A&A 400, 1095-1101 (2003)
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20030013
C. H. Veiga1 - R. Vieira Martins1 - A. Vienne2,3 - W. Thuillot3 - J.-E. Arlot3
1 - Observatório Nacional, Rua Gal. José Cristino 77,
20921-400 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
2 -
Université de Lille, 59000 Lille, France
3 -
Institut de Mécanique Céleste et de Calculs des Éphémérides,
77 avenue Denfert-Rochereau 75014 Paris, France
Received 18 October 2002 / Accepted 14 November 2002
Abstract
Astrometric positions of the first eight largest Saturnian
satellites and the Lagrangian satellites Helene, Telesto
and Calypso are presented from 493 CCD frames taken at
the oppositions in 1995 through 1999. The images were
obtained over 27 nights. Observed positions are compared
with the calculated ones from Vienne and Duriez TASS 1.7
for the large satellites and from JPL positions for the
Lagrangian satellites. The rms is about 0
12 for the
former but 0
20 for Iapetus and 0
28 for Hyperion.
For the Lagrangian satellites it is about 0
21 for
Helene, 2
02 for Telesto and 0
60 for Calypso.
Key words: planets and satellites: individual: Saturn - astrometry
Our observations of Saturnian satellites belong to a program
of systematic astrometric observations of the satellites of
Jovian planets initiated in 1982 in Brazil. The results of
the 138 photographic plates of the Saturnian large satellites
carried out in the period 1982 to 1988 were published in Veiga
& Vieira Martins (1999). For those observations the residuals
give rise to a standard deviation smaller than 0
3. Moreover 22
photographic positions of Helene with the same standard deviation
where published in Veiga & Vieira Martins (2000). Also,
many CCD observations made in 1995 when the Earth and the Sun
crossed the plane of the Saturnian satellites were astrometrically
reduced and published in Vienne et al. (2001a), here after (VTVAM).
There, we presented 6006 differential positions of the eight largest
satellites with dispersion smaller than 0
15. The positions of
Tethys, Dione, Rea and Titan were used to define a reference system in
every frame.
In the past years some others observations of the Saturnian satellites were published, including the accurate positions presented in Peng et al. (2002). A review of the published observations and their comparison with different ephemerides can be found in Vienne (2001).
In this paper the observation of 493 CCD frames carried out during 27
nights, distributed in 10 missions in 1995-1999, are presented. The
zenith distances of the planet were in general small because the
telescope latitude ()
was close to the declination of the planet.
Since the number of reference stars is very small in almost all frames,
the inter-satellite reduction method as presented in (VTVAM) was used.
This paper is organized as follows: in Sect. 2 we present the observations, measurements and reduction; in Sect. 3 the observed positions are presented and compared with the calculated ones. The conclusions are presented in Sect. 4.
All the observations were made at the Cassegrain-focus of the 1.6 m
Ritchey-Chretien reflector of the Laboratório Nacional de Astrofísica
in Brazil (geographical longitude:
,
latitude:
and altitude: 1872 m). The focal length
of the Cassegrain combination is 15.8 m, which results in a plate scale
of 13
0/mm in the focal plane. No filter was used. In order to
avoid saturation in the CCD due to the light from the planet, a round
mask was put on the CCD window and the frames were made with Saturn's
image behind this mask. Since the distance from the camera window to
the CCD surface is small, the penumbra region is negligible.
During the missions, 4 CCDs detectors were used. In Table 1 the characteristics of these devices are given.
Devices | Description | Series |
CCD0048 | EEV P88231 | 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 |
(770 X 1152) | ||
CCDCAM2(1) | SITe SI003AB(A1) | 9 |
(1024 X 1024) | ||
CCD009 |
EEV-05.20.0.202 | 10-11-12-13-14 |
(770 X 1200) | ||
CCDCAM2(2) |
SITe SI003AB(B2) | 15-16 |
(1024 X 1050) |
Since the pixels dimension of every CCD used are about
,
the scale per pixel is about 0
3
0
3. Therefore, the field observed with these devices
is about 4
5
and 5
5
.
Satellites | Positions | Nights |
Mimas (S1) | 329 | 18 |
Enceladus (S2) | 419 | 23 |
Tethys (S3) | 484 | 25 |
Dione (S4) | 482 | 26 |
Titan (S6) | 214 | 13 |
Iapetus (S7) | 7 | 1 |
Hyperion (S8) | 70 | 3 |
Helene (S12) | 37 | 2 |
Telesto (S13) | 24 | 4 |
Calypso (S14) | 6 | 1 |
The numbers of observed nights and useful positions in general
referred to Rhea, for each satellite, are presented in Table 2.
