The LSPE-Strip Pointing Reconstruction and Star Tracker

Andrea Zacchei; Aniello Mennella; Barbara Caccianiga; Cristian Franceschet; Daniele Tavagnacco; Fabio Paonessa; Fabrizio Villa; Federico Nati; Francesco Cavaliere; Francesco Cuttaia

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

The LSPE-Strip Pointing Reconstruction and Star Tracker

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The LSPE-Strip pointing budget can be relaxed from 30 arcseconds to 1 arcminute because even a worst-case 1-arcminute bias in any telescope configuration angle produces polarization-map errors below 1.3 percent of the pixel noise.

desk verdict Solid, useful LSPE-Strip pointing paper: the 1 arcmin relaxation is probably right, but the Cauchy-FWHM “upper bound” language overstates the evidence and the star tracker’s 10 arcsec systematic claim is not supported by its own data. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05604 v2 pith:E6BBBYZI submitted 2025-01-09 astro-ph.IM

Michele Maris , Maurizio Tomasi , Matteo Baratto , Fabio Paonessa , Cristian Franceschet , Daniele Tavagnacco , Oscar Antonio Peverini , Fabrizio Villa

show 13 more authors

Mario Zannoni Marco Bersanelli Barbara Caccianiga Stefano Mandelli Aniello Mennella Federico Nati Stefano Sartor Ricardo T. Génova-Santos Jose A. Rubino-Martin Francesco Cuttaia Francesco Cavaliere Massimo Gervasi Andrea Zacchei

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.IM

keywords PointingreconstructionStartrackerCMBpolarizationSystematicerrorsOrbitaltelescopeAlt-azimuthmountInstrumentcalibrationTycho2catalog

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes that the LSPE-Strip CMB telescope can tolerate a pointing error of 1 arcminute rather than the originally assumed 30 arcseconds. The authors build a Pointing Reconstruction Model (PRM) that describes how mechanical misalignments—encoded as eight configuration angles—shift and rotate the telescope's line of sight, then simulate the effect of biased angles on the Q and U polarization maps. They find that a 1-arcminute bias in any single angle induces an error whose full-width-at-half-maximum is at most about 1.3 percent of the instrument's per-pixel noise, with the vertical-axis wobble angle the largest contributor. The same analysis applies to the simulated pointing calibration made with a Star Tracker prototype, which achieved roughly 3 arcseconds random accuracy and sub-10-arcsecond systematics, making the relaxed 1-arcminute budget comfortably achievable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Pointing Reconstruction Model (PRM), an attitude operator A(ϑ, φ, Θ) built as a composition of three rotation chains: from the image plane to the telescope (roll, pan, tilt), from the telescope to the vertical axis (zero-point offsets ϑ₀ and φ₀ plus a fork-tilt angle), and from the vertical axis to the local topocentric frame (two wobble angles). This operator maps the control angles—the measured elevation and azimuth—to the true pointing direction and focal-plane orientation. The error-propagation analysis reduces to a linear relation between the configuration-angle bias α_c and the FWHM γ_c of the resulting polarization-map error distribution: γ_c = γ_{c,1} (α_c / 60 arcsec), with γ_{c,1} tabulated for each angle. The Star Tracker itself is a camera-and-software system that obtains absolute pointing by blind astrometric matching to the Tycho2 catalog, with a GPS-synchronized LED pulse train providing sub-millisecond timing for each frame.

