Flight Setting Preview (in progress)

1776 med GV Tau BBP5500

leak check in hi-med, 5-pix decker

order +7 room.lab.00162.fits

order +8 room.lab.00163.fits LEAK (from 22um?)

medium mode

order 7 

1887cm-1

The filter options for 1887cm-1 included BP4990 (decker), BBP5030 (decker). The snapshots below are raw frames converted to DN/s and shown with same stretch. BBP5030 has overwhelming long wavelength leaks (10 um?).

11th order, alpha=62.08 deg, BP4990/14pix decker

11 order, alpha=62.08, BBP5030/5-pix decker

order 10, alpha=53.05, BBP5030/5-pix decker

CD19 Begins

After a couple of false starts relating to issues with the turbo pump, we started LN at 9am. Beginning pressure on the pump was 4e-5T, and the cube indicated 40mT inside the dewar, very close to
what it reads bottomed out.  Once LN started, turbo reading dropped to low 1e-7s.

As it turns out, we didn't ever have a problem with the EXES vacuum valve, though we replaced the vacuum bellows thinking there was a problem with it. Turns out the lab turbo station has something very subtle and odd going on with it.  Do not use it until we get it serviced.  For now we're using the Detector Lab's turbo on loan.

- LN started in center can at 9:35am, pressure @ turbo reads 3e-8T.

- Both tanks full @ 10:20am, turbo @1.6e-8T.

- Topped cryos, valved off dewar from pump @noon.  Base of oBox indicate 115K, detector @209K.

- Had run out by 4pm....detector and both tank sensors around 150K, so that's probably where the echelon is....

- Both tanks topped at 5:20 pm 79K, 99K, 145K  (c4, c2, detector)

- Curtis filled both tanks at 8:40pm

- Ran out overnight.  @8:30am, all temps are around 95K.  Ran LN into center can full-bore for 5 minutes to get an arbitrary partial fill...didn't want to fill entirely in car we get too much to pump out.  Temps 78K, 85K, 95K.

Filters for CD19

SDF Configuration for CD 19

Filter Wheel:
1) 18a + ZnSe (no change)

2) BBP5500 + CaF2 (no change)
3) Open (no change)
4) Reading 6.2 + MgF2 (no change)
5) N04679 + CaF2 (no change)
6) N07466 + CaF2 (no change)
7) BP6600 + CaF2    -- MgF2 blocker with BP6000

8) Soifer (no change)

9) N07053 + CaF2  -- (OCLI Q + BaF2 removed and stored) (Swapped with 4990 in decker slot 3 on 1/21/2015)

10) BP6000+ MgF2  -- (OCLI O removed and stored+ CaF2 paired with #7)

11) N07904 + CaF2 (no change)

12) BP14100 (no change)

Decker Wheel:

1) BBP8000 + BaF2 (no change)

2) BBP4700 + MgF2 (no change) (note: swapped this blocker with the mystery blocker from the 5030 on 1/21/15)

3) BP4990 + MgF2 -- N07053+CaF2 moved to FW (Swapped with 7053 in filter slot 9 on 1/21/2015)

4) BBP5030 + blocker(?) (broken blocker 1/21/15, assembled without blocker)

High-low, 5.5 um at negative and positive angles

The purpose of these tests was to find which echelle orders work best for observing 5.5 um 

(1818cm-1) with largest feasible wavelength coverage. 

order angle  90%flux    largest dash

-4 -21.082 deg   7.2 adu/sec   5pix, not 7 pix

-3 -16.020 deg   22.3adu/sec 5pix blurs on blue side // doesn't work

-2 -11.073 deg  did not check

-1 -6.198 deg    did not check

 1 3.483 deg     did not check

 2 8.358 deg     67.3adu/sec 5pix blurs everywhere

 3 13.305 deg   52.0adu/sec 5pix blurs everywhere

 4 18.367 deg   31.8adu/sec 5pix

 5 23.596 deg   11.8adu/sec 7pix

the "90% flux" 

all images are taken with same OTPAT, with Fowler 7 signal, and divided by exposure time.

to get 90%, i sort the entire array, and take the mean around 2000 pixels nearest to the 0.90*(1024^2) of the flux order pixels. This is responsive to the continuum levels in the orders. 

