Comments on 6.2 (Young Transients) and relationship to 6.4 (GRBs)

[rlcs1]

Initially I noted that the cadence/filter wishlist for 6.2 differed from that in 6.4 and thought it was inconsistent.
It took me another read-through to see that GRB afterglows (6.4) are not treated in the Young Transients section (6.2), although are mentioned in the second sentence of that section and we do want to get onto them while they are young, so perhaps that needs a statement to clarify/explain. I guess you are meaning LSST-discovered optical transients only, but this could include orphan afterglows. indeed transients discovered elsewhere but visible to LSST would benefit from this cadence study.

Logarithmic visit spacing best suits GRBs, and other power law decay transients. I assumed rolling cadence meant a linear spacing hence combination of an intranight and a internight rolling cadence would come closest to log spacing.

In 6.2, Line 38, was this meant to say hours rather than days? "However, for the small subset of nearby events, we can hope to discover them within a few days of explosion."
Line 101 is missing the word 'is': "reaches a depth that not required"

Thanks, Rhaana Starling

[drphilmarshall]

Thanks very much for the feedback, Rhaana!

@fedhere @svalenti @ebellm Looks like there's a few small things that need clarifying in sections 6.2 (young transients) and 6.4 (GRBs). Would you mind please taking a look and lightly editing to the point where past Rhaana woudl not have been confused? Thanks!