4.7 Article

PHOTOMETRIC CALIBRATION OF THE FIRST 1.5 YEARS OF THE PAN-STARRS1 SURVEY

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 756, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/158

关键词

atmospheric effects; methods: data analysis; surveys; techniques: photometric

资金

  1. NASA [NNX10AD69G]
  2. NASA by the Space Telescope Science Institute [HF-51255.01-A]
  3. Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. [NAS 5-26555]
  4. German Research Foundation (DFG) [Sonderforschungsbereich SFB 881]
  5. National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Planetary Science Division of the NASA Science Mission Directorate [NNX08AR22G]
  6. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  7. National Science Foundation
  8. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science
  9. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  10. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [1238877, 1009749] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  11. NASA [135583, NNX10AD69G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a precise photometric calibration of the first 1.5 years of science imaging from the Pan-STARRS1 survey (PS1), an ongoing optical survey of the entire sky north of declination-30 degrees in five bands. Building on the techniques employed by Padmanabhan et al. in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), we use repeat PS1 observations of stars to perform the relative calibration of PS1 in each of its five bands, simultaneously solving for the system throughput, the atmospheric transparency, and the large-scale detector flat field. Both internal consistency tests and comparison against the SDSS indicate that we achieve relative precision of <10 mmag in g, r, and i(P1), and similar to 10 mmag in z and y(P1). The spatial structure of the differences with the SDSS indicates that errors in both the PS1 and SDSS photometric calibration contribute similarly to the differences. The analysis suggests that both the PS1 system and the Haleakala site will enable <1% photometry over much of the sky.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据