Re: Mark IV data off by one day

["Gary W. Billings" <obs681@telusplanet.net>]

Richard, I agree, that looks like the best one.  There *are* other
candidates but they're either fainter (13's) or outside Tom's original
bounding box.  The brightest one outside the box might be asteroid 511, at
203.3, +14.6, m11.2, 29"/hr.  These speeds are typical, so the result will
be unequivocal re date, so long as we can be certain we have picked out the
right object in the image.

Note that asteroid photometry from the astrometry database is rather
imprecise...

Tom, how shall we pursue this?  The ideal would be to have several images
from the same night -- they could be as little as an hour or so apart.  The
movement between images would confirm the identity of the asteroid by way of
its motion.  If two such frames are not available, we could compare two
different nights (hopefully with similar detectability properties).  Last,
but still okay option would be to compare a single frame to a catalogue such
as USNO-A

I can't remember if you have image archives, or just extracted object
lists...  Images would be best.

The biggest chore will be digging out the relevant data.  I'm quite happy to
do what I can to help, but it's probably not too much, other than the
trivial task of providing exact "where it's supposed to be" coordinates,
given the exact image times.

Gary


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Miles" <rmiles.btee@btinternet.com>
To: <tdroege2@earthlink.net>; "Billings, Gary W." <obs681@telusplanet.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2004 1:53 AM
Subject: Re: Mark IV data off by one day


> Gary / Tom,
>
> Don't rule this idea out just yet.
>
> The best of the candidate asteroids looks to be 739 Mandeville, which was
> near 220.7 deg RA and +18.9 deg Dec on the date in question.  This object
> was nominally at V=12.0 and moving at 13 arcmin/day.  Therefore it should
be
> possible to discriminate the actual day from images taken.
>
> Cheers,
> Richard Miles
>
> P.S. tried sending to TASS list earlier but my new address was not
> recognised and so it was thrown out.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Droege" <tdroege2@earthlink.net>
> To: "Billings, Gary W." <obs681@telusplanet.net>; <tass@listserv.wwa.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 2:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Mark IV data off by one day
>
>
> > Gary,
> >
> > A good idea.  It does not have to move much.  So a search for an
asteroid
> > in the data would tell since our astrometry is usually good to 1 arc
> > second.  An astroid that moved a few arc seconds a day would tell the
> tale.
> >
> > Anyone want to take this on?  What we need are mag 9-11 asteroida that
> move
> > say 10 or more arc seconds a day somewhere between 160 and 270 degrees
in
> > RA and 18 to 50 degrees in Dec.  The day is 2453109 If you get the
> position
> > of asteroids at the time that they cross the zenith they will be pretty
> > close in time to when I measure them.  I will need a few, because the
way
> I
> > was taking data in April only covered about half the sky.
> >
> > Tom Droege
> >
> >
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: Gary W. Billings <obs681@telusplanet.net>
> > > To: <tass@listserv.wwa.com>
> > > Date: 6/10/2004 9:03:42 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Mark IV data off by one day
> > >
> > > If there are any frames from the day in question that captured a
> > > sufficiently bright moving asteroid...  that could move from "absence
of
> > > evidence" to "evidence of absence" of a day error...
> > >
> > > g.
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Thomas Droege" <tdroege2@earthlink.net>
> > > To: "Man, Stupendous" <richmond@stupendous.cis.rit.edu>;
> > > <tass@listserv.wwa.com>
> > > Cc: <mwrsps@rit.edu>
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 5:24 PM
> > > Subject: RE: Mark IV data off by one day
> > >
> > >
> > > > Here is an attempt to look another way at the possibility that the
> Mark
> > IV
> > > > data was off one day on 2543109.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>