Re: positions and other pipeline matters

[Tom Droege <tdroege2@earthlink.net>]

As L'il Abner might say "Given a collected.big file and a UCAC catalog, any 
fool could write a program that matched them up and produced UCAC position 
collected.big file, I could write it."

Seems to me that there is nothing to stop this from being done right 
now.  I think Arne will provide a catalog to someone that wants to do 
it.  Why not do this as a post processing step to Michael's pipeline?  Does 
someone want to take this on?

I read Michael below as saying the pipeline is not going to change 
much.  He might change the format - but I think this is not a very big 
problem.  One just adds columns of stuff.

The data base, as I see it, is a separate problem.  Given a big list of 
measurements that are of high quality and which contain interesting data, 
someone will solve the data base problem.  It is not such a large problem 
by today's standards that it will not be able to live in some standard place.

It is my mind to get on with it.  Keep taking measurements and reducing 
them with the present pipeline.  We are now talking about small 
improvements.  A few percent here, a few percent there.  Desirable, but not 
essential to the project.

I plan to do just that.  Work on collecting data and processing it through 
the pipeline.  Get an engineering paper out late this year after I have 
completed +7 N and then go on to other areas.  Get a big scan going so that 
I get each area of the sky every few days.  Get some areas with short 
period variable scans.

Tom Droege


At 09:40 AM 6/28/02 -0400, you wrote:

>   Arne suggests that we match up detected stars to UCAC stars, then
>use the UCAC positions for all subsequent analysis.
>
> >   Again, UCAC is the way to go here; keep its coordinates and don't
> >   try to improve on them.
>
>   Tom agrees:
>
> > Yep, I am patiently waiting for someone to fix up Michael's pipeline to 
> use
> > UCAC.  Then I will process all the data again and collect_stars will 
> not be
> > needed.