What would settle it

Measure the Star Tracker to radio-boresight offset while sweeping the telescope over its full elevation range (e.g., 65° to 75° in the nominal scan, or the full mechanical range) and compare the offset to the PRM prediction with the eight configuration angles fixed. If the observed offset varies by more than roughly 1 arcminute between elevations, or if the PRM fit residuals against the blind-method reconstruction exceed 1 arcminute, the stiff-telescope assumption fails and the relaxed budget is not safe.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper demonstrates that the LSPE-Strip pointing requirement can be relaxed from 30 arcseconds to 1 arcminute. Using the PRM, a chain of rotations A(ϑ, φ, Θ) mapping control angles to the sky direction, the authors inject a bias of 1 arcminute in each of the eight configuration angles and propagate the resulting pointing deflection through a simulated scan of a synchrotron emission map. The induced error in the total polarization P is well described by a zero-mean Cauchy distribution whose FWHM, γ_c, scales linearly with the bias; for a 1-arcminute bias the worst-case γ_c is 3.76×10⁻² µK, compared to a per-pixel sensitivity of 15 µK, so the systematic error is at most 1.3 percent of pixel noise. Additionally, the prototype Star Tracker achieves a random pointing accuracy of about 3 arcseconds and a long-term systematic drift below 10 arcseconds, and the intercalibration of the Star Tracker to the telescope boresight can reach 1/3 to 1 arcminute accuracy via planet observations or a drone carrying optical and radio beacons.

Load-bearing premise

The PRM assumes the telescope is a perfectly rigid body, so any flexure or thermal drift that changes the relative orientation of the Star Tracker and the radio beam with elevation or temperature is not described by the eight fixed configuration angles; if such flexures are large enough, the calibration derived from the Star Tracker may not transfer to the radio pointing and the 1-arcminute budget could be exceeded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

LSPE-Strip's mechanical and encoder requirements can be relaxed to a 1-arcminute pointing budget, potentially simplifying the telescope mount and reducing costs.
The PRM can be used in the instrument's simulation pipeline to generate time-ordered data with realistic systematic pointing errors, enabling end-to-end tests of map-making and component separation.
The Star Tracker's measured accuracy (≈3 arcsec random, <10 arcsec systematic) is more than sufficient to calibrate a 1-arcminute pointing model, given the intercalibration accuracy of 0.25–1 arcminute.
Intercalibration between the optical Star Tracker and the radio boresight can be achieved either by observing bright planets (when Jupiter is visible, at S/N 10–50) or by using a drone with a radio/optical beacon, with parallax corrections being the dominant uncertainty in the drone approach.
The same PRM formalism can be applied to other alt-azimuth ground-based CMB experiments to derive quantitative pointing-error budgets from configuration-angle tolerances.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The derived 1-arcminute tolerance is specific to the assumed 15 µK pixel sensitivity; if future analyses or deeper integrations reduce the noise level, the same linear scaling implies the relative impact of a fixed pointing bias grows, so the tolerance would need to be re-evaluated.
The drone-based intercalibration accuracy is limited by systematic parallax offsets (17–34 arcsec from Star Tracker position uncertainty and 9 arcsec from beacon-LED offsets); repeating the raster at multiple distances, as the authors suggest, could separate these parallax terms and improve the calibration.
The PRM's assumption of perfect rigidity is likely the first place the 1-arcminute budget could fail; a natural test is to compare PRM predictions against the blind method over a range of elevations, which would reveal unmodeled flexure-induced pointing variations.
Because the error distribution from pointing biases is Cauchy rather than Gaussian, tail events are more probable than a normal model would predict; map makers should account for this heavy-tailed systematic when combining data from different epochs.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a solid, carefully written instrument paper. The genuinely new result is the end-to-end simulation showing that a 1 arcmin systematic pointing error in LSPE-Strip produces polarization-map errors whose central dispersion is two orders of magnitude below the 15 microK pixel noise, which motivates relaxing the requirement from 30 arcsec. The star tracker prototype test is also real work: roughly 3 arcsec random accuracy from actual sky observations, with a clever LED-pulse synchronization scheme. The PRM itself is a standard chain of rotations; the value is in the error propagation and the intercalibration comparison, not in new formalism.

The main soft spot is Section 3.4’s claim that the worst error is “less than 1.3% of pixel sensitivity.” That is not supported by the quoted statistic. The FWHM of a Cauchy fit is a measure of central dispersion, not a worst-case bound. A Cauchy distribution has no finite bound; taken literally, the fit predicts a non-negligible tail of pixels with errors well above the pixel noise. The paper should report maxima or percentiles, or use a map-level statistic that actually bounds the systematic impact. The central conclusion—that the typical error is tiny and the requirement can likely be relaxed—may well survive, but the upper-bound language is wrong and should be fixed.