Snapshots of the settings:

1818cm-1, -4th order, 5-pix decker. Stretch: 0-50.

1818cm-1, -3rd, 5-pix decker, Stretch: 0-50.

1818cm-1, +2nd order, 5-pix decker. Stretch: 0:150

1818cm-1, +3rd order, 5-pix decker. Stretch: 0:150

1818cm-1, 4th order, 5-pix decker, Stretch: 0:100

1818cm-1, 5th order, 7-pix decker, Stretch: 0-100

Watching EXES Warm up

CD018 finished over the weekend. Last LN2 fill was Friday, 11/29. Last LHe fill was Saturday, 11/30. From Sunday to Tuesday we've been on turbo pump.

Now we're running dry N2 into the LHe fill tube, recording the temperature rise of the C4 (LHe plate) sensor.  

Events to look out for --

63K triple pt of N2

77K boiling pt of N2. Outgassing from getters?

log of temperatures during this warm up is kept here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5efk83sbckvpb7r/exes_warmup_cd018.dat?dl=0

At no point did the cube sensor pressure go above -0.04torr/ 0.00torr (flickered in between).

Plot of data so far looks like :

We think the N2 that we flowed into the neck froze in the He dewar. The first plateau from 70-240 minutes is probably due to the heat going into melting and boiling the frozen N2.
The second plateau after 300 minutes is probably due to running out of pressure from the LN2 storage dewar.


4 days sparse logging of temperatures. The Dropbox log file has notes on changes made to our procedure (heating the airflow with hot water bath/ electric heated, etc).

Medium Resolution with pinholes in CD18

Here the analysis of medium-resolution spectra taken with the pinholes for the purpose of finding best focus and best detector position.
Data is from CD18 with files from gascell.lab.00385.fits - gascell.lab.397.fits

I used C2H2 with the gas cell at the 4th order Q-branch (wn0=731cm-1). I had the detector subarray mode to record only the center 512 rows. The OTPAT was N6D0.

First I took the C2H2 spectra, moving the echelle mirror driver in +1 turn increments from 7-12.
Then I rinsed the cell and took the same sequence of images from 12-7T.

To remove the beam offset between c2h2 and rinse, I used the interpolate function in IDL. This seemed to work very well for removing the continuum between the emission lines. A shift precision of 0.5 pixels was all that was needed.

I /twod clickfit a set of 16 of the best separated emission lines. Below are plotted the fwhm1, fwhm2 and fwhm1/fwhm2.

Atmospheric lines for wavelength calibration at longer wavelengths.

Graham Harper asked me about what depth atmospheric line we need for wavelength calibration.  His project at 26.00 microns will have a few very strong lines and a 4-5% line.

I looked at this by fitting Gaussian absorption lines using CLICKFIT.PRO to black-sky from the 17 micron H2 setting on Jupiter during flight 1.  I should probably do other wavelengths and actually use the pipeline, but this was how I started.

The black-sky looks like this:

I used CLICKFIT to test how well we can fit a Gaussian to various lines.  The lines that I used (and the derived centroids) can be seen in this version with crosses on the lines.

The model atmosphere for this region (not ATRAN, but my AT version) is below.  The white is for 10 microns PWV and the red is for 40 microns PWV.  The green line is at 95% transmission.  The CO2 band near the bottom of the images above is near the right edge of the atmo plot.  The two strong lines are near the middle order and in the second order.  In the images above, wavenumber increases to the right and down, like a book.  In the atmo plot, wavenumber increases to the right.

