hydra.asutexas.edu

 


 


 




 

graphs

Verifying and removing systematic trends from metrology data used in sky quality statistics



First, we compare Guider Camera Image Quality (IQ, FWHM) between both cameras (GC1 and GC2) and all three filters (g`, r`, i`):

It seems that the i` filter on GC2 gives the lowest IQ values overall; all other filters and GC1 values are re-scaled to match GC2(i`).
Conversion relations are shown on the graphs above, in two steps.
Left panel: same-filter comparison, answering the question "how well-matched is GC1(g) and GC2(g)?" and same for r and i, with simultaneous observations
    In order to make GC1 IQ match GC2 IQ in each filter, these corrections are necessary:
       GC1(g) - 0.078"
       GC1(r) - 0.075"
       GC1(i) - 0.100"
Right panel: multi-filter comparison, answering the question "how well-matched is GC1(g) and GC2(i)" with simultaneous observations. This required coordination with the Telescope Operators to manually change the filter of the inactive guider camera in order to collect simultaneous multi-filter data during science operations.
    In order to make all filters/cameras match with GC2(i`), these corrections are required:
        IQ(g) - 0.07"  (applied to both guiders)
        IQ(r) - 0.05"   (applied to both guiders)
After having made these corrections we find typical scatter (standard deviations) about the unity lines of 0.1", which is a lower limit on the uncertainty of these IQ estimates.

 





Likewise we convert transparency between the two cameras and between all three filters, with corrections indicated on the graphs above. Typical scatter is 0.10-0.12% which is a good uncertainty estimate.







Likewise we convert sky surface brightness between the two cameras and between all three filters, with corrections indicated on the graphs above. Typical scatter is 0.2-0.5 mag/arcsec2, which is somewhat larger than we'd like, but is related to the relatively small imaging area of the guider cameras and the loose constraints they give on sky surface brightness.






Lastly we also remove the systematic trend between the two wavefront sensors - in general WFS2 gives larger IQ values than WFS1 and has to be scaled down by 89% to match up. The matching is not great, but it's all we've got.




These verification plots were generated in Jan 2022 using 2021 data when all probes were functioning. This type of verification and systematic detrending should probably be done periodically in the future, as well.


Last updated 28 Jan 2022 - SJ.




Last updated: Thu, 23 May 2024 15:21:16 +0000 sir



Observing Status

Night Reports and Schedules

Observing Statistics

Time use statistics

Monthly observing statistics

Target acquisition statistics

Sky quality statistics

verification of probe metrology data

Weather Closure Policy

Weather links

Priority List Algorithm

Observing Support - Night Staff