Table 1: Observing log of imaging observations with the Hubble Space Telescope, and relative astrometry of the binary components as derived from the observations.
Date MJD Prog. ID Instrument (filters) sep PA Reference
    GO   [mas] [$\deg$]  

2 Jun. 1998		 50 966.3 7952 NIC1 ( F110M, F145M, F165M) $275.0\pm2.0$ $41.0\pm0.2$ Martín et al. (1999a)
24 Jun. 1998 50 988.6 7830 NIC3 ( F187N) -a -a Martín et al. (1999a)
4 Mar. 2001 51 972.6 8720 WFPC2 ( F675W, F814W) $246.0\pm20.0^b$ $23.0\pm2.0^b$ Bouy et al. (2003)
16 Jun. 2001 52 076.4 9157 WFPC2 ( F606W, F814W) $255.4\pm2.8$ $18.3\pm0.3$ Bouy et al. (2003)
3 Jan. 2002 52 277.8 9157 WFPC2 ( F606W, F814W) $252.1\pm2.8$ $13.7\pm0.3$ This paper
25 Apr. 2002 52 389.5 9157 STIS/CCD ( MIRVIS) $250.0\pm6.6$ $11.4\pm0.8$ This paper
8/9 Jun. 2002 52 433.9 9345 WFPC2 ( F606W, F814W) $247.6\pm2.8$ $9.8\pm0.3$ This paper
30 Dec. 2002 52 638.7 9345 WFPC2 ( F606W, F814W) $243.6\pm2.8$ $5.7\pm0.3$ This paper
29 Dec. 2003 53 002.7 9968 WFPC2 ( F606W, F814W) $239.2\pm2.8$ $356.7\pm0.3$ This paper
a
NIC3 pixel scale of $\approx $200 mas/pixel is too coarse to derive meaningful relative astrometric measurements of the binary components.
b
The binary was not centered on the detector, but located close to the bordering region between the PC-CCD and one of the WF-CCDs (edge of imaging pyramid), which resulted in larger uncertainties in the relative astrometry.


Source LaTeX | All tables | In the text