The upshot is that most of the lines I used are ~10% and one of them is around 5% (just to right of strong line at 585.7 cm-1 in the second order from top).  Since the pipeline will sum along the slit and can combine multiple black-sky images, I think we are probably safe with 5% features at wavelengths where the sky emits well.  This probably includes 13 microns, although should check to be sure.  At 7 microns and shorter, I'm pretty certain we need stronger features.  Have to see how bright they should be....

Lens wheel optics for CD18

Layout of lens wheel for CD018

Angle     Optical Component                          Voltage
-120 deg  mirror                                     4.9V
-60 deg   1% neutral density filter                  5.9V
0 deg     25mm KRS5 lens                             6.9V
60 deg    Open                                       7.9,1.9V
120 deg   ZnSe lens                                  8.9,2.9V
180 deg   38mm KRS5 lens + 1% neutral density filter 3.9V

i_KRS5=39.9 mm, installed at 40.6 mm from detector
i_ZnSe=28.8 mm, installed at 29.0 mm from detector
i_KRS5_25mm=52.6, installed at ~50mm from detector

38mm KRS5 lens + 38mm ND filter:
In CD017, we were unable to image the pupil with the previous arrangement of the 38mm KRS lens and 25mm 10% ND filter. This was probably due to multiple reflections between the lens and filter.
In CD017, the arrangement had been detector-ND-lens.
For CD018, the 38mm 1% ND filter has been placed outside the lens:  detector-lens-ND.


We have a shortage of 38mm retaining rings for the barrels and thus couldn't hold any blocker windows in the remaining free slot. I chose to put in another pupil lens, purposely installed closer to the detector than would be ideal for imaging the echelle grating. Maybe it will do a better job on imaging the TAAS hot plates?

I will ask Emmett to make more retaining rings for us in time for CD19.

PSF sizes from Ceres maps at 1305cm-1, 731cm-1, 587cm-1 and 354cm-1

Reporting on the PSFs during flight using the Ceres mapping data at different wavelengths.

Ceres was the only pseudo-point-source target observed in mapping mode during flights. According to the JPL HORIZONS website, Ceres had an angular diameter of 0".815-0".817. 

Subtracting this value in quadrature from our typical 3" image size reduces the value by about 0".1. I made this adjustment in the FWHM values in the table.

Processing steps:
proceded through rectification stage of pipeline reduction. Selected "skip coadd", which produces one rectified 2-D spectrum for each map position.
Outside of the pipeline, I lined up the spectral orders end-to-end, so that the 2D spec was just wavenumber x height on slit per each map position. In the process I masked low signal areas at the end of the orders, and then summed along rows (wavenumbers).
At this point I had a 1-D slit profile for each map position. Placed side-by-side, it makes an image with pixels 0".206 x (map step size).
I resampled the images to have square "map_step_size" pixels using the interpol.pro function
I used a clear patch of sky on the images to get a median sky value and subtracted it from each row (corresponding to a single map position). This was only important for the 1305cm-1 which didn't have much continuum flux to begin with and was effected by small changes in the sky line brightness.

IDL .jou file is on dropbox at:
everything EXES/analysis/cd17/ceres_maps/ceres_maps.jou

The data summary is as follows:
filenumbers      wn0  npts  map_step_size  fwhm1(")  fwhm2(")
30039,30040 1305cm-1  15       0".95       3.22      3.06
40059,40060  731cm-1  15       0".95       2.98      2.27
30046,30047  587cm-1  11       1".6        3.17      3.25
30051,30048  354cm-1  11       1".6        3.49      3.19

fwhm1 is along the slit direction
fwhm2 is along the mapping direction

Map step size should be verified with the telescopes housekeeping data, especially for unusually small FWHM2 for 731cm-1.

The figures show the re-sampled, skysubtracted maps for each setting.

1305cm-1 scan. X is slit direction. +Y is mapping direction. Pixels are 0.95" x 0.95"

731cm-1 scan. X is slit direction. +Y is mapping direction. Pixels are 0.95" x 0.95"

587cm-1 scan. X is slit direction. +Y is mapping direction. Pixels are 1".6 x 1".6

354cm-1 scan. X is slit direction. +Y is mapping direction. Pixels are 1".6x1".6

Final t-shirt design.

