Re: idea

[Glenn Gombert <gleng@infinet.com>]

        Looks like the NSF Proposal didn't get funded this time around.
Glenn G.

<snip>
"I'll be happy to write a page or two.  Some things have changed.
Most substantial: NSF did not fund my proposal.  This is not the
end of the world, but it changes the way we proceed.

On the positive side.

I do not consider TASS as a "scaled down OGLE".  It is scaled down in
one dimension (limiting magnitude) but scaled up in another (the area
covered).  Also, when a number of MARK IV cameras become operational then
TASS will be more than OGLE in the number of photometric measurements per
night.  I'll elaborate on these differences."

Bohden


At 09:05 PM 8/26/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Chris mentioned that programs would have to change anyway, since the
>mark IV will be coming on-line.  Maybe I'm naive, but I was considering
>the mark III survey as a separate entity.  Once you start including
>data from other sources, databases are going to get much more complicated.
>For instance, the mark IV can cover most of the visible sky, not just the
>equatorial region.  An observer with a 0.5m telescope and CCD might
>cover a small portion of the equatorial region, but down to 20th magnitude
>or with UBVRI filters.
>  BP was going to submit an NSF proposal to do the 'whole thing'; a generic
>database of photometric information for any region in the sky.  Tom - do
>you know if that was submitted?  I'd rather send the ancillary observations
>to something like that, than try to include everything in the TASS DBMS.
>  Certainly the extraction programs, up through and including astrometry
>and photometric transformations, could be made general enough to handle
>most CCD images that are in FITS format.  Glenn mentions that Sextractor
>can do this, and I'm sure Star is the same way.  The rest of the pipeline
>is more TASS-specific in my opinion.
>Arne
>
>
Glenn Gombert <gleng@infinet.com>