DIF-C-HRII-2-EPOXI-HARTLEY2-V1.0 ================================ Review Results: Accepted pending lien resolution. Certified. Symbol Key: o = Lien open x = Lien resolved + = Comments (by SAM unless otherwise indicated) Recommendation (for a later version) ==================================== Make a 1-micron image of the object from the spectra, and then indicate where each spectrum is located on the surface of the object. + The project will produce and provide these context images for version 2.0 of this dataset. Liens ===== x There is a table file in the document/directory listing all the data files. It looks like an index file. It should probably be in the index/ directory, but some reviewers prefer it in the data or document directory. Please move it to the index/directory, but mention in the docinfo.txt file that it exists. + The science image parameter tables are considered documentation for EPOXI. Reviewers for v1.0 and for EPOXI/EPOCh datasets perferred these files in DOCUMENT. We will continue this practice for these EPOXI Hartley2 datasets. x In the dataset.cat file, the summary table needs to have dates and day-of-years checked. + Checked the dates and DOY values. No discrepancies. x If possible, add the QE curve for the CCDs to the other documentation or calibration information, as seems most appropriate. + Not applicable to this dataset. QE curve provided by KKlaasen was added to /calib/ of DIF-C-HRII-3/4-EPOXI-HARTLEY2-V1.0 dataset. x In the document/ directory, the epoxy_sis.pdf file Table 1 lists some dates as 2010 which should be 2011. (What is the status of this in the documentation set?) Why are these critical documents that were supposedly collected in the best version in the document set being duplicated in the data set document/ subdirectories? They should not be. + Done. Fixed epoxy_sis.pdf. In the past reviewers liked the more relevant documents in /document/ of the EPOXI datasets. We will continue that practice. x In the data set document/ directories, epoxy_inflight_cal_summary.pdf file, there is a reference to "iCar" which, to start with, should be "i Car", and which needs to have the better-known HD number included each time that name is listed. This file should not be in the data set document/ directories (it should be in the document collection). + Not applicable to this dataset. x catalog/hrii.cat x Fix outdated wording (e.g., "after EPOCh..."). + Done. x In catalog/dataset.cat: Data Set Overview, Instrument Checkout, first line: "On 4 October the three science instruments..." Add year, presumably 2007. + Done. x document/pdsdd_epoxi.ful document/pdsdd_epoxi.idx x Add "DEEP IMPACT/EPOXI DOCUMENT COLLECTION V3.0" VOLUME_SET_NAME in pdsdd_epoxi.ful. Then remake pdsdd_epoxi.idx. + Solved lien by deleting the "V3.0" string from VOLUME_SET_NAME in the voldesc.cat file in di-c-hrii_hriv_mri_its-6-doc-set-v3.0. x All copies of /catalog/epoxi.cat Cruise 1, EPOCh Photometry Test: "On 4-9 November 2007, EPOCh photometry tests were performed. During these tests, the HRIV instrument observed a bright (V=9) visual binary star (HD 80607) for 12 continuous hours to check..." However the images were unexpectedly offset by 29 microradian (12.2 arcsec)." Check this conversion. I get 29 microradian = 6.0 arcsec. Which value is correct?? + Done. The correct value of the unexpected offset was 59 microradian per an email from DDeming dated 28 Nov 2007. Corrected that value in epoxi.cat. x epoxi_sis.pdf x Page 27, table, last row, col 2: "...-MRIV-..." should be "...-MRI..."? + Done. Fixed the typo. x Section 4.5: the massive table does not have EPOXI:MAXIMUM, EPOXI:MINIMUM, EPOXI:MEDIAN, EPOXI:STANDARD_DEVIATION, which are in examples earlier in the SIS and in labels such as dif-c-mri-3_4-epoxi-hartley2-v1.0/data/radrev/2010/248/mv10090513_4000000_001_rr.lbl + Done. Added keywords; have same definition as the "derived" keywords (e.g. EPOXI:DERIVED_MINIMUM). x Very minor, so not really a lien, but we should keep the text but remove the yellow highlighting in the HRIIR limitations section of the supporting document file: hartley2_cal_pipeline_summ.pdf. This file is in many of the data sets. The highlighted text was there when LFeaga wrote it to get agreement from the team that those were the correct values. We do not need or want to make that stand out in the archive, so the highlighting should be removed. + Done. x Reviewers could not figure out how to tie any particular spectrum to a specific location on the nucleus. Some "fair warning" text about the complexity of this process should be included in the dataset.cat file. + Done. Added text provided by LFeaga. x In the documentation there is a description of how the IR detector is read out, and how this may be adjusted to accommodate different observational requirements. But there is no statement about whether this operational variability is taken into account in the data reduction. (Brian notes it is used in the calibration of the cal file.) This needs to be added to the documentation if it isn’t already ther + Not applicable. The Hartley2 Calibration Pipeline Summary document, hartley2_cal_pipeline_summ.pdf in di-c-hrii_hriv_mri_its-6-doc-set-v3.0 already calls out that IR mode ALTFF