You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

Version 1 Next »

Date

Attendees

Meeting agenda:

  1. News & announcements.
  2. Updates on ground-testing Dark frame data & 1/f noise.
  3. Activities on each instrument branch (all).
  4. Closing remark

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes

1. News & announcements

Everyone
20min

2. Updates on ground-testing Dark frame data & 1/f noise



Nestor Espinoza Unknown User (aroy)

NIRISS. 



Tony Keyes Unknown User (birkmann) Diane Karakla

NIRSpec. Unknown User (birkmann) pointed Diane Karakla and Tony Keyes to how to get the data. Diane Karakla summarized her search for the data on the OTIS campaign/data. This morning she got some data from the archive — she's getting more data than she was requesting to the database; she's trying to make sense of this data. Unknown User (birkmann) mentions the fact that for the smallest subarrays, the correlation might be between columns, and in this case perhaps the 1/f noise reduction might be better on a moving-average basis rather than on a column-by-column. This is something to study as well. 

Nikolay Nikolov asked Unknown User (birkmann) if row-by-row substraction (due to odd-even effect) is done before the column-by-column substraction — he is seeing in NIRCam this helps.



Sarah Kendrew

MIRI. Sarah Kendrew reached out to Mike Reagan about this — and it appears 1/f is a smaller concern over there than for the close NIR. Unknown User (birkmann) suggests this is because of the ASIC feature — given MIRI does not use this, then 1/f noise is not such a big issue. 

Nikolay Nikolov asked if MIRI is going to produce some TSO observations. Sarah Kendrew mentions that right now it is not straightforward to include this to MIRISim — however, there is a student in France (exonoodle) that kind of does what we need. Sarah Kendrew will take a look at this in order to understand how this does work in practice. Nikolay Nikolov asks if there was a TSO-like ground-testing campaign for MIRI; something like the NIRSpec one — Sarah Kendrew mentions there was indeed a JPL TSO-like test; this was with an LED, whose voltage was modulated slightly. Those data are not pipeline compatible though — so it does require some "manual" handling/processing. Stability of the source was not really good as well. This is an "imaging" test (i.e., no spectra), so might be tougher to analyze than the NIRSpec. She will dig some of those reports for everyone. 

Regarding exonoodle, 



Nikolay Nikolov Brian Brooks

NIRCam. Currently compiling the data they have on NIRCam. One detail is that analyses have been done on full frame only.

30min3. Activities on each instrument branch (all) 


Nestor Espinoza Unknown User (aroy)

NIRISS activities. Discussion on uncertainties on the ephemerides (especially for eclipses, where eccentricity and argument of periastron might be a problem).



Tony Keyes Unknown User (birkmann) Diane Karakla

NIRSpec activities. There are some concerns about the total duration of the visit. Should be a discussion point on the next meeting.


Sarah Kendrew

MIRI activities. There is a good discussion on very long exposures. There seems to be some limitations we might need to discuss/understand. Jira ticket: . Should be a discussion point on the next meeting.



Nikolay Nikolov Brian Brooks

NIRCam activities. Nikolay Nikolov has been doing some tests on limits on the wavelength limits for the 1D extraction for the pipeline. However, when you have a multi-segment TSO — the time-series is fine in terms of time-stamps. However, when you run it through the pipeline, and you check the time-stamps, the second segment does not continue from the first segment. This might be a TSO3 issue, but not sure yet; doing some checks right now. These segments are "artificial" from the data-creation side, which are made so you don't work with very large data volumes.


5min4. Closing remarks of the meeting







  • No labels