Hi. Here are some "facts" pertaining to the LSST events....
However....
2) The Pan-STARRS project will find nearly all asteroids in advance of LSST, by several years. Therefore, LSST will "know" about these asteroids and their orbits (likely tracks & positions within the images). In these cases, since these are known objects, they are not *events" in the usual "telegram alert" sense. Hence, LSST will *not* be sending alerts to the VOEventNet for known objects (asteroids, variable stars, quasars, blazars, ...).
So, I think that things will not be quite as extreme as you might imagine coming out of the LSST pipeline ... e.g., _*maybe*_ "only" 10-100 VOEvent messages every 60 seconds, and perhaps significantly less.
Steve Allen wrote, On 02/04/2008 01:46 PM:
> With the galleys for the VOE/HTN conference paper on my desk I
> find myself wondering about the implementation of digital signatures
> for VOEvent, but also, more generally, about the use cases in the
> era of Pan-STARRS and LSST.
>
> If there be thousands of asteroid candidates daily, do we expect that
> they will send out individual VOEvent packets for every single one?
> (Maybe so, at least for the exceptional cases of imminent impactors,
> but most cases will be main belt asteroids of no urgent interest.)
> Are they going to prefer to process the night's worth of data
> until they have a digested list of candidates and then send that
> whole list out once daily as a huge batch?
>
> So would it make more sense to define some sort of VOEvent envelope
> into which arbitrary numbers of fully-formed VOEvent documents could
> be transmitted?
>
> If the latter, then the use case question for digital signing of the
> VOEvents might be better if the envelope contains the signature which,
> under most cases, would externally sign all of the VOEvent documents
> in the envelope. This would alleviate the need to include the
> complexity of the W3C Signature element in the VOEvent proper, and it
> would greatly simplify and speed the authentication process.
>
> But in closing I note that if there are not two parties already
> exchanging VOEvent packets who find utility in digital signing,
> then there may not be enough justification to bother including
> it at all.
>
> --
> Steve Allen <sla-at-ucolick.org> WGS-84 (GPS)
> UCO/Lick Observatory Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855
> University of California Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015
> Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m
>
>
Received on 2008-02-04Z20:14:21