Hi all,

If you see this, please e-mail me with requests for a t-shirt. After I have the number and sizes of the t-shirts I can tell you the cost per t-shirt. If it is too high then withdraw your request and that will bump everyone elses up a bit or maybe I'll decide to chip in more on the "setup costs".

Let me know ...

S/N with nodding on slit and nodding off slit for alpha Tau

This post is meant to compare the S/N achieved with on-slit and off-slit nodding for alpha Tau on the second night of commissioning. The on-source nodding doesn't seem to be getting the anticipated gains in S/N.

On UT 10 Apr 2014, we observed alpha Tau in high-resolution mode at central waveno = 1548cm-1. The slit length was about 10.5" and the FWHM of the source in the spatial direction was about 3.7" (recall that this is worse than night 1 because we adjusted focus to optimize for spectral focus at the expense of spatial focus for alpha CMa).

We did a sequence of on-slit nods and off-slit nods.

on-slit
atau.sci.40053.fits 8 nods
atau.sci.40054.fits 4 nods

off-slit
atau.sci.40055.fits 4 nods
atau.sci.40056.fits 4 nods

The OTPAT was N6 S12 N5 D0, for a total of 27s integration time per side.

On-slit nodded observations had 12 nods * 2 sides * 27s = 648s on-source time
Off-slit nodded observations had 8 nods * 1 side * 27s= 216s on-source time

Here's the spectra, blue for on-slit, red for offslit.

And here's the S/N versus wavenumber.

The flux density of the on-slit nodded spectrum is about 70% that of the off-source spectrum. This could be because some light is spilling off the end of the slit, or being cancelled in region between the pos-neg beam.

Anyway, S/N_onslit would then be S/N_offslit * 0.70 * SQRT(648/216) =  factor of 1.2.
Instead, its only a factor of 1.03.

We also have some similar on-slit/off-slit data from night 1 with alpha Boo. I'll add it to this post soon.

Sky Frames Continued

I have also examined files that were taken at the same setting for different objects throughout night one of commissioning.  The setting used was wave number 1548.46 cm^(-1).  Below is the list of files I examined along with information about the observing.

acma.flat.30028.fits  
   altitude=38kft
   issues with boresite
   TELEL=40.6

*changed modes*

aboo.flat.30055.fits
   assuming altitude=41kft (last noted altitude in notes)
   TELEL=54.4

bgem.flat.30060.fits
   altitude=43kft 
   TELEL=29.1

alyr.flat.30068.fits
   altitude=43kft
   TELEL=38.8

*changed modes*

mucep.flat.30085.fits
   altitude=43kft
   TELEL=34.6

I created MCDS 7 frames for each objects observation.  By examining the MCDS frames, there is an obvious shift in the spectral direction for acma.flat.30028.fits compared to the other frames (see image below).  I do not know why this is.  It was taken earlier in the night at a lower altitude compared to the other frames.

Figure 1:  The zoomed-in frames are from left-to-right, top-to-bottom:  alyr.flat.30068.fits,   aboo.flat.30055.fits,  acma.flat.30028.fits,   bgem.flat.30060.fits,  mucep.flat.30085.fits.  The green arrow is placed in the same position on each file.  The green arrow is offset from the line for file acma.flat.30028.fits.

Next I made difference images from all of the objects.  There will obviously be a big offset for any image subtracted with acma.flat.30028.fits due to the offset.  Below is the figure that shows a zoomed in view of the difference images.

Figure 2: The frames are from left-to-right, top-to-bottom: (28-85), (28-55), (28-60), (28-68), (55-60), (55-68), (55-85), (60-68), (60-85), (68-85)

The residuals that are seen could be due to several different things, e.g., air mass difference, seeing variability.  I am not sure the best way (or if it is possible) to isolate the cause.  It does not appear to be due plane exhaust, though, since the telescope elevation does not seem to correlate with the residuals.

