Clark (PhD T., 2015) Kepler’s supernova; Thot (left) and Tcold (right) Tycho’s supernova; Thot (left) and Tcold (right) (Forgive the jet colour scale; I was young and didn’t know better!) Negligible dust manufactured by Type-Ia supernovæ Which means all the iron depleted into dust got there some other way
(2015) Near-IR VIKING Ks Optical SDSS gri H-ATLAS 250 µm GALEX Far-UV Very blue (flux ratio FUV/Ks > 25), flocculent, HI-dominated galaxies make up the majority of a blind low-z blind 250 µm selected survey.
Magellanic Clouds? Roman-Duval+ (2017); Clark+ (in prep.) Herschel! …Except faint structure at the edges got removed as ‘background’, as the map was too small; large- scale features get filtered out. Okay, Planck then! …And Planck is great! But its shortest band is 350μm, so you can’t constrain dust temperature. And beam is 10x worse than Herschel. How about Spitzer? …Only covers the shorter wavelengths, and iffy resolution. Plus, severe non-linearity issues at high surface brightness for 160μm. But there’s always IRAS, right? …Unless you want to observe something that is extended and has very high surface brightness (kike the Magellanic Clouds), where IRAS has severe gain problems. Urm, I suppose I could try using Akari? … Good point. How about JCMT? Or ISO? …Never observed more than tiny parts of the Magellanic Clouds. I suppose that leaves…
(in prep.) COBE Far-infrared data, large angular scales IRAS Far-infrared data, medium angular scales Planck Submm data, large & medium angular scales COBE x IRAS FIR data, large and medium angular scales (COBE x IRAS) + Planck FIR-submm data, large & medium angular scales Herschel FIR-submm data, small angular scales ((COBE x IRAS) + Planck) x Herschel FIR-submm data, large & medium & small angular scales x → “Feathered with” + → “In concert with”