nh-j-lorri-2-jupiter-v2.0nh-j-lorri-3-jupiter-v2.0nh-x-lorri-2-launch-v2.0nh-x-lorri-3-launch-v2.0

Matthew Knight

PDS review 8/19/14

Overview• Overall dataset is more user friendly than the previous

version I reviewed (January)• I found introdoc.pdf very useful• Positions of the object in images is a big help

– May want to clarify in dataset.cat that “location in line and sample” means “rows and columns” or “y and x”

• Important sections of SOC extracted as separate PDFs in document/ directory make it easier to find specific info about LORRI

• Document/seq_*tab file has more detailed information about targets (not sure if intentional, but it is useful)

nh-x-lorri-2-launch-v2.0/• Are positions and target information in this dataset?• I spot checked for Jupiter and Pluto images and never found this information

nh-x-lorri-2-launch-v2.0/• Are positions and target information in this dataset?• I spot checked for Jupiter and Pluto images and never found this information

nh-x-lorri-3-launch-v2.0/• Are positions and target information in this dataset?• I spot checked for Jupiter and Pluto images and never found this information

Image is calibrated nicely :)

nh-j-lorri-2-jupiter-v2.0, nh-j-lorri-3-jupiter-v2.0

• Positions and target information correct in these datasets

nh-j-lorri-2-jupiter-v2.0, nh-j-lorri-3-jupiter-v2.0

• Positions and target information correct in these datasets

Introdoc.pdf typos

• Instrument and Operations section, 3rd par: – Line 2: “developed” seems unnecessary?– Line 5: “!25-30”– Line 7: “or the nominal” -> “for the nominal”?

• Instrument and Operations section, 7th par:– Line 2: “raw pixel values (Data Numbers; DNs)

theoretically range” -> “raw pixel values’ (Data Numbers; DNs) theoretical range”

Dataset.cat typos• ABSTRACT_DESC: “This is VERSION of this data

set”– Should there be a version number?– Also like this later in the document (lines 189, 205, 301)

• “LORRI updates for Data Sets V2.0”, first CAVEAT: “These were trivially derived from other information in the labels i.e. the project was doing the user’s work for them”– I find this commentary snide and unnecessary

• “Caveats about TARGET and observational intent”, first par:– Line 6: was “meta-data data” intentional?– Line 7: “unpredicatable”

Misc

• Catalog/nh.cat, 2nd par of “Mission phases” has weird line wraps

• Document/docinfo.txt– Should files be alphabetical?– nh_mission_trajectory not listed?