RE: size musings

["Creager, Robert S" <CreagRS@LOUISVILLE.STORTEK.COM>]

That's one of the low numbers.  I took night 1838, and came up with anywhere
from 172 to 18231 stars detected in a frame.  2000 is about the eye ball
median.  Anyone have a good estimate for a good 'standard' number of stars
we should get per image?  I'm also not sure weather wise if 100 nights a
year is far too few or not.  In Colorado, we might have 300+ which would
qualify (daytime wise at least)...

Later,
Rob


Robert Creager
Senior Software Engineer
Client Server Library
303.673.2365 V
303.661.5379 F
888.912.4458 P
StorageTek
INFORMATION made POWERFUL



> -----Original Message-----
Rob,

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of your exercise is
that the data storage requirements are well within the
capabilities of any modern disk.

Said differently, we really aren't making very good use of
4 million pixels per focal plane if we are only detecting
2000 stars per frame!

Cheers,
Doug
> > 
> > Pardon, but I was explaining the size problem to a 
> co-worker, and starting
> > musing about possibilities of the entire system...  These 
> numbers might be
> > on the low side - any comments?
> > 
> > 2000 stars per image
> > 
> > 2 images per picture set
> > 100 picture sets per night
> > 100 nights per year
> > 
> > 20,000 images to be analyzed a year
> > 8Mb per image
> > 160 Gigabytes of data per site to be analyzed per year
> > 
> > 40,000,000 stars per site per year, and if we keep every 
> observation in a
> > database:
> > 26 bytes per star (observation list only)
> > 1 Gigabyte per site per year of star data.
> > 
> > 12 sites...
> >