We consider as useful positions those with
smaller than
0
5 for the eight large satellites and smaller than 2
0 for
Helene and 5
0 for Telesto and Calypso. It can be noted that
the number of observations increases with the distance from
Saturn. This is a consequence of the difficulty to observe
faint satellites near bright planets. However, for the satellites
with largest distance from the planet the number of observations
decreases with the distance, mainly because the CCDs used are
relatively small. In particular, Iapetus is too far from Saturn
and so we have only 7 positions observed in our frames, where
Saturn is always at the center of the CCD. For the very faint
Lagrangian satellites we have small number of images since
their observations result blurred in the
neighborhood of the bright Saturn. The histogram of the
number of frames with respect to the epoch of the observations
is shown in Fig. 1. Each bar corresponds to one of the 10
observational missions.
![]() |
Figure 1: Histogram of the observations with respect to time. Each bar corresponds to one mission. |
Open with DEXTER |
Satellite |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
(rms) | (rms) | |||
Mimas | 0.012 | 0.006 | 0.134 | 0.106 |
(0.134) | (0.105) | |||
Enceladus |
0.019 | -0.027 | 0.112 | 0.110 |
(0.113) | (0.113) | |||
Tethys |
0.007 | -0.003 | 0.111 | 0.090 |
(0.111) | (0.090) | |||
Dione |
0.014 | -0.021 | 0.096 | 0.089 |
(0.097) | (0.091) | |||
Titan |
-0.018 | -0.010 | 0.110 | 0.120 |
(0.111) | (0.120) | |||
Iapetus |
-0.178 | 0.084 | 0.036 | 0.026 |
(0.181) | (0.088) | |||
Hyperion |
0.191 | 0.143 | 0.105 | 0.099 |
(0.218) | (0.173) | |||
Helene |
0.119 | 0.063 | 0.139 | 0.089 |
(0.182) | (0.109) | |||
Telesto |
0.083 | -1.177 | 1.391 | 0.938 |
(1.365) | (1.493) | |||
Calypso |
0.539 | 0.227 | 0.128 | 0.228 |
(0.552) | (0.228) |
As mentioned above, a round mask was put on the CCD image in order to occult the planet image. However, the ring image was saturated since the mask does not hide them. Therefore, many of the stars in the field are not see and many others are immersed in the light scattered by the planet and its rings. Furthermore, the limit magnitude of a typical image is 14. Consequently, a small number of reference stars appear and so we decided to measure only the satellite positions and adopt an inter-satellite reduction.
opp. | year | m | day(utc) | tt-utc | obs. | ref. | t | obj. | fl | obs1 | obs2 | s | f | o-c1 | o-c2 | r | - | se | xpix | ypix |
sec. | arcsec. | (degree for C*) | arc | sec. | pixel | |||||||||||||||
118 | 1995 | 6 | 10.3052546 | 61.184 | 874 | 303 | 1 | 15 | 11 | 47.7194268 | -4.1966535 | 2 | 1 | 0.147 | -0.077 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 162.321 | -13.471 |
118 | 1995 | 6 | 10.3052546 | 61.184 | 874 | 303 | 1 | 25 | 11 | 37.4313628 | -3.7999220 | 2 | 1 | 0.022 | -0.016 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 127.334 | -12.294 |
118 | 1995 | 6 | 10.3052546 | 61.184 | 874 | 303 | 1 | 35 | 11 | 108.7209996 | -8.5488541 | 2 | 1 | -0.120 | 0.003 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 369.804 | -27.252 |
118 | 1995 | 6 | 10.3052546 | 61.184 | 874 | 303 | 1 | 45 | 11 | 86.7859497 | -8.0598588 | 2 | 1 | -0.101 | -0.057 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 295.215 | -25.955 |
118 | 1995 | 6 | 10.3052546 | 61.184 | 874 | 303 | 1 | 65 | 11 | -34.9822851 | 0.3491667 | 2 | 1 | 0.083 | 0.061 | 5 | 0 | 1 | -118.949 | 0.599 |
118 | 1995 | 6 | 10.3052546 | 61.184 | 874 | 303 | 1 | C5 | 11 | 61.1455158 | -4.0790906 | 2 | 1 | 999.999 | 999.999 | 5 | 0 | 1 | -208.070 | 12.836 |
118 | 1995 | 6 | 10.3052546 | 61.184 | 874 | 303 | 0 | C* | 11 | 355.5226507 | -4.1351607 | 2 | 1 | 999.999 | 999.999 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 99 999.999 | 99 999.999 |
118 | 1995 | 6 | 10.3069907 | 61.184 | 874 | 303 | 1 | 15 | 11 | 50.4610858 | -4.6822838 | 2 | 1 | 2.597 | -0.532 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 171.656 | -15.076 |
118 | 1995 | 6 | 10.3069907 | 61.184 | 874 | 303 | 1 | 25 | 11 | 37.5308699 | -3.8116642 | 2 | 1 | -0.093 | -0.009 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 127.673 | -12.332 |
![]() |
Figure 2:
Histogram for the
![]() ![]() |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 2: continued. |
Open with DEXTER |
![]() |
Figure 2: continued. |
Open with DEXTER |
All frames were measured with the ASTROL software (Colas 1996), which allowed us to use a centering algorithm based on the adjustment of a point spread function. A second degree polynomial is also adjusted in order to remove the background which is affected by the light from the planet and its rings.
