Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Juno Perijove 47
Unmanned Spaceflight.com > Outer Solar System > Jupiter > Juno
Brian Swift
CK kernels not posted to NAIF yet. I wonder if raw image data is down. <Insert impatient sonic hedgehog gif>
mcaplinger
https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/news/juno-...m5gobVHSUSmh2as

QUOTE
NASA’s Juno spacecraft completed its 47th close pass of Jupiter on Dec. 14. Afterward, as the solar-powered orbiter was sending its science data to mission controllers from its onboard computer, the downlink was disrupted... Mission controllers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and its mission partners successfully rebooted the computer and, on Dec. 17, put the spacecraft into safe mode...
As of Dec. 22, steps to recover the flyby data yielded positive results, and the team is now downlinking the science data.

But I'm not sure when we will have enough to begin posting to missionjuno -- maybe tomorrow.
Bjorn Jonsson
Thanks for the update. I was actually starting to wonder if something like this had happened and recently started monitoring https://eyes.nasa.gov/dsn/dsn.html. I noticed that Juno has been downlinking at 200 kbps over the past hour or two. Looking forward to seeing the Io images (and Jupiter too).
mcaplinger
QUOTE (Bjorn Jonsson @ Dec 22 2022, 05:37 PM) *
Thanks for the update. I was actually starting to wonder if something like this had happened and recently started monitoring https://eyes.nasa.gov/dsn/dsn.html.

I've been working on a script to look for safe-mode entries using the Eyes data. You definitely would have seen some odd things had you been looking over the weekend.
volcanopele
I figured it had to be something like this, with the other option being that maybe budget pressures meant that the short-term reconstructed c-kernels weren’t being generated anymore, but then the weekly kernel wasn’t released yesterday. Obviously I am looking forward to the Io images, but I am also super happy to hear that spacecraft is okay.
JohnVV
it dose not look like Io will be all that big in the junocam
here is a screenshot of the encounter
Click to view attachment
and a zoom in
Click to view attachment
mcaplinger
QUOTE (JohnVV @ Dec 22 2022, 06:59 PM) *
it dose not look like Io will be all that big in the junocam

It's about 80 pixels across for this pass, and definitely has some recognizable surface detail.
Brian Swift
I think a savvier approach would have been for the project to post timely updates on the problem discovery, diagnosis, and resolution.
Drama of "spacecraft in trouble" to "Can-do engineers to the rescue" could have added a few more days to Juno's periodic blip in the "news cycle".
mcaplinger
QUOTE (Brian Swift @ Dec 23 2022, 12:21 AM) *
I think a savvier approach would have been for the project to post timely updates on the problem discovery, diagnosis, and resolution.
Drama of "spacecraft in trouble" to "Can-do engineers to the rescue" could have added a few more days to Juno's periodic blip in the "news cycle".

I think you overstate the amount of drama and interest that could have been milked out of this particular event. I can't recall a relatively routine safe mode entry that was handled this way in the past. If we had been in any real jeopardy, maybe.

At any rate, nothing to do with me -- I got my hand slapped way back on Mars Observer for mentioning a safe mode entry in public and won't make that mistake again.

BTW, I am gratified by Junocam images ending up on several "best space images of 2022" lists, mostly due to the processing by the folks here and elsewhere doing their processing magic.
volcanopele
No worries, Mike. Having been through a few safe modes on Galileo, Cassini, and MRO, they can be frustrating but live tweeting them can cause issues because everyone thinks like they are always emergencies. True, they’re not great, you lose data, but often it is just waiting around for everything to get reset so you can get back to taking science. As long as your servers can handle the handful of us constantly reloading the imaging page wink.gif

(And gods I know about my hand being slapped for safe mode mentioning… Looking at you Cassini T9 and T71)
Kevin Gill
Would also recommend against watching dsnnow. I've had it up all week, and then start obsessively refreshing missionsjuno every time the pass completes, lol
mcaplinger
FYI, I don't expect that any of the images will show up on missionjuno before next week. You'll note that there are no C kernels posted yet and that is a gating event. I think the holiday season has slowed everything down. Sorry for any frustration.
volcanopele
I know me. I know that as soon as the PJ47 images show up, I will start working on them and won't come out of my office until they are done... Seeing as how I have family in town, a delay until next week is probably best wink.gif
Brian Swift
QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Dec 29 2022, 03:04 PM) *
FYI, I don't expect that any of the images will show up on missionjuno before next week. You'll note that there are no C kernels posted yet and that is a gating event. I think the holiday season has slowed everything down. Sorry for any frustration.

