Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T10:53:33.155Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proper Motion and Parallax Programmes for Large Telescopes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2015

C. A. Murray
C. A. Murray*
Affiliation:
Royal Greenwich Observatory, Herstmonceux, England

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Proper motion work at the present time relies on the availability of plates taken in the past, for which the magnitude limit is generally not fainter than about mpg = 16, apart from Luyten's survey with the Palomar Schmidt. It is very important for future studies to fainter magnitudes in, for example, star clusters, that sufficient time is made available on large telescopes so that plates can be taken now. Consideration should also be given to an extension of proper motion work in Selected Areas.

Ideally, trigonometric parallax observations are best carried out on a dedicated telescope, such as the USNO 61-in. reflector, with a large amount of time available; but if sufficient observational material is to be obtained on faint stars, time must also be taken on other medium sized and large reflectors. With the severe limitation of time available on these telescopes, the criteria for selection of stars for such programmes become of prime importance. Large Schmidt telescopes, with fast automatic plate measurement, may possibly be used for surveys of nearby stars, unbiased by any kinematic or photometric selection effects.

Type
Session D: Astrometry with Large Telescopes
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 61: New Problems in Astrometry , 1974 , pp. 151 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © Reidel 1974 

References

Cannon, R. D. and Lloyd, C.: 1970, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 150, 279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenstein, J. L. and Eggen, O. J.: 1966, Vistas in Astronomy 8, 63.Google Scholar
Jones, B. F.: 1973, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. 9, 313.Google Scholar
Jones, D. H. P.: 1973, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 161, 19P.Google Scholar
Luyten, W. J.: 1963, Minnesota Publ. III, No. 13.Google Scholar
Luyten, W. J. and La Bonte, E. A.: 1972, The Role of Schmidt Telescopes in Astronomy , Hamburger Sternwarte, p. 33.Google Scholar
Murray, C. A.: 1971, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 154, 429.Google Scholar
Murray, C. A., Corben, P. M., and Allchorn, M. R.: 1965, Roy. Obs. Bull. 91.Google Scholar
Murray, C. A. and Sanduleak, N.: 1972, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 157, 273.Google Scholar
Parkes, A. G. and Penston, M. V.: 1973, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 162, 117.Google Scholar
Riddle, R. K.: 1970, Publ. USNO, 2nd Ser. XX, Part IIIA.Google Scholar
Routly, P. M.: 1972, Publ. USNO, 2nd Ser. XX, Part VI.Google Scholar
Sanduleak, N.: 1964, Thesis, Case Institute of Technology, unpublished.Google Scholar
Strand, K. Aa.: 1962, Astron. J. 67, 706.Google Scholar
Strand, K. Aa. and Riddle, R. K.: 1970, Publ. USNO, 2nd Ser. XX, Part IIIC.Google Scholar
Van Altena, W.: 1971, Astron. J. 76, 932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worley, C. E.: 1966, Vistas in Astronomy 8, 33.Google Scholar