Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Tuning the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) Observing Strategy for Solar System Science

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2303.02355 v2 pith:Q7LKE3NZ submitted 2023-03-04 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM

Tuning the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) Observing Strategy for Solar System Science

classification astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IM
keywords lsstsolarsystemobservingsciencesurveysimulationsstrategy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The Vera C. Rubin Observatory is expected to start the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) in early to mid-2025. This multi-band wide-field synoptic survey will transform our view of the solar system, with the discovery and monitoring of over 5 million small bodies.The final survey strategy chosen for LSST has direct implications on the discoverability and characterization of solar system minor planets and passing interstellar objects. Creating an inventory of the solar system is one of the four main LSST science drivers. The LSST observing cadence is a complex optimization problem that must balance the priorities and needs of all the key LSST science areas. To design the best LSST survey strategy, a series of operation simulations using the Rubin Observatory scheduler have been generated to explore the various options for tuning observing parameters and prioritizations. We explore the impact of the various simulated LSST observing strategies on studying the solar system's small body reservoirs. We examine what are the best observing scenarios and review what are the important considerations for maximizing LSST solar system science. In general, most of the LSST cadence simulations produce +/-5% or less variations in our chosen key metrics, but a subset of the simulations significantly hinder science returns with much larger losses in the discovery and light curve metrics.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.