search

GLORIA-project / scheduler-interface

GNU General Public License v3.0
0 stars 0 forks source link

Moon and altitude constraints #5

Open lnicastro opened 10 years ago

lnicastro commented 10 years ago

The simplest solution is to remove them. The only meaningful value, for a general purpose observation, is the Moon phase (or days from new Moon), but it is not there. Any telescope with a decent observing software will avoid to point the Moon anyway. The other solution is to have the possibility (advanced option) to choose max days from new Moon and min distance. Also the airmass/altitude constraints should be removed for the standard interface. In the advanced interface it must specified it is "minimum altitude/maximum airmass at the end of the exposure".

jcabellouma commented 9 years ago

The max Moon elevation and minimal Moon distance to the target (degrees) were requirements, at least, one and half year ago (Oxford meeting). So they are taken into account now.

lnicastro commented 9 years ago

I was not involved in that discussion. Do you have a written reference for that? Anyway I repeat that are not relevant for a scheduler and I would ask a quick internal investigation (at last among the astronomers) to see who wants them to be present. As I said "if" something about the Moon must be present in the default form, it is "days from new moon" of moon phase. The distance from the moon can go in the advanced form section and I would definitely remove the moon elevation.

jcabellouma commented 9 years ago

Luciano,

I showed a presentation about CATA500 integration, using these constraints. I do not remember exactly the people watching. This presentation showed the development line. We have worked in this line up to now. Of course, It does not mean we could not change it, of course.... but now we are working to provide a stable system for the final review.

lnicastro commented 9 years ago

The fact is that almost no discussion about this interface has been going on "within GLORIA members". And apparently nobody is concerned about it. In fact discussion is started only a few days ago triggered by myself (I was not present at your presentation in Huelva and I have seen no document about it). I am not sure who within WP5 had to take the responsibility to coordinate this, but definitely it's a pity that one of the key components of this project (the super-scheduler) received such a little consideration by all.