Second, the abstract says systematic errors remain below 10 arcsec, but the night-to-night centroids in Figure 15 cluster with separations of 12–18 arcsec. The authors honestly attribute this to the prototype mount and expect the final version to be better, but the abstract overstates what the data show. That should be corrected.

The PRM’s perfect-stiffness assumption is a real limitation, but it is explicitly acknowledged in Section 4.4, so it is a known scope restriction rather than a hidden flaw. The quadrature combination of Cauchy-distributed errors is also technically not meaningful, since Cauchy has no variance; again, this likely does not change the qualitative conclusion, but the statistics should be cleaned up.

Who this is for: people building or operating ground-based CMB polarimeters, especially LSPE-Strip. I would cite it for the pointing-error propagation methodology and would bring it to a reading group focused on CMB instrumentation. It deserves a serious referee: the simulation path is reproducible, the caveats are mostly stated, and the flaws are specific and fixable rather than fatal.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents the Pointing Reconstruction Model (PRM) for the LSPE-Strip CMB telescope, a chain of rotations parameterized by eight configuration angles that converts the telescope control angles into sky pointing. The authors simulate 5-day surveys with biased configuration angles, compare the resulting Q/U maps with the ideal case, and characterize the polarization error distribution with a zero-mean Cauchy fit whose FWHM scales linearly with the injected bias. They conclude that the LSPE-Strip pointing requirement can be relaxed from 30 arcsec to 1 arcmin. The second half of the paper describes a prototype star tracker, its time-synchronization scheme, and a multi-night test campaign using Astrometry.net, reporting a random pointing accuracy of about 3 arcsec and an instability of about 10 arcsec. The paper then simulates PRM calibration from star-tracker observations and analyzes two intercalibration strategies (UAV/drone and planets), estimating intercalibration accuracies in the 0.25-1 arcmin range.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are supported, the paper is a useful contribution to the LSPE-Strip instrument characterization: it provides a modular PRM formalism, an open-source simulation chain (Stripeline.jl), a realistic star-tracker prototype with a carefully described LED-pulse synchronization method, and a straightforward end-to-end simulation of pointing-error propagation. The use of an external astrometric library (Astrometry.net) for the star-tracker accuracy assessment and the explicit caveat that the PRM assumes a perfectly stiff telescope are also strengths. However, the two headline quantitative claims — that the systematic pointing-induced map error is bounded by 1.3% of the pixel noise, and that the star-tracker systematic error is below 10 arcsec — are not supported by the statistics actually reported, and the Cauchy combination rule in Section 3.4 is mathematically incorrect as stated.

major comments (3)

[§3.4, Eq. (3.8) and following text] The claim that the worst error for the most significant bias is less than 1.3% of the pixel sensitivity is not supported by the quoted statistic. The zero-mean Cauchy fit in Eq. (3.8) has no finite upper bound, so its FWHM gamma_c is a central-dispersion scale, not a worst-case error. Taking the fit literally with gamma_c = 3.5e-2 microK and an Nside=512 map of about 3.1e6 pixels, the Cauchy tail above the 15 microK pixel noise is of order 8e-4, predicting thousands of pixels exceeding the pixel noise. Please report the maximum, the 99th/99.9th percentiles, or an explicit tail bound of the delta-P maps, and rephrase the abstract/conclusion if the intended statement is only about the central dispersion.
[§4.3, Table 4 and Fig. 15] The abstract states that systematic errors remain below 10 arcsec, but the displayed night-by-night centroids are separated by up to about 18 arcsec in cAz (about 12 arcsec after the cos(cAlt) scaling) and about 12 arcsec in cAlt, and the text itself notes that the centroids 'cluster into four groups'. The 10 arcsec value appears to refer to an upper limit on the intra-night drift, not to the systematic night-to-night centroid shifts. Please quantify the systematic uncertainty from the night-to-night dispersion and reconcile it with the abstract claim, or soften the claim accordingly.
[§3.4, text after Eq. (3.9)] The combination rule for independent biases is incorrect as stated. For independent zero-mean Cauchy variables, the scale parameter of the sum is the sum of the individual scales, because the Cauchy distribution is a stable law; it is not the sum in quadrature. Using the values in Table 1 with linear addition gives a combined FWHM of about 0.10 microK for a 1 arcmin bias on all angles, rather than the quoted 5.5e-2 microK. The conclusion would still be numerically small relative to 15 microK, but the stated combination rule and derived value should be corrected or justified.

minor comments (5)

[§4, opening paragraph] The text says 'The seven angles of the PRM' but the PRM defined in Eq. (3.2) has eight configuration angles; please clarify whether one angle is being excluded or correct the number.
[§4.1, Table 2] The entry 'FPS max 164%' should presumably read '164 fps'; the percent sign is a typographical error.
[§4.5] The term 'parallaxes' is used for the geometric offsets and lever arms between the UAV LED, the radio beacon, the dGPS antenna, and the telescope axis. This is not the standard astronomical meaning of parallax and is likely to confuse readers.
[References] References [14] and [20] refer to the same paper (Addamo et al. 2021) and should be consolidated rather than duplicated.
[Abstract and §4.3] There are minor wording inconsistencies: 'Start Tracker' appears for 'Star Tracker' in the abstract, and the abstract's 'systematic error is below 10 arcsec' is stronger than the body's 'upper limit instability of approximately 10 arcsec'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the pointing-error claim rests on external astrometry and an independent simulation chain, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a 1-arcmin bias in any PRM configuration angle induces an error in the polarization maps at most about 1.3% of the pixel noise, so the LSPE-Strip pointing requirement can be relaxed from 30 arcsec to 1 arcmin. This result is obtained by a self-contained simulation chain: the attitude operator of Eq. (3.2) is evaluated with biased and unbiased configuration angles, time-ordered data are generated with Stripeline.jl, sky signal is drawn from PySM 3 maps, and the delta-P distribution is computed by map-making. The FWHM gamma_c in Eq. (3.9) and Table 1 is an output statistic, not a parameter fitted to the target conclusion. The star tracker accuracy is measured against the external Tycho2 catalog through Astrometry.net, and the PRM calibration accuracy in Section 4.4 is then simulated from those measured errors; no fitted input is reused to define the headline result. The paper's self-citations, such as the LSPE performance forecast [20] and the on-sky calibration strategy [19], provide context or design inputs but are not the load-bearing justification for the pointing-error bound. The acknowledged stiffness/flexure assumption is a stated limitation explicitly deferred to future work, and the Cauchy-tail issue raised by a skeptical reader is a statistical-support concern about the stated upper bound, not a circularity of the derivation chain. Overall, the derivation is independent and externally benchmarked, so no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a standard rigid-body rotation model and on simulation assumptions; no new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameter is the scenario S/N value chosen for the planet intercalibration forecast.

free parameters (1)

Jupiter peak S/N for intercalibration scenarios = 10 and 50 (assumed)
The intercalibration accuracy via planets is computed for two assumed S/N values (Section 4.5). These are scenario parameters, not measured, and directly set the claimed 1 arcmin and 1/3 arcmin accuracy.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption The telescope structure is perfectly rigid and free of flexures
Stated at the start of Section 3: 'This section assumes that the telescope has a stable and well-defined geometry with ideal stiffness (i.e., flexures are not considered).' The PRM and the calibration transfer rely on this.
domain assumption The simulated sky, a power-law synchrotron map at 43 GHz with isotropic spectral index, is representative enough to estimate pointing-induced map errors
Section 3.4 uses PySM with only a single synchrotron component. The conclusion that a 1 arcmin bias is negligible assumes this captures the relevant Q/U gradients.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The LSPE-Strip Pointing Reconstruction and Star Tracker." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E6BBBYZI

@misc{pith2026250105604,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The LSPE-Strip Pointing Reconstruction and Star Tracker},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E6BBBYZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05604}
}

read the original abstract

This paper aims to describe the Pointing Reconstruction Model (PRM) and the prototype Star Tracker, which will be mounted on LSPE-Strip, a microwave Q- and W-band CMB telescope planned for installation at the "Observatorio del Teide" in Tenerife. The PRM integrates information on the instantaneous attitude provided by the telescope control system to determine the actual pointing direction and focal plane orientation of the telescope. It accounts for various non-idealities in the telescope setup, represented by eight configuration angles, which will be calibrated using the Star Tracker. Following the derivation of the PRM formalism and its implementation, we investigate the pointing errors caused by incorrect calibration of these configuration angles to validate the required 1 arcminute maximum systematic pointing error for the LSPE-Strip survey. This paper also describes the main structure and operations of the Star Tracker and presents the results of a campaign of actual sky observations conducted with a prototype. The results demonstrate a Star Tracker RMS accuracy of approximately 3 arcseconds, while systematic errors remain below 10 arcseconds. Based on these results, we analyzed the problem of reconstructing the PRM configuration angles. Two methods for intercalibrating the Star Tracker's pointing direction with respect to the focal plane's pointing direction were examined: (1) observations of planets and (2) observations of a drone carrying both an optical beacon and a radio beacon. In the first case, an intercalibration accuracy between 1/3 arcminute and 1 arcminute is achievable. In the second case, the expected intercalibration accuracy ranges from 0.25 arcminute to 1 arcminute.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

[1]

423 ofAstrophysics and Space Science Library, Jan., 2016

Understanding the Epoch of Cosmic Reionization, vol. 423 ofAstrophysics and Space Science Library, Jan., 2016. 10.1007/978-3-319-21957-8

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21957-8 2016
[2]

Hinshaw, D

G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu, D.N. Spergel, C.L. Bennett, J. Dunkley et al.,Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results, ApJS 208 (2013) 19 [1212.5226]

arXiv 2013
[3]

Planck Collaboration, R. Adam, N. Aghanim, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al.,Planck intermediate results. XLVII. Planck constraints on reionization history, A&A596(2016) A108 [1605.03507]

arXiv 2016
[4]

Seljak and M

U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga,Signature of Gravity Waves in the Polarization of the Microwave Background, Phys. Rev. Lett.78 (1997) 2054 [astro-ph/9609169]

arXiv 1997
[5]

Kamionkowski, A

M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and A. Stebbins,A Probe of Primordial Gravity Waves and Vorticity, Phys. Rev. Lett.78(1997) 2058 [astro-ph/9609132]

arXiv 1997
[6]

Hu and M

W. Hu and M. White,CMB anisotropies: Total angular momentum method, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 596 [astro-ph/9702170]

arXiv 1997
[7]

P. Ade, J. Aguirre, Z. Ahmed, S. Aiola, A. Ali, D. Alonso et al.,The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2019 (2019) 056 [1808.07445]

arXiv 2019
[8]

Cosmology Astropart

J.C.Hamilton,L.Mousset,E.S.Battistelli,P.deBernardis,M.A.Bigot-Sazy,P.Chanialetal., QUBIC I: Overview and science program, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2022 (2022) 034 [2011.02213]

arXiv 2022

Show all 49 references

[9]

Abazajian, G.E

K. Abazajian, G.E. Addison, P. Adshead, Z. Ahmed, D. Akerib, A. Ali et al.,CMB-S4: Forecasting Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves, ApJ926 (2022) 54 [2008.12619]

2022 arXiv
[10]

Allys, K

LiteBIRD Collaboration, E. Allys, K. Arnold, J. Aumont, R. Aurlien, S. Azzoni et al.,Probing cosmic inflation with the LiteBIRD cosmic microwave background polarization survey,Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2023 (2023) 042F01 [2202.02773]

2023 arXiv
[11]

P.A.R. Ade, Z. Ahmed, M. Amiri, D. Barkats, R.B. Thakur, C.A. Bischoff et al.,Improved Constraints on Primordial Gravitational Waves using Planck, WMAP, and BICEP/Keck Observations through the 2018 Observing Season, Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) 151301 [2110.00483]

2021
[12]

Akrami, K.J

Planck Collaboration, Y. Akrami, K.J. Andersen, M. Ashdown, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini et al., Planck intermediate results. LVII. Joint Planck LFI and HFI data processing, A&A643 (2020) A42 [2007.04997]

2020 arXiv
[13]

Tristram, A.J

M. Tristram, A.J. Banday, K.M. Górski, R. Keskitalo, C.R. Lawrence, K.J. Andersen et al.,Improved limits on the tensor-to-scalar ratio using BICEP and Planck data, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 083524 [2112.07961]. 29https://matplotlib.org 30https://numpy.org 31https://pandas.pydata....

2022 arXiv
[15]

Rubiño-Martín, F

J.A. Rubiño-Martín, F. Guidi, R.T. Génova-Santos, S.E. Harper, D. Herranz, R.J. Hoyland et al., QUĲOTEscientificresults-IV.Anorthernskysurveyinintensityandpolarizationat10-20GHzwith the multifrequency instrument, MNRAS519 (2023) 3383 [2301.05113]

2023 arXiv
[16]

Realini, C

S. Realini, C. Franceschet, F. Villa, M. Sandri, G. Addamo, P. Alonso-Arias et al.,The LSPE-Strip beams,Journal of Instrumentation17(2022) P01028 [2109.01440]

2022 arXiv
[17]

Franceschet, F

C. Franceschet, F. Del Torto, F. Villa, S. Realini, R. Bongiolatti, O.A. Peverini et al.,The LSPE-Strip feed horn array, Journal of Instrumentation17(2022) P01029 [2107.13775]

2022 arXiv
[18]

Peverini, M

O.A. Peverini, M. Lumia, Z. Farooqui, G. Addamo, G. Virone, F. Paonessa et al.,Q-band polarizers for the LSPE-Strip correlation radiometric instrument,Journal of Instrumentation17 (2022) P06042

2022
[19]

Génova-Santos, M

R.T. Génova-Santos, M. Bersanelli, C. Franceschet, M. Gervasi, C. López-Caraballo, L. Mandelli et al.,LSPE-STRIP on-sky calibration strategy using bright celestial sources,arXiv e-prints(2024) arXiv:2401.03802 [2401.03802]

2024 arXiv
[20]

Cosmology Astropart

G.Addamo, P.A.R.Ade, C.Baccigalupi, A.M.Baldini, P.M.Battaglia, E.S.Battistellietal., Thelarge scale polarization explorer (LSPE) for CMB measurements: performance forecast, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2021 (2021) 008 [2008.11049]

2021 arXiv
[21]

Zonca, B

A. Zonca, B. Thorne, N. Krachmalnicoff and J. Borrill,The python sky model 3 software, Journal of Open Source Software6 (2021) 3783

2021
[22]

Tomasi and Z

M. Tomasi and Z. Li,Healpix.jl: Julia-only port of the HEALPix library, Sept., 2021

2021
[23]

Górski, E

K.M. Górski, E. Hivon, A.J. Banday, B.D. Wand elt, F.K. Hansen, M. Reinecke et al.,HEALPix: A Framework for High-Resolution Discretization and Fast Analysis of Data Distributed on the Sphere, ApJ 622(2005) 759 [astro-ph/0409513]

2005 arXiv
[24]

M.Maris,E.Romelli,M.Tomasi,A.Gregorio,M.Sandri,S.Galeottaetal., Revisedplanetbrightness temperatures using the Planck/LFI 2018 data release, A&A647 (2021) A104 [2012.04504]

2021 arXiv
[25]

Weiland, N

J.L. Weiland, N. Odegard, R.S. Hill, E. Wollack, G. Hinshaw, M.R. Greason et al.,Seven-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Planets and Celestial Calibration Sources, ApJS192 (2011) 19 [1001.4731]

2011 arXiv
[26]

