Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:19:52.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Instrumentation for Transient Follow-Up

Workshop 10

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2019

C. C. Thöne ,
A. de Ugarte Postigo ,
A. Mahabal  and
D. A. Kann
C. C. Thöne
Affiliation:
Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (IAA-CSIC), Granada, Spain. email: [email protected]
A. de Ugarte Postigo
Affiliation:
Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (IAA-CSIC), Granada, Spain. email: [email protected] Dark Cosmology Centre, Niels Bohr Institute, Univ. of Copenhagen, Denmark
A. Mahabal
Affiliation:
Center for Data-Driven Discovery, California Institute of Technology, CA, USA
D. A. Kann
Affiliation:
Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía (IAA-CSIC), Granada, Spain. email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Wide-angle surveys at different wavelengths are already providing triggers for very different kinds of transients. The most interesting science is produced when new sources are followed-up and characterised by using the right instrumentation, telescopes and observing strategies. In the coming years, with new large-scale surveys such as ZTF and LSST, the amount of triggers is expected to scale up massively. Furthermore, new observational windows, such as gravitational waves or neutrinos, are now opening and adding complexity to the picture. The instrumentation and strategies that we have been using over recent years may just not be appropriate for those new situations. In this Workshop we discussed the present and projected future of transient discovery, the instrumentation that will be needed for the follow-up of those targets, and the observing strategies, data analysis and community efforts that will be required to tackle the challenges that lie ahead of us.

Keywords

Instrumentation: miscellaneoustechniques: miscellaneousmethods: miscellaneous
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 14 , Symposium S339: Southern Horizons in Time-Domain Astronomy , November 2017 , pp. 257 - 262
Copyright
© International Astronomical Union 2019 

References

Amati, L., O’Brien, P., Goetz, D., et al. 2017, arXiv:1710.04638Google Scholar
Appenzeller, I., & Rupprecht, G. 1992, ESO Messenger, 67, 18Google Scholar
Bloemen, S., Groot, P., Woudt, P., et al. 2016, Proc. SPIE, 9906Google Scholar
Brown, T. M., Baliber, N., Bianco, F. B., et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 103110.1086/673168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, N., Klein, C., Fox, O., et al. 2012, Proc. SPIE, 8446Google Scholar
Coulter, et al. 2017, Science 358, 155610.1126/science.aap9811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhillon, V. S., Marsh, T. R., Bezawada, N., et al. 2016, Proc. SPIE, 9908Google Scholar
Gal-Yam, A., Arcavi, I., Ofek, E. O., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 47110.1038/nature13304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 100510.1086/422091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godet, O., Paul, J., Wei, J. Y., et al. 2012, Proc. SPIE, 8443Google Scholar
Greiner, J., Bornemann, W., Clemens, C., et al. 2008, PASP, 120, 40510.1086/587032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Jong, R. S., Bellido-Tirado, O., Chiappini, C., et al. 2012, Proc. SPIE, 8446Google Scholar
Katz, J. I. 2016, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 31, 163001310.1142/S0217732316300135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levan, A. J., Tanvir, N. R., Cenko, S. B., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 19910.1126/science.1207143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipunov, V., Kornilov, V., Gorbovskoy, E., et al. 2016, Rev. Mex. Conf, 48, 42Google Scholar
LSST Science Collaboration, Abell, P. A., Allison, J., et al. 2009, arXiv:0912.0201Google Scholar
Nandra, K., Barret, D., Barcons, X., et al. 2013, arXiv:1306.2307Google Scholar
Oliva, E. 1997, A&AS, 123, 589Google Scholar
Schipani, P., Claudi, R., Campana, S., et al. 2016, Proc. SPIE, 9908Google Scholar
Smith, R. M., Dekany, R. G., Bebek, C., et al. 2014, Proc. SPIE, 9147Google Scholar
Steele, I. A., Bates, S. D., Carter, D., et al. 2006, Proc. SPIE, 6269Google Scholar
Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Fruchter, A. S., et al. 2013, Nature, 500, 54710.1038/nature12505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Ugarte Postigo, A., Roming, P., Thöne, C. C., et al. 2016, Proc. SPIE, 9908Google Scholar
Valenti, S., David, , Sand, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 848, L2410.3847/2041-8213/aa8edfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vernet, J., Dekker, H., D’Odorico, S., et al. 2011, A&A, 536, A105Google Scholar
Vreeswijk, P. M., Ledoux, C., Smette, A., et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 83Google Scholar