[fitsbits] Proposed Changes to the FITS Standard

[Mark Calabretta]

On Wed 2007/08/01 17:51:47 +0200, Thierry Forveille wrote
in a message to: Mark Calabretta <mcalabre at atnf.csiro.au>
and copied to: William Pence <pence at milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov>, FITSBITS <fitsbits
     @nrao.edu>

>Depends on the context, and on what's meant by "no great accuracy": it's
>1 m/s for 7 arcsec (worst case position on the sky), so for planet 

In the context of the discussion on the bottom of p92, by position I
meant location on Earth, not direction towards the source.  By "great
accuracy is not required" I meant accuracy better than a few metres!
On the Earth's surface 1m = 32mas, which ought to be good enough even
for planet hunters.

As Steve says, the subtext is that Paper III wasn't about to tackle
keywords for terrestrial reference frames - they typically agree to
within 0.1m.

Cheers, Mark