search

sot / proseco

Probabilistic star evaluation and catalog optimization
https://sot.github.io/proseco
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
1 stars 0 forks source link

Bright stars may not have large enough mag_err for guide star selection #192

Open jeanconn opened 5 years ago

jeanconn commented 5 years ago

Related to #67

For stars brighter than 6.1 mags, we probably want to set the lower bound on the applied mag_err to 0.1 mags for this check

https://github.com/sot/proseco/blob/52145e0993239c55dd40d75046d9f6c4ce9a8b57/proseco/guide.py#L176

Reviewing the candidate stars, it looks like there are 647 possible candidate stars with MAG_ACA_ERR < 0.1 and MAG_ACA > 5.9 and MAG_ACA < 6.1 (where stars is the whole proseco AGASC).

In [63]: worry = stars[(stars['MAG_ACA'] > 5.9) & (stars['MAG_ACA'] < 6.1) & (stars['MAG_ACA_ERR'] < 10) & (stars['CLASS'] == 0) & (stars['ASPQ1'] < 20) 
    ...: & (stars['POS_ERR'] < 3000)]

In [64]: len(worry)
Out[64]: 637
taldcroft commented 5 years ago

In StarsTable we probably need a mag_aca_err value which is explicitly the best estimate of the true systematic catalog error in addition to mag_err which is the per-readout error. This is for post-release, nothing is changing right now.

jeanconn commented 5 years ago

I think #254 basically closed this issue for me, but @taldcroft comments about needing a new mag_aca_err have not been addressed. Not sure if that needs a new issue.