delivered candidates which were too faint, and when observed found to be at too high a redshift. Early SNe can be faint, so these candidates were observed, at great expense (easily 50% of all spectroscopy time and 25% of imaging time), and the quality of the data is not as good as we want. We would have to work with NEAT to determine a means of shortening the ref/new baseline. 2) The time from acquistion of the search images to the time they are been scanned must be held to a minimum. NEAT - here the images were available ~ 18 hrs after they were taken. another day was required for processing, and yet another day for scanning. MOSAIC - images available ~ 18 - 42 hrs (due to weekends) after they were taken. EROS - candidates were sent to us typically 3 days after they were taken, and usually they were confirmed photometrically. SWATCH - huge delays there. The only way that could change is with a high-speed line off KPNO. Also they would have to upgrade their software so the conversion step could be skipped. QUEST - images available several days after they are taken. Clearly NEAT has the best turn-around time, and it could be shortened if we had a dedicated task running on their machine that would FTP the images to us. 3) Imaging must be used to screen all candidates, unless we become much more succesful at recognizing artifacts, and there is sufficient time baseline to rule-out asteroids. For this search, YALO did most of the screening. Targets had to be submitted by 20 UT (and this was generous), and cut-out images were sent to Berkeley MWF. Thus, even with perfect weather the turn-around time ranged from 22 hrs to up to 72 hours. 4) HPSS was very useful for mass-storage, but it slowed the subtractions timescale, and was unstable due to hang-ups and (usually scheduled) downtime. 5) Generally we underestimated the resources required for an effective follow-up. First, I would say the the seeing was 30%-50% worse than in our baseline plan. Second, there was no account taken of noise and systematics due to the presence of the host galaxy (a complicated thing to predict). Third, S/N ~ 20 doesn't look all that good to the eye. Fourth, adequate overhead was not included. At YALO each object has 15 minutes of overhead. At the CTIO 4-m each object has 12 minutes of overhead. Numbers are probably comparable elsewhere. 6) Clear-weather sites are an imperative, as are queue-scheduled telescopes (and the associated feedback). If these ingredients are not at least present, then many SNe become stale. Even with photometry scheduled every 4-5 days, and spectroscopy every 7 days, most SN discovered before max are not confirmed and followed until after max. 7) For spectroscopic follow-up, telescopes with sensitive acquistion cameras, well established methods for acheiving precise offsets, and excellent blue response, are mandatory. Dual channels (blue/red) are desirable. The ability to see the SN in the acquisition camera is desirable. Excellent seeing is needed to separate SN and host. Also, exposure time estimates were too low, and even for screening considerable exposure time must be expended. CTIO 4-m excellent, only one channel though. ESO 3.6-m poor blue response, otherwise OK. MDM 2.4-m no blue response. acquisition system is poor and offsetting ability non-exisitent. APO 3.5-m overall poor sensitivity and high set-up overhead (only three objects per half-night!). Lick 3-m camera not sensitive enough/seeing not good enough weather poor (very seasonal). however, blue/red channels with good sensitivity available. NOT 2.6-m awaiting assessment from Isobel. Generally poor seeing and poor weather, but as with most sites this is somewhat seasonal. Also unsure how good is the blue response? Elements of a routine nearby search: I. Obtain and search NEAT data. Several changes are needed to make this work: a) The NEAT schedule must become more firm. b) NEAT must search so as to supply a 10-20 day baseline. c) If follow-up is to be based in Chile, NEAT must search at declinations less than 0. c) The focus gradient of the NEAT imager must be removed. d) There must be a daemon running which compresses and FTP's data from Haleakala to LBL. If HPSS or other near-line storage is being used, the daemon must also determine which template image is needed (if any) and load it onto disk. e) automated subtraction scripts must be in place. f) The amount of manual scanning must be reduced by at least an order of magnitude. i) Extensive work must be done to pre-classify objects in the subtractions. Then, as an example, the POSS image for something classified as a variable star can be preloaded, and maybe even examined for consistency. For re-scanned regions, variable stars should be known. All asteroids in the relavent fields should be known, and preferable found in the data so there is some information on sensitivity. Overall, a P(asteroid) parameter should be determined based on motion, motion error, direction of motion, frequency of asteroids of given motion and brightness, etc. II. Obtain follow-up at YALO(?) It is easy to saturate the follow-up time on YALO. With the current system typical SNe are requiring 1-2 hours of integration. Even pooling of Schaefer and Lisbon time means only 3 such targets can be observed per night. Even if performance in the U-band were improved I would be surprised if more than 5 targets can be done per night. I would rather do the follow-up on a larger or dedicated telescope, but then queue/service observing would have to be found. Doubtful that Chews Ridge telescope can help much due to poor sensitivity (TE cooled, tracking problems, image quality problems) and its mid-nothern declination (unless northern spectroscopy telescope is identified). Necessary improvements if YALO is used: a) need to obtain additional filter wheel which uses standard filters. b) determine whether more sensitive CCD is possible (claim is that this CCD is good in the blue, but I'm doubtful). c) images must get to Berkeley with short turn-around; this will be difficult due to limited bandwidth from CTIO. d) queue submission process requires further streamlining, including a much more sophisticated version of "Plan the Night", otherwise the required daily maintainance will be a problem. III. Queue/service spectroscopic follow-up Too much man-power is expended performing ~ weekly spectroscopy observations. There is too much overhead in setting-up the instrument each night, and in going to and from the observatory. Finding a telescope for the job is a tough one. For one thing, it is clear that the results can depend a great deal on the proficency of the observer. Moreover, we will again loose the ability to adapt to conditions/or new results. For instance, if we confirm a good Type Ia, we probably can't get a good observation of it again until the next night. A somewhat wasteful solution would be to take all spectra deep enough to be good quality (this might be desirable for other reasons, like ensuring a firm classification).