Contact Stansberry - "; echo " there is a problem w/ your write-up.\n"; return ; } $row = mysql_fetch_array($result); $title = $row["title"]; $princ = $row["principal"]; $deputy= $row["deputy"]; $campn0 = $row["campn0"]; $aorkeys = $row["aorkeys"]; // get real name of principal, deputies $princ = ioc_get_person($princ); $princ = $princ[0]; $deps = explode(",",$deputy); foreach ($deps as $depty) { $depty = trim($depty); $depty = ioc_get_person($depty); $depty = $depty[0]; $depty = explode(",",$depty); $depty = $depty[0]; // last names only $deplist[] = $depty; } $deplist = implode(", ", $deplist); $caid = sprintf("%03d",$caid); $file = "mips-".$caid.$campn.".analysis.php"; // END PHP. ?> <? echo "MIPS-$caid, Campaign $campn IOC/SV Analysis"; ?>

Principal:
Deputy:
Analyst:
AORKEYS:
Last Updated:

Task Outcome Summary

Abstract

This task has four parts to it. First, a set of 10 3s SUR DCEs is collected with the same pointing that will be used later for the Vrst optimization. The goal is to get a before and after thermal anneal comparison of the responsivity of the 24um array. Second, diagnostic data is collected during 160um, 70um, and 24um thermal anneals. As written right now, the 160um and 70um anneals are performed in separate diagnostic cycles so no direct comparison can be made to the other thermal anneals being performed during IOC. These separate anneal sequences will soon be replaced with a single diagnostic cycle. The third MIPS-992 activity is a Vrst optimization on the Ge arrays. The bias voltage was not set to zero prior to the start of this test so the data are invalid. No analysis was performed. The final activity in MIPS-992 is the state transitions Observe --> Ready --> Operate (i.e. MIPS off), and then Operate --> Boot --> Off. The successful completion of the transition was confirmed by the lack of any unexpected errors during the state transition. The thermal data from this task were nominal and are presented in the metatask mips-2050. The Vrst optimization data are presented below.

Analysis

We converted the diagnostic data from the thermal anneal into temperatures and generated temperature plots. These data are compared to the temperature curves from previous anneals. These data are presented in the metatask writeup mips-2050.

We compared the 24um SUR data taken before and after the thermal anneal to look for changes in array behavior. The item of interest was the detector responsivity. The data were reduced with mips_sloper with no flags. The source and sky brightnesses were measured with the IRAF task imexamine with radius=6, buffer=5, width=5, background=yes, center=yes, iterations=1, and the sky levels were also measured using the IRAF task imstat.


Results

Temperature Plots from Anneal

The temperature behavior during the anneal was nominal. The temperature plots can be found in the writeup for MIPS-2050.

24 µm Responsivity

A star was present in the field during the running of MIPS-992. The sky brightnesses and star fluxes are presented below. I excluded all bias boost DCEs since they give false slope values. Only the first DCE in the first set of data was a boost frame, whereas 13 2-DCE exposure commands were used in the post-anneal data so all 13 post-anneal DCEs are the first DCE after the boost frame. The source moved slightly between the two sets of data so I used IRAF imstat to measure array means and medians as a second measure of sky levels that would be independent of where the source fell on the array. 
Pre-anneal flux levels, MIPS-992
MIPS.1.0007525888.0000.0000.tran_ext.red.fits
DCE  StarFlux SkyFlux    FrameMean     FrameMedian
 2   70258.   343.7   343.7 +/- 156.8     339.6 
 3   70110.   346.5   347.6 +/- 157.7     342.3 
 4   70288.   348.4   348.6 +/- 158.8     344.  
 5   70086.   348.2   348.1 +/- 157.1     343.5
 6   70405.   348.1   348.6 +/- 157.3     344.6
 7   70132.   347.9   348.8 +/- 157.3     344.5
 8   70578.   347.9   348.9 +/- 159.5     343.8
 9   70442.   348.1   348.3 +/- 157.4     344.4
10   70353.   348.    348.7 +/- 157.5     343.8

Post-anneal flux levels, MIPS-992
MIPS.1.0007525888.0004.0000.tran_ext.red.fits
DCE  StarFlux SkyFlux    FrameMean     FrameMedian
 1   71133.   341.2   341.1 +/- 158.8     337.3 
 2   71661.   341.1   341.8 +/- 162.6     338.5 
 3   71737.   341.    342.5 +/- 175.9     338.6 
 4   71645.   341.3   342.6 +/- 162.5     339.2 
 5   71949.   341.    342.8 +/- 161.7     340.1
 6   71687.   340.8   343.4 +/- 184.4     338.4
 7   72111.   340.8   343.4 +/- 164.4     339.1
 8   71778.   342.4   343.1 +/- 163.1     340.6
 9   71716.   342.4   343.5 +/- 162.8     339.9
10   71919.   342.3   344.  +/- 163.      340.2
11   71904.   342.2   344.6 +/- 169.7     340.4
12   71604.   342.2   343.8 +/- 163.3     340.
13   71877.   342.4   343.7 +/- 163.4     339.9
The median star and sky fluxes are plotted below:

Without proper flatfielding, it is hard to place any significance on the change in star brightness. I flatfielded using the pre-flight flat and should have used the campaign H1 flat. For the sky frames, the first DCE after the bias boost is low in the pre-anneal set; all of the post-anneal DCEs come one DCE after a bias boost and so are subject to the same boost latent. Comparing the post-anneal sky brightnesses with the pre-anneal DCE 2, I see insignificant changes in the measured sky levels. As in previous campaigns, the cosmic ray exposure during these short campaigns has no measurable effect on the responsivity of the 24um array.


Conclusions

The thermal anneal behavior for this campaign is nominal. There is no evidence for 24um response changes with radiation exposure.

Output and Deliverable Products

None.

Actions Following Analysis

None.