On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:10:11 -0000
"Giaretta, DL (David)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Next question: can distributed ORAC-DR be demonstratable for NAM? Is it a
> realistic aim? From what you say, given that it would be difficult to have
> both FROG and ORAC-DR ready, then it should be a doddle to get just ORAC-DR
> ready! Ready for a demonstration - again, it may not be fully tested and
> perfect. Is this correct?
Other than the things Al is doing with ORAC-DR, there hasn't been that much in
the way of radical changes or additions to ORAC-DR since the last Starlink CD
release. I've added spectropolarimetry, Stuart Ryder at AAO has added
spectroscopy support for IRIS2, and there have been a few little tweaks along
the way. As it is now ORAC-DR works just fine and gets tested every night,
weather permitting. The CATSELECT stuff Al's working on only touches the
polarimetry DR, but polarimetry (imaging, at least) would probably be good for a
demo because it's a little more flashy, what with the vectors and all. Since
CATSELECT isn't going anywhere it's trivial to switch ORAC-DR to use the regular
one rather than the SOAP/Java one.
I don't know how dry they'd be, but would there be interest in bugging Andy
Adamson to allow you guys to put some DR-related quotes from observers on the
poster? Recently we got one that read:
"I really like this....I'm starting to wonder how I ever got along without it!
Seriously though, it is a BIG help, especially when observing at L band when I
really don't know how bright my targets are going to be. It completely
eliminates the guess work of "did I go deep enough..." or "did I spend too
long there...". I have a run coming up with Michelle, and without the DR
pipeline I'd more or less just be shooting in the dark. I don't know how other
telescope get along without something like this!"
Cheers,
Brad.
|