Examination of Sky Frames

Looking for sky variations to try to quantify how much things change as a function of time and as a function of elevation.  Using the sky frames taken near the end of commissioning night 1.

1376cm-1; high-med; staremode; N6 S0 N5 D0
sky.sci.30076.fits elevation=40 deg, 16 repeats
sky.sci.30077.fits elevation=20 deg, 10 repeats
sky.sci.30078.fits elevation=25 deg, 8 repeats
sky.sci.30079.fits elevation=25 deg, 4 repeats

To complete the analysis, I first made each frame into an MCDS 7, which meant that sky.sci.30076.fits had 16 frames to examine, sky.sci.30077.fits had 10 frames to examine, etc...  Below is a picture of an MCDS 7 frame for each image.

Figure 1 ( Top left: sky.sci.30076.fits; Top right: sky.sci.30077.fits; Bottom left: sky.sci.30078.fits; Bottom right: sky.sci.30079.fits)

To examine any variations with respect to time, I subtract each subsequent MCDS frame from the previous one for each image.  This means that for sky.sci.30076.fits there are 15 data points, for sky.sci.30077.fits there are 9 data points, etc...  The frames visually subtract very well (see Figure 2 below).  When examining the median value across a 200x200 pixel section in the middle of each difference image, the values appear consistent with zero (see Figure 3 below).  One interesting feature is how the frames have larger offsets at the beginning of the exposure.  This may point to some sort of reset issue that takes time to become stable, but the difference in counts is still very small.

 

Figure 2 ( Top left: sky.sci.30076.fits; Top right: sky.sci.30077.fits; Bottom left: sky.sci.30078.fits; Bottom right: sky.sci.30079.fits)

Figure 3 (Comparison of difference in counts between subsequent frames taken at the same elevation.)

The next comparison is with respect to changing elevation.  For this analysis I compared:

sky.sci.30076.fits - sky.sci.30077.fits (elevation 40 - elevation 20)

sky.sci.30076.fits - sky.sci.30078.fits (elevation 40 - elevation 25)

sky.sci.30078.fits - sky.sci.30077.fits (elevation 25 - elevation 20)

sky.sci.30078.fits - sky.sci.30079.fits (elevation 25 - elevation 25)

I only examined the first 4 MCDS images from each frame since sky.sci.30079.fits has only 4 repeats.  Figure 4 shows the difference images.  What can be easily seen is a small offset between the different elevation.  The difference between the same elevations does not appear to have an offset.  The offset is around ~5 pixels.  I examined the median value in a 50x50 pixel area on the bright line that is shown near the top of each image in Figure 4.  Those results are displayed in Figure 5.

Figure 4 (Top left: elevation 25 - elevation 20; Top right: elevation 25 - elevation 25; Bottom left: elevation 40 - elevation 20; Bottom right: elevation 40 - elevation 25)

Figure 5 (Comparison of difference in counts between frames taken at different elevations.)

Commissioning 1 Flight 1 Log Analysis

All these data are on Dropbox "everything EXES/docs/commissioning/LogAnalysis/Flight1Notes.* as well as pdf's of each graphic below. 1. Summary of entire flight as best can be reconstructed from notes, logs and integrated comments from MCCS.