If "someone" posted an "approach movie" containing just the raw and metadata, community science processed images would be available before the weekend was over (even without CK). biggrin.gif
Bjorn Jonsson
Luckily for me, compared to recent perjoves (maybe the past 10-20 or so), this was probably the best possible time for me for a delayed JunoCam data release. Had it been released on time I probably wouldn't have processed anything until at least a week later since I was recovering from covid. Now that I have fully recovered I'm starting to get a bit impatient.
Brian Swift
QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Dec 31 2022, 01:33 PM) *

Did you fake-up a CK or manually align in Photoshop or other?
Bjorn Jonsson
I noticed that a reconstructed CK became available recently (probably less than 1 hour ago) - doing Control-F5 increasingly often now at a certain website smile.gif.
mcaplinger
A bunch of images (not all, but most) have been pushed out to missionjuno.
Kevin Gill
Quick look at a pair of images:

Jupiter - PJ47-79

Io - PJ47-57
volcanopele
Trying my best at the moment. I use Kevin's scripts to do the initial conversion from PNG to IMG/LBL and I'm running to libtiff issues. Currently seeing if I can get it to work on my Windows PC...

even on a fresh install on my PC I'm getting this just trying to import libtiff:

CODE
D:\Dropbox\Io\Juno\PJ47\JunoCAM>python3 test\test.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "D:\Dropbox\Io\Juno\PJ47\JunoCAM\test\test.py", line 12, in <module>
    import libtiff
  File "C:\Users\volca\AppData\Local\Packages\PythonSoftwareFoundation.Python.3.10_qbz5n2kfra8p0\LocalCache\local-packages\Python310\site-packages\libtiff\__init__.py", line 20, in <module>
    from .libtiff_ctypes import libtiff, TIFF, TIFF3D
  File "C:\Users\volca\AppData\Local\Packages\PythonSoftwareFoundation.Python.3.10_qbz5n2kfra8p0\LocalCache\local-packages\Python310\site-packages\libtiff\libtiff_ctypes.py", line 46, in <module>
    raise ImportError('Failed to find TIFF library. Make sure that libtiff '
ImportError: Failed to find TIFF library. Make sure that libtiff is installed and its location is listed in PATH|LD_LIBRARY_PATH|..


Resolved this by just finding all the parts that call libtiff and removing those calls. All I need your scripts for is the conversion of PNGs to well, raws actually and creating label files for ISIS and it doesn't look like I need libtiff for those.
volcanopele
My rendition of 47C000057: PJ47 JunoCAM on the left, Galileo/Voyager basemap in the middle, PJ41 JIRAM on the right

Click to view attachment
Brian Swift
PJ47_58 adjusted to bring up Jupiter-shine illuminated night-side.
Click to view attachment
Kevin Gill
Yeah, stripping out libtiff is fine as it's only really used for testing and special product outputs. Libtiff can be a pain since conda and pip don't install enough of it to work properly, and installing libtiff-dev (Debian) is usually required. My new processing code gets around this and has better calibration routines, but doesn't yet produce reliable ISIS inputs (probably not a lot of work to implement that).

Here's a few more from PJ47:


Jupiter - PJ47-113


Jupiter - PJ47-113 - Detail


Jupiter - PJ47-93 - Detail
vjkane
QUOTE (volcanopele @ Jan 4 2023, 10:34 PM) *
My rendition of 47C000057: PJ47 JunoCAM on the left, Galileo/Voyager basemap in the middle, PJ41 JIRAM on the right

Click to view attachment

Very cool comparison. Thanks for posting this.
volcanopele
Click to view attachment

Finished up with the other images.
Bjorn Jonsson
This is a montage of the PJ47 Io images together with computer generated images with a latitude/longitude grid to show the viewing geometry. The map used for the computer generated images is based on Voyager/Galileo images.

