RE: "Getting Ready To Get Ready"

[Tom Droege <tdroege@veriomail.com>]

There may be less difference than you think.  I think Arne programmed in a 
"go to" facility.  I have not tried to use it, but it seems to be 
there.  It is sort of against my principals to look at targets of 
opportunity.

Remote control probably consists of an e-mail message saying "turn on the 
camera".

Rob Creager is working on a real time display.  At the moment the ball is 
in my court, but if we have succeeded in getting TOM fixed, then I will get 
back to it.

Still, I offer all the encouragement I can for some of you to write modules 
for Chris's control program.  We will want such a program.

Tom Droege

At 04:59 PM 4/24/01 -0700, you wrote:


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Droege [mailto:tdroege@veriomail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 4:30 PM
>
> > I think there should be no practical difference in the data
> > taken with the
> > QB program now and the future/present real time system.
> > Possibly the real
> > time system will have a better time measurement.  The shutter
> > timing now
> > looks pretty good.
>
>The major differences will be
>
>1) The Linux based system will have "go to" capability.
>
>    You can say "PointAt 34.5 127.5" and the Mk IV will
>    aim at some specific target of interest.  This gives
>    you the option of different observing programs, catching
>    targets of opportunity or  dipping down to the equator
>    to measure a specific standard star.
>
>2) Remote control and monitoring.
>
>3) Real-time image display, data display and data reduction.
>
>If the data itself does not look the same with both control
>programs then something would be wrong.  I don't expect any
>difference in quality except as Tom said timing will be
>accurate to milliseconds.