| SN Follow-up Power |
| Telescope |
Instrument |
Aperture |
Weather |
Image Quality |
Efficiency |
Fraction |
Power |
Notes |
| |
|
(meters) |
(percent) |
(arcseconds) |
(total) |
(per night) |
(relative) |
|
| ESO 2.2m |
SNIFS |
2.2 |
90% |
0.9-1.3 |
20% |
30% |
1.00 |
Fiducial |
| UH 2.2m |
SNIFS |
2.2 |
70% |
0.8-1.2 |
20% |
20% |
0.52 |
|
| duPont 2.5m |
SNIFS? |
2.5 |
90% |
0.9-1.3 |
20% |
10% |
0.33 |
on hold |
| WIYN 3.5m |
SNIFS? |
3.5 |
55% |
0.8-1.3 |
20% |
<5% |
0.35 |
|
| ARC 3.5m |
SNIFS? |
3.5 |
55% |
0.8-2.0 |
20% |
10% |
0.32 |
|
| CTIO 4m |
Fiber IFU |
4.0 |
85% |
0.9-1.3 |
7% |
5-10% |
0.25 |
|
| Palomar 5m |
SNIFS? |
5.0 |
50% |
1.0-1.5 |
20% |
< 5% |
0.21 |
|
| NOT 2.6m |
SNIFS? |
2.6 |
50% |
0.8-2.0 |
20% |
5-10% |
0.11 |
|
| Lick 3m |
Fiber IFU |
3.0 |
45% |
1.3-2.3 |
15% |
<5% |
0.03 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Whipple 1.5m |
FAST longslit |
1.5m |
55% |
1.3-1.6 |
10% |
90% |
0.19 |
CfA Group |
| MMT |
longslit |
6m |
55% |
0.8-1.3 |
10% |
4% |
0.25 |
CfA Group |
Note that all values except for aperture size are approximate. The
total efficiency is generally uncertain, while fraction of time per
night is extremely uncertain in many cases. The efficiency is based on
the preliminary SNIFS blue-channel throughput estimate from Emmanuel
for SNIFS-like instruments. The CTIO fiber IFU is an estimate from Tom
Ingerson. The Whipple 1.5-m and MMT 6-m values are the crudest
estimates, and included estimated slit losses; note that I have not
imposed a penalty for systems which would provide inferior wavelength
coverage (or require two serial observations with different gratings).
Power is dimensionless since it is normalized to the fiducial. The
scale for power is proportional to the product of collecting area,
weather, efficiency and available fraction of telescope time, divided
by the square of the seeing. In the case of ranges, I used the upper
end of the fraction range, but somewhere near the middle of the image
quality range.
Greg Aldering (galdering@lbl.gov)
last updated May 23, 2000