From: "Donor, John" Subject: Re: [sloan-25mlog 6942] 2.5m obslog 20231203 (SJD 60282) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2023 21:57:14 +0000 --_000_PH7PR16MB5216A91613DC8A6A36BCB7CDFE85APH7PR16MB5216namp_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ah so not a new issue, good to know. Interesting that 102153 has had one de= sign completed? I'll add this to my agenda for tomorrow with the LCO field we marked bad. ________________________________ From: Daniel Oravetz Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 3:44 PM To: Donor, John Cc: "Jos=C3=A9 S=C3=A1nchez-Gallego" ; Kaike ; obs-report-25m@apo.nmsu.edu ; Daniel O= ravetz Subject: Re: [sloan-25mlog 6942] 2.5m obslog 20231203 (SJD 60282) [EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING] DO NOT CLICK LINKS or open attachments unless you = recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 102154 was one of at least four fields we had trouble with last winter in terms of cherno solving and/or converging to reasonable guide rms. The other three fields were 102155, 102163, and 102153: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://kronos.apo.nmsu.edu/fieldQuery.html?fie= ldids=3D102154*2C*102155*2C*102163*2C*102153&cadence=3D&ra0Select=3D0&ra1Se= lect=3D300&specialStatus=3Dnone__;JSslKyUr!!K6Z8K8YTIA!HWocGp5zsEmDrpYfpSBs= Bg0SOlC0fk5zoEutGNLU_iQLTL9-ZnNMzzC6HlXotkEEeCR3mVPcsBWbU5Bo8Q4-$ All four fields are near the north celestial pole. For related info from last year's attempts at these fields, see 2.5m night logs from Jan. 6/7 and Feb. 5. Dan > This is a bright 2x1 field so just generally part of the all sky survey. > Not going to hurt my feelings too much to disable it but we do like to tr= y > at least twice before disabling a field. It shouldn't be a weather issue = I > guess but still might be worth a try? > > On Dec 5, 2023 1:36 PM, Jos=C3=A9 S=C3=A1nchez-Gallego = wrote: > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING] DO NOT CLICK LINKS or open attachments unless yo= u > recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > Hi Kaike, > > I'll try to look into this one, but I think if it has failed twice it may > be worth marking it as do not observe. I don't think the alt/az in itself > should have any impact on whether a field solves or not, but obviously if > the altitude is very low and the field on itself has few stars, the > additional airmass may complicate things. > > Thanks, > > Jos=C3=A9 > > > On 4 Dec 2023 at 08:59:33, Kaike > > wrote: > Thanks, Dan, for the notes. > > > (2) APOGEE shutter didn't open for the first sequence, but I think this > was related to pausing the 'hal expose' macro - it was paused very early > (before BOSS or APOGEE actually started), but when it was resumed > apparently the APOGEE shutter wasn't opened. If it becomes evident that > there's a bug in the pre-exposure checks of the 'hal expose' macro when > it's paused/resumed (which isn't common), then we can file a ticket, but > for now I'm treating this as a one-off. > > Did you pause the =E2EURoeHal expose=E2EUR=9D or the software did itself? > > > (3) The overhead on 102139-457794-11826 is large because > 102155-457806-11825 (the field/design just before it) did not result in > cherno solutions, so I ultimately skipped that one. There were plenty of > sources, but no cherno solutions. Note that we had problems with > 102155-121341 last January/February where cherno also did not solve. > Telescope AZ=3D180 deg, ALT =3D 33 deg (same area we had problems with ch= erno > solutions last winter on this field). > > > Jose and John: Can you please investigate why cherno is unable to resolv= e > the field? Should we pull out the field from being scheduled until the > issue is resolved? > > Thanks, > > -Kaike > > > > --_000_PH7PR16MB5216A91613DC8A6A36BCB7CDFE85APH7PR16MB5216namp_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable P {margin-top:0;margin-bo= ttom:0;} Ah so not a new issue, good to know. Interesting that 102153 has had one de= sign completed? I'll add this to my agenda for tomorrow with the LCO field we marked bad.&n= bsp; From: Daniel Oravetz Sent: Tuesday, December 5, 2023 3:44 PM To: Donor, John Cc: "Jos=C3=A9 S=C3=A1nchez-Gallego" ; obs-report-25m@apo.nmsu.edu ; Daniel Oravetz Subject: Re: [sloan-25mlog 6942] 2.5m obslog 20231203 (SJD 60282) [EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING] DO NOT CLICK LINKS or ope= n attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.= 102154 was one of at least four fields we had trouble with last winter in terms of cherno solving and/or converging to reasonable guide rms. The other three fields were 102155, 102163, and 102153: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://kronos.apo.nmsu.edu/= fieldQuery.html?fieldids=3D102154*2C*102155*2C*102163*2C*102153&cadence= =3D&ra0Select=3D0&ra1Select=3D300&specialStatus=3Dnone__;JSslKy= Ur!!K6Z8K8YTIA!HWocGp5zsEmDrpYfpSBsBg0SOlC0fk5zoEutGNLU_iQLTL9-ZnNMzzC6HlXo= tkEEeCR3mVPcsBWbU5Bo8Q4-$ All four fields are near the north celestial pole. For related info from last year's attempts at these fields, see 2.5m night logs from Jan. 6/7 and Feb. 5. Dan > This is a bright 2x1 field so just generally part of the all sky surve= y. > Not going to hurt my feelings too much to disable it but we do like to= try > at least twice before disabling a field. It shouldn't be a weather iss= ue I > guess but still might be worth a try? > > On Dec 5, 2023 1:36 PM, Jos=C3=A9 S=C3=A1nchez-Gallego wrote: > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL WARNING] DO NOT CLICK LINKS or open attachments unless= you > recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > Hi Kaike, > > I'll try to look into this one, but I think if it has failed twice it = may > be worth marking it as do not observe. I don't think the alt/az in its= elf > should have any impact on whether a field solves or not, but obviously= if > the altitude is very low and the field on itself has few stars, the > additional airmass may complicate things. > > Thanks, > > Jos=C3=A9 > > > On 4 Dec 2023 at 08:59:33, Kaike > > wrote: > Thanks, Dan, for the notes. > > > (2) APOGEE shutter didn't open for the first sequence, but I think thi= s > was related to pausing the 'hal expose' macro - it was paused very ear= ly > (before BOSS or APOGEE actually started), but when it was resumed > apparently the APOGEE shutter wasn't opened. If it becomes evident tha= t > there's a bug in the pre-exposure checks of the 'hal expose' macro whe= n > it's paused/resumed (which isn't common), then we can file a ticket, b= ut > for now I'm treating this as a one-off. > > Did you pause the =E2EURoeHal expose=E2EUR or the software did i= tself? > > > (3) The overhead on 102139-457794-11826 is large because > 102155-457806-11825 (the field/design just before it) did not result i= n > cherno solutions, so I ultimately skipped that one. There were plenty = of > sources, but no cherno solutions. Note that we had problems with > 102155-121341 last January/February where cherno also did not solve. > Telescope AZ=3D180 deg, ALT =3D 33 deg (same area we had problems with= cherno > solutions last winter on this field). > > > Jose and John: Can you please investigate why cherno is unable t= o resolve > the field? Should we pull out the field from being scheduled until the= > issue is resolved? > > Thanks, > > -Kaike > > > > --_000_PH7PR16MB5216A91613DC8A6A36BCB7CDFE85APH7PR16MB5216namp_--