For the inter-satellite reduction, we used the method presented in (VTVAM) and (Vienne et al. 2001b). More details and discussions of the method can be found in these papers.
We divided our observations in 16 series that cover one or few nights.
For every series we assume that the receptor has been mounted in the same
way for all the frames of the series and so the scale and the orientation
remains the same for all of them. We used TASS1.7 (Vienne & Duriez 1995;
Duriez & Vienne 1997) for the saturnicentric positions of the satellites.
The positions of Saturn are given by the ephemerides SLP96 from the
"Institut de mécanique céleste (IMCCE)'' (available at
ftp://ftp.imcce.fr/pub/ephem/sun/slp96/) found on the VSOP87 planetary
theory (Bretagnon & Francou 1988), which precision is about
.
The frames registered and measured in pixels are not directly comparable with
ephemeris, because they have been affected by some local effects. So first,
we have to correct the computed coordinates with these effects due to
refraction, stellar aberration, the projection of the celestial sphere on
the tangential plane of the focal point, light-travel time between satellites
and topocentric parallax. Comparing these apparent computed coordinates to
the observed ones by a least square procedure, we deduced the scale factor
and the orientation of the receptor. These two parameters are then free of
these local effects. In the least square procedure, only the positions of
Tethys, Dione, Rhea and Titan are used to calibrate because these satellites
have the best ephemerides, and are thus probably affected by the smallest
systematic effects.
The positions
we give in Table 4
are really astrometric ones because they are given in the J2000 system and all
significant astrometric corrections have been done. But, for a given series,
they are given apart from a scale factor and from a rotation. As explained in
Vienne et al. (2001b), if we want to compute the astrometric coordinates
in any other way, for example with other ephemerides, we have only to touch
up the scale factor and the orientation of the receptor.
As mentioned above, the observations were compared with TASS1.7 for
the eight large satellites. If the
for one observation was larger
than 0
5, it was rejected. For the Lagrangian satellites, the JPL
calculated positions (Jacobson 2001) was used and if the
was larger
than 2
0 for Helene and larger than 5
0 for Telesto and
Calypso it was rejected. We chose the above limits since the residuals
out of these intervals are evidently outliers.
The (O-C) statistics are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 2 shows the corresponding histograms. We can observe that the largest residuals appear for Mimas in the x direction, which is explained by the difficulty of taking measurements of the center of the satellite image within a region where light scattered by the rings is very significant. The mean values for the Lagrangian satellites are very large. Besides intrinsic errors brought about by the faintness of the images, this suggests that the theoretical positions of these satellites are not very good. For Iapetus and Hyperion, the means are also large. However the means for these satellites in (VTVAM) are smaller. Probably this is a consequence of the poor quality of our images of these relatively faint satellites.
The catalog of our astrometric data is available in electronic form at CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/qcat?J/ A+A/400/1095. It is also available at ftp://ftp.bdl.fr/ pub/NSDC/saturn/raw_data/position/. It contains astrometric coordinates, in the J2000 system, of the observations analyzed in this section. Table 4 shows an extract. It contains satellite/satellite positions expressed in arcseconds, gathered by series with the corresponding scale (in pixels/arcsec) and orientation (in radians). The dates correspond to the mid-time of the exposure. The date is not light-time corrected. In this catalog the positions with large residuals are also presented. so we have 2183 positions of Saturnian satellites but only 2072 of these positions are in the intervals defined in the other tables above.
The format and the conventions of our catalog are almost the same presented in (VTVAM) and quite similar to the one by Strugnell and Taylor (1990). In a FORTRAN code, lines are read with the format: (i3, i5, i3, f11.7, f7.3, 2i4, i2, 1x, a2, a1, i2, i1, 2(1x, f13.7), 2i2, 2(ix, f7.3), 3i3, 2f10.3). The meaning of each parameter can be found in Strugnell & Taylor (1990) and in (VTVAM), however here some are slightly different.
We present 2005 positions of the main satellites of Saturn and 67 positions of the Lagrangian satellites from CCD observations in 1995-1999 in Brazil. Since most of these frames have no reference stars, we applied an inter-satellite reduction. The positions of Tethys, Dione, Rhea and Titan given by TASS1.7 were used to determine the scale factor and the orientation of the receptor.
The comparison of the observed and computed positions shows that
the RMS is about 0
12 for the main satellites and larger for
Hyperion and the Lagrangian satellites. The coordinates are given
in NSDC base data and presented apart from the scale factor and from
rotation, but all astrometric corrections are done. So, these
differential positions are really absolute ones in the meaning
that no astrometric correction is necessary to use them, even
if one wants to adjust the calibration.
Acknowledgements
The authors, CHV and RVM, wish to thank the MCT/CNPq-Brazil for partial support of this work. C. H. Veiga would like to thank State of Rio de Janeiro Science Foundation - FAPERJ for providing computational facilities for this project.