# Request for a new SV rubin\_sim/rubin\_scheduler candence simulation **URL:** \ **Category:** Survey Strategy\ **Created:** [August 17, 2025, 8:13am UTC](https://www.rubin.community/t/request-for-a-new-sv-rubin-sim-rubin-scheduler-candence-simulation/10820 "2025-08-17T08:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mschwamb](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/www.rubin.community/mschwamb/32/3007_2.png) [@mschwamb](https://www.rubin.community/u/mschwamb)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2025, 8:13am UTC](https://www.rubin.community/t/request-for-a-new-sv-rubin-sim-rubin-scheduler-candence-simulation/10820/1 "2025-08-17T08:13:22Z")
The SC collaborations have until August 22nd to provide feedback about data preview 2 options. Is it possible to get a rubin\_sim/rubin\_scheduler SV simulation out to see what could be expected in terms of sky coverage and number of visits, assuming the weather improves from the past few weeks? ---
**Author:** ![ljones](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/www.rubin.community/ljones/32/1804_2.png) [@ljones](https://www.rubin.community/u/ljones)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2025, 9:34am UTC](https://www.rubin.community/t/request-for-a-new-sv-rubin-sim-rubin-scheduler-candence-simulation/10820/2 "2025-08-19T09:34:29Z")
Here it is! > **[SV 20250818](https://survey-strategy.lsst.io/progress/sv_status/sv_20250818.html)** > > This is a big update, pairing with the 2025-08-15 commissioning update. Weather has not been kind to the commissioning effort in the last several weeks. A combination of clouds and snow from a seri... Sorry for the delay. ---
**Author:** ![mschwamb](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/www.rubin.community/mschwamb/32/3007_2.png) [@mschwamb](https://www.rubin.community/u/mschwamb)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2025, 9:38am UTC](https://www.rubin.community/t/request-for-a-new-sv-rubin-sim-rubin-scheduler-candence-simulation/10820/3 "2025-08-19T09:38:00Z")
No delay - this is speedy service! Thanks @ljones ---
**Author:** ![mschwamb](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/www.rubin.community/mschwamb/32/3007_2.png) [@mschwamb](https://www.rubin.community/u/mschwamb)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2025, 10:12am UTC](https://www.rubin.community/t/request-for-a-new-sv-rubin-sim-rubin-scheduler-candence-simulation/10820/4 "2025-08-19T10:12:25Z")
One question, it looks like the TOO pointing above the SV footprint in the Galactic Plane was removed in the latest coverage plots. But it was there in earlier updates (it’s not a part of the simulated visits) Is that because it’s not science quality images? ---
**Author:** ![ljones](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/www.rubin.community/ljones/32/1804_2.png) [@ljones](https://www.rubin.community/u/ljones)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2025, 1:43pm UTC](https://www.rubin.community/t/request-for-a-new-sv-rubin-sim-rubin-scheduler-candence-simulation/10820/5 "2025-08-19T13:43:48Z")
Surprisingly to me, you are correct. I had thought there was more than one visit at that location, but it turns out there was in fact only one. (2025070200478). That one is on the list of known bad visits (it’s completely streaked, the mount was clearly in motion … and the rest of the visits with this same target name were at a different location on the sky). I had originally thought this was a ToO and believe I said that previously, but looking at it more specifically now, I think this was a confused start of the series of acquistion images that were eventually actually taken at 3I’s position as part of a closed loop optics alignment. The actual 2025070200478 exposure has confused metadata - the pointing is nowhere useful, the observation\_reason clearly comes from the SV survey but the pointing is not within its footprint, the image type is ‘science’ (again, from an SV survey observation setup) but the observation\_reason is linked to the AOS tests … and then it’s also streaked. I think that probably it was the result of an interrupt of the SV survey that was done to do the optics alignment, but that didn’t execute entirely cleanly. In any case, it was not a usable image. ---
**Author:** ![mschwamb](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/www.rubin.community/mschwamb/32/3007_2.png) [@mschwamb](https://www.rubin.community/u/mschwamb)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2025, 2:08pm UTC](https://www.rubin.community/t/request-for-a-new-sv-rubin-sim-rubin-scheduler-candence-simulation/10820/6 "2025-08-19T14:08:19Z")
Thanks for tracking that down @ljones. ---
**Author:** ![ljones](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/www.rubin.community/ljones/32/1804_2.png) [@ljones](https://www.rubin.community/u/ljones)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2025, 9:48pm UTC](https://www.rubin.community/t/request-for-a-new-sv-rubin-sim-rubin-scheduler-candence-simulation/10820/7 "2025-08-19T21:48:28Z")
The actual ToO visits that were acquired are still within the database. These are grouped as: ![Screenshot 2025-08-19 at 2.53.34 PM](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/uploads/rubin/original/2X/7/705638ecd9852e387a5e7b0bde905a1f0d08a545.png) (seq\_num is actually just the count of the number of images with that target\_name + day\_obs combination). The BH ToO is for S250725j. The SSO/3I ToOs are 3I but also a ‘practice’ ToO that was intended to be 3I but was instead pointing near a field of interest for New Horizons (no particular ToO, was just another option that was not too close to the moon, unlike 3I on that night). Improving this metadata is on the list.