You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
At present, when using the H/G magnitude system, H is determined and G is left at 0.15. If the observations cover a large enough range of elongations, and the magnitudes aren't the usual garbage, it would be possible (and desirable) to determine G as well.
This may become more reasonable to do if the new astrometry format, which includes uncertainties, is implemented. At present, trying to determine G from a mix of well-determined and "wild guess" photometry would be pretty much of a fool's errand.
Incidentally, this also applies to some degree with comets: the dependence of magnitude upon distance from the sun is currently fixed, and could be instead a parameter to be determined from a fit to magnitude observations.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
At present, when using the H/G magnitude system, H is determined and G is left at 0.15. If the observations cover a large enough range of elongations, and the magnitudes aren't the usual garbage, it would be possible (and desirable) to determine G as well.
This may become more reasonable to do if the new astrometry format, which includes uncertainties, is implemented. At present, trying to determine G from a mix of well-determined and "wild guess" photometry would be pretty much of a fool's errand.
Incidentally, this also applies to some degree with comets: the dependence of magnitude upon distance from the sun is currently fixed, and could be instead a parameter to be determined from a fit to magnitude observations.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: