While looking at the WiP for too small boxes #258 , it occurs to me that an equivalent justification to try a candidate in the "next" stage would be if you have insufficient guide stars by the temperature-mag-guide-count. You could have a brighter star than your worst already-selected candidate in the "next" stage.
So, if guide_count is right up there in priorities, it would make sense to me to do that check and perhaps swap in a brighter star from a later stage if needed.
You'd have a significantly shorter possible candidate list (first 5 stars + any star in a later stage brighter than the dimmest star in that set with a cap).
Now that we have the updated guide_count, let me see how many observations would hit this and if they'd see improvement (also probably need to nail down the bright star changes to stages, as that would feed back into this).
While looking at the WiP for too small boxes #258 , it occurs to me that an equivalent justification to try a candidate in the "next" stage would be if you have insufficient guide stars by the temperature-mag-guide-count. You could have a brighter star than your worst already-selected candidate in the "next" stage.
So, if guide_count is right up there in priorities, it would make sense to me to do that check and perhaps swap in a brighter star from a later stage if needed.
You'd have a significantly shorter possible candidate list (first 5 stars + any star in a later stage brighter than the dimmest star in that set with a cap).
Now that we have the updated guide_count, let me see how many observations would hit this and if they'd see improvement (also probably need to nail down the bright star changes to stages, as that would feed back into this).