Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
RAD-175: Add ePSF, ABVegaOffset, and ApCorr Schemas #452
RAD-175: Add ePSF, ABVegaOffset, and ApCorr Schemas #452
Changes from all commits
4fd2116
72fb9be
e0c5de5
12576f9
0dd5c38
4e79820
4496f10
3127e72
f256f30
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@tddesjardins , somewhere we should document things like what the metallicity & gravity of the source were---or maybe this is an ideal blackbody? I don't know where that documentation would go.
I don't know if there's a world where we would ever expect the temperature of Roman to vary enough to lead us to have different PSFs as a function of temperature, but if there were, we would probably rue calling this "effective_temperature."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The info on that is in the description or history of the file. I can't recall which I put it into. But it's thoroughly documented, believe me.
As for temperature, these are models for the moment, so we have effective temperatures. We spoke about how the on-orbit version of this will likely need a small schema change to represent observables, so it may be color, for instance. As for some kind of spacecraft temperature, we still won't know for a while, but my best guess is that it's likely to depend on something like ota_temperature, i.e., temperature measured somewhere in the primary/secondary mirror assembly. I just asked a GSFC person next to me, and they basically said this is unknowable at this point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, I understand that these are stellar effective temperatures, I just wonder whether we're setting ourselves up for confusion if there ends up being another axis "ota_temperature" and then one starts wondering what the effective temperature is the effective temperature of. i.e., would we save confusion if we called these "stellar_effective_temperature" instead. If you expect we'll change the name of this down the road to color or something instead then there's no need to worry about this now, though.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have concerns that if we enter this in as a "model only" keyword, we will have to make an entirely different schema & datamodel for release (which may have future downstream ramifications). If RTB wishes to keep the two separate, this is fine, but if we want to be able to use both interchangeably, I support renaming in a form similar to what @schlafly suggested. @tddesjardins - what say you?