Description	Start	End	Duration
Flight	04/07/14 07:05 PM	04/08/14 04:35 AM	09:30:00.000
Climb & setup	04/07/14 07:05 PM	04/07/14 08:06 PM	01:01:19.917
Turn to Leg 5	04/07/14 08:06 PM	04/07/14 08:09 PM	00:03:37.263
Leg 5: Alpha Cma	04/07/14 08:09 PM	04/07/14 09:23 PM	01:13:41.011
Turn to Leg 6	04/07/14 09:23 PM	04/07/14 09:26 PM	00:02:42.120
Leg 6: dead leg	04/07/14 09:26 PM	04/07/14 09:45 PM	00:18:42.242
Turn to Leg 7	04/07/14 09:45 PM	04/07/14 09:46 PM	00:01:53.984
Leg 7: Mars	04/07/14 09:46 PM	04/07/14 10:36 PM	00:49:20.994
Turn to Leg 8	04/07/14 10:36 PM	04/07/14 10:38 PM	00:02:10.997
Leg 8 – 10: Ceres	04/07/14 10:38 PM	04/07/14 11:35 PM	00:57:02.076
Leg 11: Jupiter	04/07/14 11:35 PM	04/08/14 12:35 AM	00:59:39.119
Turn to Leg 12	04/08/14 12:35 AM	04/08/14 12:40 AM	00:05:34.297
Leg 12: Alpha Boo	04/08/14 12:40 AM	04/08/14 01:22 AM	00:42:09.373
Turn to Leg 13	04/08/14 01:22 AM	04/08/14 01:29 AM	00:06:19.165
Leg 13: Beta Gem	04/08/14 01:29 AM	04/08/14 02:15 AM	00:46:16.005
Turn to Leg 14	04/08/14 02:15 AM	04/08/14 02:20 AM	00:05:09.571
Leg 14: Alpha Lyr	04/08/14 02:20 AM	04/08/14 03:15 AM	00:54:32.442
Turn to Leg 15	04/08/14 03:15 AM	04/08/14 03:15 AM	00:00:45.835
Leg 15: IR sky noise	04/08/14 03:15 AM	04/08/14 03:36 AM	00:21:02.983
Turn to Leg 16	04/08/14 03:36 AM	04/08/14 03:39 AM	00:02:52.061
Leg 16: Mu Cep	04/08/14 03:39 AM	04/08/14 04:23 AM	00:43:24.689
Turn to home	04/08/14 04:23 AM	04/08/14 04:35 AM	00:11:43.856

Time had to be converted (in spreadsheet) from local time to GMT/UTC.

2. Summary of each flight leg and how much time spent between events such as MD signaling we are "On Leg" and TO signaling we are "Ready". 

 

TOL	Total Time On Leg
TLR	Time between On Leg and Ready
TRF	Time between Ready and Taking Flats
TD	Taking Data
TRS	Time between Ready and First Science

Leg	TOL	TLR	TRD	TD
5: Alpha Cma	4421	6	2625	1750
6: dead leg	1122	6	793	287
7: Mars	2961	119	24	2791
8 – 10: Ceres	3422	130	12	2871
11: Jupiter	3579	299	26	3208
12: Alpha Boo	2529	120	12	2371
13: Beta Gem	2776	105	14	2638
14: Alpha Lyr	3272	402	274	2532
15: IR sky noise	1263	0	61	846
16: Mu Cep	2605	181	12	2412
Average	2795	136.8	385.3	2170.6
Median	2868.5	119.5	25	2472
Std Dev	1008.85	130.46	824.32	935.63

3. For each relevant leg, show time elapsed for all peakup, flats or science data. Other includes files labeled in the EXES Notes files as adjusting focus as well as files that were taken between end of one leg and official first flat of the next leg.

 

TOL	Time On Leg
TS	Total Time doing Science
TF	Total Time doing Flats
TP	Total Time doing Peakup
Other	E.g. focus

 

Leg	TOL	TS	TF	TP	Other
5: Alpha Cma	4421	0	801	1500	2120
6: dead leg	1122	600	0	0	522
7: Mars	2961	82	1686	575	618
8 – 10: Ceres	3422	135	496	1100	1691
11: Jupiter	3579	320	2078	0	1181
12: Alpha Boo	2529	139	1218	624	548
13: Beta Gem	2776	260	1490	482	544
14: Alpha Lyr	3272	0	1962	338	972
15: IR sky noise	1263	0	0	0	1263
16: Mu Cep	2605	374	1142	227	862
Average	2795	191	1087.3	484.6	1032.1
Median	2868.5	197.02	751.54	497.74	540.57
Std Dev	1008.85	137	1180	410	917

4.  These two go together. One shows the elapsed time between the close of a file in one wavelength configuration and the opening of the next file in the new wavelength configuration.  The other shows the "delta wave0".  The table shows the wave0 transition values (from / to).

