Date

Slides & Recording

Slides: Please contact the TSO CT Leads (Nestor Espinoza, Munazza Alam, Aarynn Carter) for a link to the slides.

Meeting slides:  

Attendees

Agenda

  • News & Announcements

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes

10min

News & AnnouncementsAll


  • Hannah Diamond-Lowediscussion going on in MIRI to shifting LRS subarray to avoid software corrections on EMI.

    • There's questions about whether this is a huge factor or not. Hannah Diamond-Lowe's opinion is that moving the subarray is great so long as it doesn't introduce more problems in other time-varying way.

    • Moving the subarray could also help on getting faster readout time — brighter targets!

      • Michael Regan clarifies this would imply dropping wavelengths > 12 um.
    • Hannah Diamond-Lowe  will do a Jira ticket in terms of

      • Wishlists
      • What pros and cons this has.
      • Timescale.

    • Michael Regan also points out at the wavelength correction.
       
      • Bottom of the array (> 14 um) are actually not even wavelength calibrated.

    • Nestor Espinoza suggests to bring a presentation to the TSO CT.
    • Taylor Bell likes the idea of going brighter
      • Initial thought/pause on that would be what the impact of this would be in settling times for this.
      • His opinion is that chopping signal above > 12 um is fine — it's low SNR anyways. 
      • He also notes whether this change could help on the shadowing region > 10.6 um.


10 minPrevious & upcoming TSO observationsEspinoza
  • TSO Monitor is back online!
  • See meeting notes for updates.
30 min NIRCam/DHS status and updatesDyrek

Achrene presents updates on NIRCam DHS wavelength and flux calibration

  • She introduces the fact that to calibrate everything you also need to calibrate the filters, and these define in turn 2 combinations of DHS/long wavelength grism (because there are two field points to make everything match).

  • For exoplanet science, likely the most interesting ones are the F150W2 (SW) + F322W2 (LW) — this one produces the widest wavelength range combo.

  • She extracted flux from calibration data of DHS. However, she notes:

    • Shape is not exactly the same for all substripes.

    • Hard to make the calibration happen due to the lack of lines.
      • Should they change the calibrator?

    • Also, absolute flux is not matching the model for the different substripes.

  • Line availability depends on the filter combination with DHS (ie, defined by the wavelength calibration).

Some questions:

  • Michael Regan asks whether there are upcoming observations for Multistripe observations? 
    • John will update on this.

  • Everett Schlawin 
  • Nestor Espinoza notes an M-dwarf could be the way to calibrate:
    • Loic Albert suggests even combining wavelength calibration from, e.g., NIRSpec to cross-calibrate NIRCam targets.
  • Nestor Espinoza suggests to look back at the detector-effect calibrated DHS spectra:
    • Relative shapes of spectra should not depend on the detector properties, so if this is related to the optics, you would see problems here too.
    • Probably useful to study this in detail before Multistripe because it can give you a heads-up on what to expect.
    • Michael Regannotes that the optics might be indeed slightly different for each DHS sub-aperture.
    • Nestor Espinozasuggests to indeed take a look at this, so we can separate what's unique to the multistripe mode.


John Stansberry sent some questions to the TSO CT (via e-mail):

  • John: We need to figure out where to put reference rows – keep them interleaved between the substripe rows, or pull them out and put them along 1 edge. Mostly for level-1b (uncal.fits) since the reference pixels are (I think) set to NaN or removed for subsequent products.

  • Loic Albertasks how many rows will be read for ref pixels.
  • Achrene Dyrek notes this will impact on the timing  of the substripes:

    • You will have to be careful to map timestamps correctly.
      • Nice thing of interleaving is that it will be easy to re-order things.
    • Snowballs concerns.
  • John: We should divide this work into two categories: the minimum viable product in 11.3 and put the rest in 12.0. John will talk with Nestor and exoplanet group to see what they think.
    • Had no time to discuss this.
5 minClosing remarks

Action items

  • No labels