I wanted to double check the 'half moonlight' results from Eta Carinae against the exact half-moonlight requirement as discussed on the last analysis call. As such, I ran nsb pointed at the zenith, with the moon at 45 degrees altitude and 0.49 FLI (full results in results/zenith). It turns out the half moonlight eta carinae runs are perhaps slightly too optimistic ( because of the complexity of observing the specific source Eta Carinae under such specific 0.5 FLI requirements).
The pixel maximums are roughly the same as the full moonlight eta car run, but the overall mean and sigma values are still much lower.
What's also concerning me about this is that there's a SST-1M paper claiming half moonlight on Paranal is equivalent to 670 MHz (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.06860.pdf), way more than this calculation suggests.
I wanted to double check the 'half moonlight' results from Eta Carinae against the exact half-moonlight requirement as discussed on the last analysis call. As such, I ran nsb pointed at the zenith, with the moon at 45 degrees altitude and 0.49 FLI (full results in results/zenith). It turns out the half moonlight eta carinae runs are perhaps slightly too optimistic ( because of the complexity of observing the specific source Eta Carinae under such specific 0.5 FLI requirements).
The pixel maximums are roughly the same as the full moonlight eta car run, but the overall mean and sigma values are still much lower.
What's also concerning me about this is that there's a SST-1M paper claiming half moonlight on Paranal is equivalent to 670 MHz (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1908.06860.pdf), way more than this calculation suggests.