 

These seem a little more consistent with fewer major time differences than Flight 2. Maybe I made a mistake with Flight 2 or there was a break where we did more than just change the instrument configuration.

Leg	Time (seconds)	Wave difference	From wave	To wave	Transition time per inverse cm (seconds)
setup(acma)	461	-625.45	1548.46	2173.91	0.74
setup(acma)	400	625.45	2173.91	1548.46	0.64
setup(acma)	74	-524.38	1548.46	2072.84	0.14
setup(acma)	74	524.38	2072.84	1548.46	0.14
setup(acma)	239	-172.05	1548.46	1720.51	1.39
acma to mars	120	333.1	1720.51	1387.41	0.36
on mars	191	82.52	1387.41	1304.89	2.31
on ceres	87	717.69	1304.89	587.2	0.12
on ceres	118	232.73	587.2	354.47	0.51
on jupiter	174	-232.73	354.47	587.2	0.75
on jupiter	263	-717.69	587.2	1304.89	0.37
juupiter to aboo	104	-243.57	1304.89	1548.46	0.43
alyr to sky	475	172.05	1548.46	1376.41	2.76
sky to mucep	393	-172.05	1376.41	1548.46	2.28
Average	226.64				0.92
SD	147.85				0.9
median	182.5				0.57

Commissioning 1 Flight 2 log analysis

All these data are on Dropbox "everything EXES/docs/commissioning/LogAnalysis/Flight2Notes.* as well as pdf's of each graphic below.

1.  Summary of entire flight as best can be reconstructed from notes, logs and integrated comments from MCCS.

Description	Start	End	Duration
Flight	04/10/14 02:25 AM	04/10/14 11:40 AM	09:15:06.13
Setup leg	04/10/14 02:56 AM	04/10/14 03:18 AM	22:14.87
Turn to leg 5	04/10/14 03:18 AM	04/10/14 03:19 AM	00:46.67
Leg 5, Alpha Cma	04/10/14 03:19 AM	04/10/14 04:29 AM	01:09:46.99
Turn to Leg 6	04/10/14 04:29 AM	04/10/14 04:31 AM	01:56.29
Leg 6, Alpha Tau	04/10/14 04:31 AM	04/10/14 05:17 AM	46:11.26
Turn to Leg 7 then 8	04/10/14 05:17 AM	04/10/14 05:27 AM	10:03.84
Leg 8, Ceres	04/10/14 05:28 AM	04/10/14 06:30 AM	01:02:07.46
Turn to Leg 9	04/10/14 06:30 AM	04/10/14 06:35 AM	05:23.03
Leg 9, Jupiter	04/10/14 06:35 AM	04/10/14 07:38 AM	01:02:56.57
Turn to Leg 10	04/10/14 07:38 AM	04/10/14 07:43 AM	04:49.33
Leg 10 or 11, Alpha Lyr	04/10/14 07:43 AM	04/10/14 09:06 AM	01:23:26.73
Turn to Leg 13	04/10/14 09:06 AM	04/10/14 09:19 AM	12:55.69
Net FAIL & Recover	04/10/14 09:19 AM	04/10/14 09:40 AM	20:50.53
Leg 13, Delta Vir	04/10/14 09:40 AM	04/10/14 09:58 AM	17:45.51
Turn to Leg 15	04/10/14 09:58 AM	04/10/14 10:04 AM	06:11.88
Leg 15, AFGL 2591	04/10/14 10:04 AM	04/10/14 11:24 AM	01:19:36.19
Turn to home	04/10/14 11:24 AM	04/10/14 11:40 AM	16:02.71

I believe we set the time to GMT on the PC for flight 2, which should also be UTC time.

