|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard
On Wed 2007/08/01 17:51:47 +0200, Thierry Forveille wrote in a message to: Mark Calabretta and copied to: William Pence , FITSBITS fitsbits @nrao.edu Depends on the context, and on what's meant by "no great accuracy": it's 1 m/s for 7 arcsec (worst case position on the sky), so for planet In the context of the discussion on the bottom of p92, by position I meant location on Earth, not direction towards the source. By "great accuracy is not required" I meant accuracy better than a few metres! On the Earth's surface 1m = 32mas, which ought to be good enough even for planet hunters. As Steve says, the subtext is that Paper III wasn't about to tackle keywords for terrestrial reference frames - they typically agree to within 0.1m. Cheers, Mark |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard | Thierry Forveille | FITS | 0 | August 1st 07 04:51 PM |
[fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard | Mark Calabretta | FITS | 0 | August 1st 07 09:01 AM |
[fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard | William Pence | FITS | 0 | July 27th 07 07:38 PM |
[fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard | Rob Seaman | FITS | 0 | July 24th 07 07:21 PM |
[fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard | William Pence | FITS | 2 | July 24th 07 04:57 AM |