Hi Meri,

it would be great if it could be reobserved. Maybe I should have noted
that the positions changed, but i thought, that the positions from the
key file are transfered automatically to the correlator scripts.

I atteched revised key-files that also don't have the setup problem.

Thanks,
Andreas

Data Analysts wrote:

>> Hi Andreas,
>> 
>> Yes, we do know how it happened.  The source position for M33/50 is
>> not in the "standard" catalog, so the position was entered into the
>> "auxiliary"
>> catalog for BB200A.  Once entered, it just uses that position for any epoch
>> of BB200.  For whatever reason, we did not notice the difference in
>> position
>> for BB200C/D.
>> So, we can reobserve BB200C and D, if you want to.  I noticed that they
>> have to be observed 3 - 30 days between them.   But it's more than 10 -
>> 12 months
>> since A/B.  We could try to reobserve asap, but the original C epoch had
>> setup
>> problems.  So we'll need a new file.
>> 
>> We have implemented procedures so this won't happen again.  Sorry for the
>> trouble.  Let us know if you want to reobserve.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Meri


Dear Analysts,

I noticed a problem with the positions in my recent observations BB200C
and BB200D. The key-file of the observations used the position for the
source M33/50:

ra=01:34:00.228504 dec=+30:40:47.32173

(from http://www.vlba.nrao.edu/astro/VOBS/astronomy/jan06/bb200d/bb200d.key)

However, the data was correlated with a different position:

ra =  1h34m00.226560s   dec =  30d40'47.17550"

(from
http://www.vlba.nrao.edu/astro/VOBS/astronomy/jan06/bb200d/jobs/job1122.fx)

Which is the position I used in the first epoch (BB200A/B) when I had no
better position.

Do you have any idea how this happened?

Cheers,
Andreas