1 / 9

EAR-C-I0065_I1084-2-IMGTEMPEL1KPNO-V1.0

EAR-C-I0065_I1084-2-IMGTEMPEL1KPNO-V1.0. Matthew Knight (2nd reviewer). Overview. KPNO 2.1-m imaging of 9P/Tempel 1 from February-June 2005 (prior to Deep Impact) Contents: Raw and reduced data Calibration images (bias, flat, zero) Comparison stars Occasional reimaging of previous fields

kadeem
Download Presentation

EAR-C-I0065_I1084-2-IMGTEMPEL1KPNO-V1.0

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EAR-C-I0065_I1084-2-IMGTEMPEL1KPNO-V1.0 Matthew Knight (2nd reviewer)

  2. Overview • KPNO 2.1-m imaging of 9P/Tempel 1 from February-June 2005 (prior to Deep Impact) • Contents: • Raw and reduced data • Calibration images (bias, flat, zero) • Comparison stars • Occasional reimaging of previous fields • Documentation is good and data are easy to use • Easy to find comet in images • Positions and names of standard stars provided • Conversion factors necessary to get in proper units provided

  3. Using the data • Enhanced CN frames monthly using x,y positions given • Slow evolution of morphology evident • Crudely (e.g., by eye) consistent with activity increase reported by Schleicher, 2007, Icarus, 190, 406

  4. Concerns (all are minor) • Naming convention inconsistency • February run is not named with the date in the file name • Reduced flats named as flatX.fits • X is filter name (e.g. CN, BC) in Feb and June, filter number in other months • Filter inconsistency in FITS header • FILTER given as a number rather than a name (with no easy way to connect the name to the number) • OBJECT has filter name in it most of the time • Some images have all filter names/numbers in COMMENTS (e.g. Apr 9) but others do not (e.g. May 15) • Could use some improved documentation (next slide) • A few typos (given to Ludmilla) • Dataset.cat says error in conversion factors is 2e-13 erg/s/cm^2/Ang but dataset.cat for MOSAIC data says 2%. Are these correct as stated? • Centers file for Tempel 1 on 050607 missing commas

  5. Suggestions • Consider making a text file for each night/run that lists filter name/number • Tabular observing log for each night would be very useful (e.g., image #, object, time, RA, dec, airmass, filter, exposure time) • Consider adding more text (to a *.cat file) that explains what is in each area, e.g., calibrations/ has bias, flats, zeroes and the naming convention is … • Would also be useful to note which nights were photometric (although it can be inferred from the nights that do/don’t have standard stars) • Were there any publications from this data that would be useful to reference? • Farnham et al., 2005, DPS abstract based on these data • Farnham et al., 2007, AJ, 133, 2001 on Machholz data collected at the same time which might be useful to give the reader more background on how data collected at this time were used by the observers

  6. EAR-C-I0655-3-MOSAICTEMPEL1-V1.0 Matthew Knight (2nd reviewer)

  7. Overview • KPNO 4-m imaging of 9P/Tempel 1 July 2-9, 2005 (includes Deep Impact) • Contents • Raw and reduced data • Reduced data are subframes but include relevant comet portion • Calibration images (bias, flat, zero) • Comparison stars • Occasional reimaging of previous fields • Documentation is good and data are easy to use • Easy to find comet in images • Positions and names of standard stars provided • Conversion factors necessary to get in proper units provided

  8. Using the data • Center on the comet each night • Divide July 3-9 images by July 2 (pre-impact) to compare morphology • Can easily see the results of Deep Impact!

  9. Concerns (very minor) • The same typos as other dataset • Is the orientation documented? • These loaded for me in ds9 with N left and E down but the WCS was correct

More Related