Click to view attachment

The images are enlarged by a factor of 5 relative to the original data. The color balance is preliminary but hopefully this is not very far from Io's real color.
Compared to the computer generated images it seems that there may be significant changes to Io's appearance but Jason knows more about that. It must be kept in mind though that Juno's camera/filters are significantly different from the Voyager and Galileo imaging systems. Also Io's color and contrast varies significantly as a function of phase angle.
volcanopele
Honestly, not seeing a lot of evidence for surface changes, but they would have to be pretty large scale to be seen. We are facing two issues. One: the phase angle is pretty high in these images and so you can’t just use a base map to compare to, you also need to look at New Horizons, Galileo, or even Voyager images with similar phase angles. Io’s surface materials have weird phase functions. For example, Colchis Regio is darker at higher phase angles.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment

I’m curious about the dark patches in the bright region north of Surt. Those don’t show up in Galileo or Voyager images but there also aren’t a lot of images of that region at that phase angle and at a useful emission angle. There is a dark spot east of Lei-Kung Fluctus but I am almost positive that’s a shadow. Dazhbog looks different compared to the base map, but that data is from Voyager and Dazhbog looks about the same as it did in the later Galileo images.
Brian Swift
Mike, what was the difference in instrument operation for PJ47_03?
And is everything we are going to get for PJ47 up on missionjuno, meaning images 1,2,69,113-119 were not recoverable?
Gerald
I just wanted to provide a quick feedback about the close-up methane-band images.
Here are three reduced, roughly cleaned, and two of them heavily enhanced, crops thereof:
Click to view attachment
(#88, #92, #96)
Thanks to Candy and the ops team to include those images!

The methane-band images provide us with information about the heights of the cloud-tops.
Bjorn Jonsson
QUOTE (volcanopele @ Jan 7 2023, 04:54 PM) *
Honestly, not seeing a lot of evidence for surface changes, but they would have to be pretty large scale to be seen. We are facing two issues. One: the phase angle is pretty high in these images and so you can’t just use a base map to compare to, you also need to look at New Horizons, Galileo, or even Voyager images with similar phase angles. Io’s surface materials have weird phase functions. For example, Colchis Regio is darker at higher phase angles.

True, these changes with phase angle greatly complicate the search for surface changes (as also mentioned at the end of my earlier post). I noticed that this was also a big problem in the Europa images when looking for possible surface changes (a long shot, a very long shot) in Juno's recent Europa images.

This reminded me of an old animation I did of Io's photometric behavior. See this thread which has some details, including where I found detailed information on how the color and brightness of different parts of Io's surface brightness change as a function of phase angle. I decided to do a slightly improved version of this animation. It can be found at Vimeo:

https://vimeo.com/787330491
Brian Swift
Prominent structure appearing in PJ47_89 and PJ47_91 rended as a cross-eye stereoscopic pair.
Both images are rendered from position of PJ43_90 using orthographic projection.
The 3D effect is more pronounced when zoomed in to smaller regions of image.
Full size image at https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=14640
Click to view attachment
Brian Swift
Prominent structure appearing in PJ47_89, PJ47_90 and PJ47_91 rended as a short back/forth animated sequence.
Movement due to both perspective change and cloud motion visible.
If someone wants to do the math, I expect they can calculate the height of high altitude cloud near top (assuming it isn't moving too much over 5 minute span of images)

Larger resolution version at https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=14641
Click to view attachment
Bjorn Jonsson
This is image PJ47_90 in approximately true color/contrast and enhanced versions:

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachmentClick to view attachment

The color accuracy in the dimly lit areas is almost certainly significantly lower than in brighter areas farther from the terminator and/or closer to the equator.

BTW I noticed that some of the PJ47 southern hemisphere images are extremely noisy. My software automatically removes spikes but doesn't do it very aggressively. I used to consider images where the software removed ~5000 spikes as very noisy but for image PJ47_113, about 25,000 spikes were removed. I am fairly sure that this is (by far) the largest number I have seen. I have been experimenting with processing the raw images in Photoshop *before* running them through my regular processing pipeline. This seems to help. Filter -> Dust & Scratches seems to work well whereas Filter -> Median is too aggressive for my taste (the raw image becomes too smooth and even 'contoured').

The images continue getting redder. I now multiply blue with >4 relative to red. For comparison, for the early orbits I was using a value close to 2.5.
mcaplinger
Added to https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/juno-space...lyby-of-jupiter

QUOTE
UPDATED Jan. 19, 2023: Data received from Juno indicates the first four of 90 images taken by the spacecraft’s JunoCam outreach camera during its most recent flyby of Jupiter (Perijove 47) were degraded: two were unusable and two had a high level of image noise. The JunoCam team believes the loss of these images is due to an anomalous temperature rise that occurred when the camera power was turned on in preparation for the flyby. Subsequent images – captured after the instrument returned to normal temperatures – were not degraded. The team plans to leave the instrument turned on after the next flyby, Perijove 48, rather than powering it off and then on again before Perijove 49.

JunoCam is a color, visible-light camera designed to capture pictures of Jupiter’s cloud tops. It was included on the spacecraft specifically for purposes of public engagement; although its images have been helpful to the science team, it is not considered one of the mission’s science instruments. The camera was originally designed to operate in Jupiter’s high-energy particle environment for at least seven orbits but has survived far longer. The spacecraft will make its 48th pass of the planet on Jan. 22.


I can't comment on this further except to say that this was not my suggested wording.
vjkane
QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Jan 19 2023, 01:19 PM) *
Added to https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/juno-space...lyby-of-jupiter



I can't comment on this further except to say that this was not my suggested wording.

Anyone know how many more perijoves before the Io encounters next year?
mcaplinger
QUOTE (vjkane @ Jan 19 2023, 04:45 PM) *
Anyone know how many more perijoves before the Io encounters next year?

The close Io approaches are on PJ57 (2023-12-30) and PJ58 (2024-02-03).
volcanopele
There are passes on 49, 51, 53, and 55 before the close encounters, each of these at closer and closer distances.

There is a table of encounters here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_o...Juno_spacecraft
Bjorn Jonsson
Image PJ47_113 in approximately true color/contrast and enhanced versions. Oval BA is prominent. North is up.

Click to view attachment
Bjorn Jonsson
QUOTE (Brian Swift @ Jan 10 2023, 07:16 AM) *
Prominent structure appearing in PJ47_89, PJ47_90 and PJ47_91 rended as a short back/forth animated sequence.
Movement due to both perspective change and cloud motion visible.
If someone wants to do the math, I expect they can calculate the height of high altitude cloud near top (assuming it isn't moving too much over 5 minute span of images)

Larger resolution version at https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/junocam/processing?id=14641
Click to view attachment

Some time ago I decided to try determining these cloud altitudes using stereo. I have not been able to generate useful DEMs of Jupiter from stereo images (the resulting DEMs have been extremely noisy) but I have had some success with a few isolated points since in that case I can select points near clearly defined features. The result is the image below showing cloud altitudes in km relative to the 1 bar level at several locations. I used images PJ47_90 and PJ47_91 to compute the the altitude values. There are lots of uncertainties and I don't think these values are very accurate. But at least they seem to make some sense since dark clouds are always at a lower altitude than nearby, bright clouds. Bright clouds are known to usually be at a higher altitude than dark clouds so this was the expected result.

Click to view attachment

This is methane filter image PJ47_92 rendered with the same viewing geometry as above:

Click to view attachment

A similar pattern appears, i.e. the numbers indicate that bright features are generally higher in the atmosphere but the image is very noisy.
And a smaller image with a latitude/longitude grid to show the viewing geometry:

Click to view attachment

There are additional details in the Think Tank section at the missionjuno website, including crude back-of-the-envelope error estimates, i.e. possible effects of cloud motions in the 2 minutes between images PJ47_90 and 91.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.