Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

pointing model is likely not included #27

Closed
EranOfek opened this issue Jun 6, 2024 · 7 comments
Closed

pointing model is likely not included #27

EranOfek opened this issue Jun 6, 2024 · 7 comments

Comments

@EranOfek
Copy link
Collaborator

EranOfek commented Jun 6, 2024

In the gledmagicwater branch, it seems that the point model is not included,
while it was applied in the previous stable branch used in the LAST observing run in March.

We see that in the gledmagicwater headers, ADRA and and ARA (as well as ADDec and ADec) are equal, while in the previous run they were different. The difference between these two parameters is the pointing model offset (taken from LAST_config/obs.PointingModel).
To verify this, it seems that the offset in astrometry between images taken in the March run and in the June run are consistent with the point model offsets.

Ruslan can add some examples.

@RuslanKonno
Copy link

I was writing the same issue, so I'll just copypaste it here:

The data taken during the June nights of 2024-06-03 to 2024-06-05 show misalignment with reference images taken in March 2024. This is at least confirmed for mounts M1, M3, M6, M8.

Inspecting the headers of the images, e.g.,

/marvin/LAST.01.06.02/2024/06/03/proc/220200v0/LAST.01.06.02_20240603.220150.321_clear_1209_000_001_010_sci_coadd_Image_1.fits

shows that the mount A and AD coordinates are the same, implying that the full pointing correction was not applied. Example for the image above:

M_ARA = 229.5725 /
M_AHA = 28.6867 /
M_ADEC = 20.9185 /
M_ADRA = 229.5725 /
M_ADHA = 28.6867 /
M_ADDEC = 20.9185 /

When registering the June images to the March reference images of the same field, the misalignment is clearly seen. Below is the reference image registered to the example new image.

Screenshot from 2024-06-06 18-41-47

Measuring the misalignment (green lines in the image above) gives similar values to the missing pointing offset

Measured misalignment:
(Delta RA, Delta Dec) = ~(0.299, 0.428)

Offset given by the pointing model at (HA, Dec) = (26.668319, 27.098529)
(Delta RA, Delta Dec) = ~( -0.220345, -0.451985)

Mind I'm only measuring the absolute misalignment, so I'm ignoring the sign. Also, the offset is taken from the nearest coordinates in obs.pointingModel.06_1.create.yml, which is not exactly the same as the image coordinates, so the shown measured misalignment won't closely match the expected offset, they do agree in the leading order floating point position.

This is consistent with the misalignment seen in at least M1 as well.

@EastEriq
Copy link
Collaborator

EastEriq commented Jun 6, 2024

Code notes:

@EastEriq
Copy link
Collaborator

EastEriq commented Jun 6, 2024

@EastEriq EastEriq added this to the gledmagicwater_alpha2 milestone Jun 6, 2024
@EranOfek
Copy link
Collaborator Author

EranOfek commented Jun 6, 2024 via email

@EastEriq
Copy link
Collaborator

EastEriq commented Jun 6, 2024

Details of what? The changes done and their original motivation are referenced there. This is why we use a linked ticked system and reference the commits pertinent to each issue.

blumzi pushed a commit to EranOfek/AstroPack that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2024
@EastEriq
Copy link
Collaborator

EastEriq commented Jun 9, 2024

Seems that the problem was in a typo in celestial.convert.j2000_toApparent and apparent_toJ2000 on the AstroPack side. We have now pushed the fix (EranOfek/AstroPack@e4e875f), but the fix has still to be tested on sky. AstroPack should be pulled in the observatory but we are offline at the moment.

Please close when confirmed working.

blumzi pushed a commit to EranOfek/AstroPack that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2024
interpHA and interpDec are never a struct, and if we were to support
that we should convert the struct to a function handle, but validate the
struct, and, and
@EastEriq
Copy link
Collaborator

Confirmed solved in last nights images by Ruslan

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants