• Systematic characterisation of the Herschel SPIRE Fourier Transform Spectrometer, Hopwood et al., 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2274

• Within HIPE you can access all the SPIRE data reduction and HIPE-user documentation. The SPIRE Data Reduction Guide (SDRG) follows the user pipeline scripts and also explains the details of pipeline processing and data analysis. It is also available online here:

• SPIA: The SPIRE Photometer Interactive Analysis (SPIA) package is available in HIPE (previously it was a plugin). SPIA provides a structured GUI based access to the more intricate parts of the scan map photometer pipeline for SPIRE without the immediate need to resort to scripts. More information can be found in the SDRG or on the SPIA web page * Note: A bug that renders two deglitchers in the task spiaLevel1 unusable was found only recently. We have prepared a quick fix that will work on a standard HIPE 12.1 installation. Please see the SPIA web page for more information.

• Any of the calibration trees can be retrieved in HIPE from the HSA using (e.g.) cal = spireCal(calTree="spire_cal_13_1") etc. The default (applicable to the HIPE version in use) can be obtained with cal = spireCal(calTree="spire_cal"). It can then be saved to a local pool right-clicking on the cal variable and then selecting from the context menu Send To -> Local Pool.

1. 1. The jar file can be load directly into HIPE with the command: cal = spireCal(jarFile="PATH_TO_FILE/spire_cal_13_1.jar"). To save it to a local pool, proceed as described above, right-clicking on the cal variable and then selecting from the context menu Send To -> Local Pool.
   2. The jar file can also be saved directly to a local pool without opening HIPE, running the following command in the terminal command line: cal_import PATH_TO_FILE/spire_cal_13_1.jar. Then, to load the calibration tree in HIPE, simply type: cal = spireCal(pool="spire_cal_13_1")

• • These are available in the SPIRE calibration context, at the standard map pixel size of (6,10,14) arcsec/pixel for (250,350,500) µm bands, and can be accessed in HIPE after a calibration context has been loaded (see above).
  • A more detailed analysis of the SPIRE beam profile data was undertaken in 2012, leading to revised values for beam profile solid angles and derivation of a semi empirical wavelength dependent beam profile model. The results at a scale of 1 arcsec/pixel as well as the data needed for the model are available for download. A detailed description of the analysis is given as well.
  • A final analysis of the SPIRE beam profiles was completed in Oct 2014, taking into account so called "shadow" observations that were taken after Neptune had moved away. This dramatically reduced the uncertainties in the beam profile solid angles to better than 1%. It also eliminated the need for a "static" part in the semi-empirical beam profile model. The results at a scale of 1 arcsec/pixel as well as the data needed for the model are available for download. A detailed description of the analysis is available too.

<--      *  The observed beams at much finer scale of 1 arcsec/pixel, as well as the theoretical ones, are available from here . Please read the release note for more details. -->

• • These are also available in the SPIRE calibration context (photRsrf) and can be accessed in HIPE after a calibration context has been loaded (See above).

• • The ESA2 models used up to HIPE v10 and spire_cal_10_1, are available here.

• • • • the absolute uncertainty in intensity for a reasonably bright, fully extended object, observed in the central detectors is, in theory, ±1%, with the following contributions: (i) the systematic uncertainty in telescope model of 0.06%; (ii) the statistical repeatability estimated at ±1% and (iii) an additive continuum offset of 3.4x10^-20 W/m²/Hz/sr for SLW and 1.1x10^-19 W/m²/Hz/sr for SSW.
      • In practice, truly extended sources tend to be faint and the uncertainty is therefore dominated by the additive offsets. When the source extent is larger than the main beam size, but not fully extended, or if there is structure inside the beam, then the uncertainties are dominated by the source-beam coupling ( see Wu et al. 2013 ) and are significantly greater than 1%.