IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Juno perijoves 2 and 3, October 19 and December 11, 2016
Brian Swift
post Feb 23 2020, 06:42 AM
Post #106


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 403
Joined: 18-September 17
Member No.: 8250



QUOTE (Bjorn Jonsson @ Feb 20 2020, 02:52 PM) *
Interestingly, some of the vertical lines are missing in my PJ8 bias image. Other features are similar.

Nice to see they are so similar.
Mine was generated from 300 PJ18 framelets. I assume some additional streaks appeared between PJ8 and PJ18.
Sometime I'l get around to producing separate bias files for each PJ.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bjorn Jonsson
post Jun 11 2020, 08:31 PM
Post #107


IMG to PNG GOD
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 2250
Joined: 19-February 04
From: Near fire and ice
Member No.: 38



QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Feb 19 2020, 06:31 PM) *
We are in the process of releasing revised START_TIMES to the PDS based on manual measurement of the first limb crossing. There could be many explanations of what might cause mismatches at the last limb crossing (interframe off, spin axis or rate knowledge off, speed of light not being properly accounted for, deviation of limb from spheroid, etc.) My goal has merely been to get to the point where the community can use ISIS3 without seeing unacceptably large inconsistencies, and I think we've achieved that.

I recently noticed files at the PDS from earlier perijoves (e.g. PJ17) where the START_TIMES are higher than in the metadata files originally released a few days after the images were acquired. Are these the revised START_TIMES? Also I assume the START_TIMES in the data released immediately after a flyby are not affected (i.e. are still inaccurate) but correct START_TIMES appear once that data is released to the PDS?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Jun 13 2020, 12:06 AM
Post #108


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2502
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (Bjorn Jonsson @ Jun 11 2020, 12:31 PM) *
I recently noticed files at the PDS from earlier perijoves (e.g. PJ17) where the START_TIMES are higher than in the metadata files originally released a few days after the images were acquired. Are these the revised START_TIMES? Also I assume the START_TIMES in the data released immediately after a flyby are not affected (i.e. are still inaccurate) but correct START_TIMES appear once that data is released to the PDS?

You mean on volume JNOJNC_0012, correct? We haven't changed anything on earlier volumes, they are immutable.

If I'm following your question, basically yes. The latest version of each image has the best timing, and eventually the timing correction will be applied for version 1 images for new data (that may have happened already for volume 0012 PJ21 and PJ22 data.) The metadata at missionjuno will never have the updated timing, AFAIK (there is no plan to go back and patch images that are already there.)


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bjorn Jonsson
post Jun 13 2020, 12:12 AM
Post #109


IMG to PNG GOD
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 2250
Joined: 19-February 04
From: Near fire and ice
Member No.: 38



Thanks - this was exactly the information I was asking for. And yes, it was volume JNOJNC_0012 I meant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bjorn Jonsson
post Jun 14 2020, 01:33 AM
Post #110


IMG to PNG GOD
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 2250
Joined: 19-February 04
From: Near fire and ice
Member No.: 38



Having these images where I can be sure the START_TIMES are correct is very useful as a sanity check when debugging things.

Do these revised times include the 61.88 msec that need to be added to the START_TIMES or do I need to add 61.88 msec to the revised START_TIMES? I'm pretty sure it's the latter (that I need to add 61.88) but it's important to be 100% certain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Jun 14 2020, 02:20 AM
Post #111


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2502
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (Bjorn Jonsson @ Jun 13 2020, 05:33 PM) *
Do these revised times include the 61.88 msec that need to be added to add to the START_TIMES or do I need to add 61.88 msec to the revised START_TIMES? I'm pretty sure it's the latter (that I need to add 61.88) but it's important to be 100% certain.

You have to add the value of INS-61504_START_TIME_BIAS, yes.

We have to do it this way to preserve compatibility with the definition of the processing chain and how it was implemented in ISIS3.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th March 2024 - 05:18 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.