Liebe,Pattern recognition of star constellations for spacecraft applications,IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine8 (1993) 31

C. Liebe,Pattern recognition of star constellations for spacecraft applications,IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine8 (1993) 31

1993
[27]

Liebe,Accuracy performance of star trackers - a tutorial,IEEE Transactions on Aerospace Electronic Systems38 (2002) 587

C.C. Liebe,Accuracy performance of star trackers - a tutorial,IEEE Transactions on Aerospace Electronic Systems38 (2002) 587

2002
[28]

Howell,Handbook of CCD Astronomy, vol

S.B. Howell,Handbook of CCD Astronomy, vol. 5 ofCambridge Observing Handbooks for Research Astronomers, Cambridge University Press, 2 ed. (2006), 10.1017/CBO9780511807909

2006 doi
[29]

Lang, D.W

D. Lang, D.W. Hogg, K. Mierle, M. Blanton and S. Roweis,Astrometry.net: Blind Astrometric Calibration of Arbitrary Astronomical Images, AJ139 (2010) 1782 [0910.2233]

2010 arXiv
[30]

T.Schwarz, Prototypingofastartrackerforpico-satellites , Master’sthesis, MassachusettsInstituteof Technology, LuleåUniversity of Technology Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering, Sweden, 2015

2015
[31]

Hashemi, K.M

M. Hashemi, K.M. Mashhadi and M. Fiuzy,Modification and hardware implementation of star tracker algorithms,SN Applied Sciences1 (2019) . – 35 –

2019
[32]

Izadmehr and M.K

M. Izadmehr and M.K. Ghomi,Design and construction of a portable high resolution positioner using star patterns, Ap&SS364 (2019) 75

2019
[33]

Margolis,Arduino Cookbook, O’Reily (Mar., 2011)

M. Margolis,Arduino Cookbook, O’Reily (Mar., 2011)

2011
[34]

Williams,Make: AVR Programming, Maker Media Inc

E. Williams,Make: AVR Programming, Maker Media Inc. (Feb., 2014)

2014
[35]

Abrami and B

A. Abrami and B. Cester,Osservazioni fotometriche della Nova ricorrente RS Ophiuchi, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana30(1959) 183

1959
[36]

Paonessa, L

F. Paonessa, L. Ciorba, G. Virone, P. Bolli, A. Magro, A. McPhail et al.,SKA-Low Prototypes Deployed in Australia: Synoptic of the UAV-Based Experimental Results, URSI Radio Science Letters 2 (2020) 1

2020
[37]

Ciorba, G

L. Ciorba, G. Virone, F. Paonessa, M. Righero, E. De Lera Acedo and S. Matteoli,Large Horizontal Near-Field Scanner Based on a Non-Tethered Unmanned Aerial Vehicle,IEEE Open Journal of Antennas and Propagation3 (2022) 568

2022
[38]

Virone, F

G. Virone, F. Paonessa, L. Ciorba, S. Matteoli, P. Bolli, S. Wĳnholds et al.,Measurement of the LOFAR-HBA beam patterns using an unmanned aerial vehicle in the near field, J. Astron. Telesc. Instrum. Syst.8 (2023) 011005

2023
[39]

Di Ninni, P

P. Di Ninni, P. Bolli, F. Paonessa, G. Pupillo, G. Virone and S.J. Wĳnholds,Electromagnetic Analysis and Experimental Validation of the LOFAR Radiation Patterns,International Journal of Antennas and Propagation(2019)

2019
[40]

Paonessa, G

F. Paonessa, G. Virone, L. Ciorba, G. Addamo, M. Lumia and G. Dassano,Design and Verification of a Q-Band Test Source for UAV-Based Radiation Pattern Measurements, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement69(2020) 9366

2020
[41]

Maris, S

M. Maris, S. Sartor, F. Paonessa, O. Peverini, and E. Y.,Lspe-strip: Str - uav geometric intercalibration demonstration test, Tech. Rep. LSPE-STRIP-RP-019, Issue/Rev. 1.0, The STRIP Collaboration (December, 2018)

