BYU Astronomy Research Group Joins the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC)
As of January 2021 BYU will be a member of the ARC Consortium (Link to Consortium) with access to the ARC 3.5-m telescope and the 0.5-m ARCSAT telescope. The primary use of the ARC 3.5-m telescope time is for graduate student projects. This provides a wide array of instrumentation that is currently being used to study objects in the solar system all the way to studies of the large scale structure of the Universe.
Other BYU Astronomy Facilities
In addition to our telescope time from the ARC consortium, we operate a number of our own astronomical facilities
West Mountain Observatory (West Mountain)
This is our mountain observatory at about 6600 ft above sea level. This consists of three telescopes: 0.9-m, 0.5-m, and a 0.32-m. It is a 40 minute drive that ends in a 5 miles drive up a dirt road. The mountain itself can be seen from campus. We don't provide any tours of this facility.
Orson Pratt Observatory
The Orson Pratt Observatory is named for an early apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is our campus telescope facility and contains a wide variety of telescopes for student research and public outreach. We operate a 24" PlaneWave telescope in the main campus dome, plus a 16", two 12", one 8", and a 6" telescope on our observation deck. The telescopes are all fully robotic. Beyond this we have a large sections of telescopes used on public nights.
Royden G. Derrick Planetarium (Planetarium)
This is a 119 seat, 39" dome planetarium with acoustically treated walls to allow it's use as a lecture room. Recently we upgraded to an E&S Digistar7 operating system with 4K projectors. The planetarium is used for teaching classes, public outreach, and astronomy education research projects.
Selected Publications
A number of such transformations exist within the astronomical community for stellar objects. However, the Spectral Energy Distributions (SEDs) of stars are not the same as those of satellites. Reflection for spacecraft can be modeled based on diffuse and specular reflection components, where the diffuse components’ reflected spectrum may have spectral characteristics of the material off which it reflects, thereby altering the SED from that of the Sun. While the SEDs of stars are largely static, the SEDs of satellites are not. Specifically, their SED may change with phase angle (e.g., solar panel contributions are phase angle dependent and typically make the SED bluer). To investigate the transformation between Johnson-Cousins and Sloan for satellites, we performed the following analysis. We observed four satellites sequentially in Johnson-Cousins filters (B, V, R, and I) and Sloan filters (g, r, i, and z), covering a large range of phase angle. We then empirically derived transformations between Johnson-Cousins and Sloan for each satellite’s observed data and for all of the observed satellite data as a whole, and juxtaposed these with an astronomical transformation. We found mixed results for the transformation relations. The r – V as a function of V – R relation provides a great fit for all of the observed satellite data with low root mean square (RMS) error and is exactly the same as the astronomical transformation. The r – z as a function of R – I relation provides a great fit for all of the observed satellite data, but has large RMS scatter and is distinct from the astronomical transformation. Thus, we do not recommend transforming historical satellite photometry observed in Johnson-Cousins to Sloan to compare to observations of satellites taken in the Sloan filters. Since the transformations are dependent on the SED of the satellite, and the satellites’ SEDs are variable, transformations generally yielded poor results for the two photometric systems we studied here, i.e. Johnson-Cousins and Sloan. Moreover, our supposition is that such attempts with any two photometric systems may yield similarly poor results.Cousins to Sloan is the obsolescence of the historical Johnson-Cousins satellite photometry. To compare photometry between the Johnson-Cousins and Sloan systems, a transformation needs to be made to convert data from one photometric system to another.
A number of such transformations exist within the astronomical community for stellar objects. However, the Spectral Energy Distributions (SEDs) of stars are not the same as those of satellites. Reflection for spacecraft can be modeled based on diffuse and specular reflection components, where the diffuse components’ reflected spectrum may have spectral characteristics of the material off which it reflects, thereby altering the SED from that of the Sun. While the SEDs of stars are largely static, the SEDs of satellites are not. Specifically, their SED may change with phase angle (e.g., solar panel contributions are phase angle dependent and typically make the SED bluer). To investigate the transformation between Johnson-Cousins and Sloan for satellites, we performed the following analysis. We observed four satellites sequentially in Johnson-Cousins filters (B, V, R, and I) and Sloan filters (g, r, i, and z), covering a large range of phase angle. We then empirically derived transformations between Johnson-Cousins and Sloan for each satellite’s observed data and for all of the observed satellite data as a whole, and juxtaposed these with an astronomical transformation. We found mixed results for the transformation relations. The r – V as a function of V – R relation provides a great fit for all of the observed satellite data with low root mean square (RMS) error and is exactly the same as the astronomical transformation. The r – z as a function of R – I relation provides a great fit for all of the observed satellite data, but has large RMS scatter and is distinct from the astronomical transformation. Thus, we do not recommend transforming historical satellite photometry observed in Johnson-Cousins to Sloan to compare to observations of satellites taken in the Sloan filters. Since the transformations are dependent on the SED of the satellite, and the satellites’ SEDs are variable, transformations generally yielded poor results for the two photometric systems we studied here, i.e. Johnson-Cousins and Sloan. Moreover, our supposition is that such attempts with any two photometric systems may yield similarly poor results.