2.  Summary of each non-dead flight leg and how much time spent between events such as MD signaling we are "On Leg" and TO signaling we are "Ready".  Alpha Lyr, Ceres and AFGL 2591 the start of flat field file is actually a couple or three files of data into the leg. Those are usually "stares", my guess is that they are used to make sure we are at the proper wavelength.

TOL	Total Time On Leg
TLR	Time between On Leg and Ready
TRF	Time between Ready and Taking Flats
TD	Taking Data
TRS	Time between Ready and First Science

Leg	TOL	TLR	TRF	TD	TRS
Setup leg	1335	749	0	706	0
5: Alpha Cma	4187	84	109	3736	302
6: Alpha Tau	2771	93	37	2523	302
8: Ceres	3727	79	8	3581	127
9: Jupiter	3777	112	26	3593	319
11: Alpha Lyr	5007	113	776	4007	1019
13: Delta Vir	1066	2026	137	819	411
15: AFGL 2591	4776	163	58	4383	299
Average	3330.75	427.38	143.88	2918.5	347.38
SD	1483.88	684.35	259.86	1431.84	300.39
median	3752	112.5	47.5	3587	302

3. For each non-dead leg, show time elapsed for all peakup, flats or science data. Other includes files labeled in the EXES Notes files as adjusting focus as well as files that were taken between end of one leg and official first flat of the next leg.

TOL	Total Time On Leg
TS	Total Time doing Science
TF	Total Time doing Flats
TP	Total Time doing Peakup
Other	E.g. focus

Leg	TOL	TS	TF	TP	Other
Setup	1335
5: Alpha Cma	4187	1476	128	232	2351
6: Alpha Tau	2771	1010	226	763	772
8: Ceres	3727	1487	412	838	990
9: Jupiter	3777	2853	84	0	840
11: Alpha Lyr	5007	1964	398	769	1876
13: Delta Vir	1066	273	233	183	377
15: AFGL 2591	4776	1549	810	1165	1252
Average	3330.75	1516	327.29	564.29	1208.29
SD	1483.88	795.08	246.05	426.49	685.35
median	3752	1487	233	763	990

4. These two go together. One shows the elapsed time between the close of a file in one wavelength configuration and the opening of the next file in the new wavelength configuration.  The other shows the "delta wave0".  The table shows the wave0 transition values (from / to).

I think these plots are useless or at least confusing.  For example, the transition between 717.06 and 1548.56 happens in one or two steps. One of those steps consists of "move 2 402363 7500 2000" (echelle) which according to what I can tell in the logs takes almost exactly 1 minute co complete and all the other motor moves of that same configuration file load takes about 1 minute 50 seconds to complete.  So maybe these "statistics" are too messy.  To really understand it has to be analyzed on a case by case basis based on the moves of all motors between the transitions.

Leg	Time (seconds)	Wave difference	From wave	To wave	Transition time per inverse cm (seconds)
setup to acma	251	-831.5	717.06	1548.56	0.3
atau to ceres	221	818.26	1548.46	730.20	0.27
atau to ceres	135	-0.83	730.20	731.03	162.65
ceres	229	-573.86	731.03	1304.89	0.4
jupiter	176	573.86	1304.89	731.03	0.31
jupiter to alyr	370	-902.09	731.03	1633.12	0.41
alyr	55	-3.37	1633.12	1636.49	16.32
alyr to dvir	2281	88.03	1636.49	1548.46	25.91
dvir to afgl 2591	628	-88.03	1548.46	1636.49	7.13
afgl 2591	150	150.04	1636.49	1486.45	1
afgl 2591	192	770.51	1486.45	715.94	0.25
Average	426.18				19.54
SD	633.42				48.21
median	221				0.41

Dropping longest time to change per unit (2281/88 and 135/0.83) and two shortest transitions (55 sec and 68 sec)

Average	280.86				1.4
SD	168.69				2.54
Median	221				0.4