2018
[42]

Robitaille, E.J

Astropy Collaboration, T.P. Robitaille, E.J. Tollerud, P. Greenfield, M. Droettboom, E. Bray et al., Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy, A&A558 (2013) A33 [1307.6212]

2013 arXiv
[43]

Price-Whelan, B.M

A.M. Price-Whelan, B.M. Sipőcz, H.M. Günther, P.L. Lim, S.M. Crawford, S. Conseil et al.,The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package, AJ156 (2018) 123

2018
[44]

Bowman,Asymptote: Interactive TEX-aware 3D vector graphics, TUGBOAT: The Communications of the TEX Users Group31:2(2010) 203

J.C. Bowman,Asymptote: Interactive TEX-aware 3D vector graphics, TUGBOAT: The Communications of the TEX Users Group31:2(2010) 203

2010
[45]

Foreman-Mackey, D.W

D. Foreman-Mackey, D.W. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman,emcee: The MCMC Hammer, PASP125 (2013) 306 [1202.3665]

2013 arXiv
[46]

Zonca, L

A. Zonca, L. Singer, D. Lenz, M. Reinecke, C. Rosset, E. Hivon et al.,healpy: equal area pixelization and spherical harmonics transforms for data on the sphere in Python, The Journal of Open Source Software4 (2019) 1298

2019
[47]

Pérez and B.E

F. Pérez and B.E. Granger,IPython: a system for interactive scientific computing,Computing in Science and Engineering9 (2007) 21

2007
[48]

Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment,Computing in Science and Engineering9(2007) 90

J.D. Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment,Computing in Science and Engineering9(2007) 90

2007
[49]

Virtanen, R

P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T.E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau et al.,SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python,Nature Methods(2020) . – 36 –

2020
[50]

van der Walt and J

W.McKinney, Data structuresfor statisticalcomputing inpython, inProceedingsof the 9thPython in Science Conference, S. van der Walt and J. Millman, eds., pp. 51 – 56, 2010. – 37 –

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

423 ofAstrophysics and Space Science Library, Jan., 2016

Understanding the Epoch of Cosmic Reionization, vol. 423 ofAstrophysics and Space Science Library, Jan., 2016. 10.1007/978-3-319-21957-8

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21957-8 2016

[2] [2]

Hinshaw, D

G. Hinshaw, D. Larson, E. Komatsu, D.N. Spergel, C.L. Bennett, J. Dunkley et al.,Nine-year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results, ApJS 208 (2013) 19 [1212.5226]

arXiv 2013

[3] [3]

Planck Collaboration, R. Adam, N. Aghanim, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al.,Planck intermediate results. XLVII. Planck constraints on reionization history, A&A596(2016) A108 [1605.03507]

arXiv 2016

[4] [4]

Seljak and M

U. Seljak and M. Zaldarriaga,Signature of Gravity Waves in the Polarization of the Microwave Background, Phys. Rev. Lett.78 (1997) 2054 [astro-ph/9609169]

arXiv 1997

[5] [5]

Kamionkowski, A

M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky and A. Stebbins,A Probe of Primordial Gravity Waves and Vorticity, Phys. Rev. Lett.78(1997) 2058 [astro-ph/9609132]

arXiv 1997

[6] [6]

Hu and M

W. Hu and M. White,CMB anisotropies: Total angular momentum method, Phys. Rev. D56 (1997) 596 [astro-ph/9702170]

arXiv 1997

[7] [7]

P. Ade, J. Aguirre, Z. Ahmed, S. Aiola, A. Ali, D. Alonso et al.,The Simons Observatory: science goals and forecasts, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2019 (2019) 056 [1808.07445]

arXiv 2019

[8] [8]

Cosmology Astropart

J.C.Hamilton,L.Mousset,E.S.Battistelli,P.deBernardis,M.A.Bigot-Sazy,P.Chanialetal., QUBIC I: Overview and science program, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.2022 (2022) 034 [2011.02213]

arXiv 2022