has a different reset and read process and this variation has been modeled in the pipeline software, and line-specific integration times are used to convert from DN to DN/s in the ALTFF mode. x The raw data set has a target catalog file in it. It shouldn't. + Done. Removed. x There are keywords in both the FITS header and the PDS label to indicate saturated pixel counts. But a pixel flagged as saturated in the raw data is not showing as saturated in the calibrated data (a value of "-999" shows up in the corresponding keyword). Lori will check that the definitions of the various saturation keywords are clear for users and submit a correction if needed. + Done. No corrrection is needed. These keywords are explained in detail in epoxi_fits_keyword_desc.asc document in di-c-hrii_hriv_mri_its-6-doc-set-v3.0. However BCarcich enhanced the description of the saturated pixel FITS keywords in epoxi_fits_keyword_desc.asc document. x The TEMPSCAL keyword in the FITS headers and PDS labels both have equations included as explanation, but two variables are transposed. The correct version is in the FITS header; the PDS labels need to be corrected. + Not applicable. Only applies to PDS data labels in DIF-C-HRII-3/4-EPOXI-HARTLEY2-V1.0. x In the epoxi.cat file, and also repeated in the data set cat, the reported cadence is wrong in at least two places. It needs to be checked and corrected throughout, and anywhere else this text is repeated. + Done. Checked and corrected. x The limitations summary document (pipeline summary), highlighted text needs to be removed. + Done. x Scan rates listed in the FITS files are derived from SPICE kernels and are as accurate as they can be, but are not as accurate as the scans and thus are problematic for users. The target velocity keywords should be removed from the FITS headers and replaced with a comment in the documentation giving scan rates in slit-widths per exposure; and a comment that the SPICE data is not yet good enough for more precise calculation of these values. The keywords should also be removed from nominal and reconstructive SPICE data. (FOVV) + Done. LFeaga provided text that describes the data acquisition strategy using different scan rates for the Hartley 2 IR observations. Included this text in dataset.cat. The project may remove the scan rate keywords in the FITS headers in version 2.0 of this dataset. + Comment from BCarcich regarding the computed scan rates: SPICE data based on velocities from spacecraft attitude telemetry will never be good enough for more precise calculation such determining accurate scan rates for all IR scans. Scan rates in FITS headers should be used with caution. Noted this in epoxi_fits_keyword_desc.asc document in di-c-hrii_hriv_mri_its-6-doc-set-v3.0 x catalog/103p_hartley_2_1986_e2.cat shows up here, but not in any other catalog subdirectory (not for HRII-3_4, MRI, or HRIV). Should it?? + No. Removed. x catalog/dataset.cat: Under Data Set Overview, summary table, check for the following errors: x 2010-09-15 is given as day 259, actually 258 + Not applicable. x 2010-09-25 is given as day 269, actually 268 + Not applicable. x Flyby imaging E-18 to E-3 hours, date span should be 2010-11-03/307 to 2010-11-04/308 x flyby date given as 2010-11-03/307 instead of 2010-11-04/308 x flyby imaging E+2 hours E+2 days, dates should be 2010-11-04/308 to 2010-11-06/310 + Done. x catalog/dataset.cat - Data: Timing for Spectra: 14 - 15 lines down in paragraph - "assuming the spacecraft is in its usual orientation with the solar pointing roughly toward the sun" is missing a word, presumably "panels". + Done. x Reported saturated pixels (PSATNUM vs. SATPXCT and other details) So, there appears to be an inconsistency here. For the fits headers, the keywords PSATNUM is in raw, radrev and rad data and SATPXCT is in radrev and rad only (not raw). First, what is the intended difference between these two keywords? Second, why if the raw data have (as example used HI10100116_4000001_001.FIT with obs date of 2010-10-01T16:40:32.256) 7 PSATNUM pixels, does the radrev and rad have -999? If they were saturated at the time of observation, even after processing, at least the radrev should still have 7 sat pixels, unless -999 is used for any and all calibrated data as they are no longer raw data counts. Also, in the fits header for the radrev and rad, the SATPXCT is 13 and not 7, so why are 6 more pixels saturated when they weren't from raw DN? Maybe your definitions/interpretation of these keywords is different from mine and will shed light on the subject, otherwise, do you agree that we have a problem? Also, now looking at a similar keyword in the PDS label: EPOXI:SATURATED_PIXEL_COUNT = 13 so the label picks out the SATPXCT keyword from the fits header, is this the one we want it to pick vs. PSATNUM? + This lien is redundant. + Done. No corrrection is needed. These keywords are explained in detail in epoxi_fits_keyword_desc.asc document in di-c-hrii_hriv_mri_its-6-doc-set-v3.0. However BCarcich enhanced the description of the saturated pixel FITS keywords in epoxi_fits_keyword_desc.asc document. x TEMPSCAL (equation in the keyword comment) I know that there was a lot of discussion between you, Stef, Tony and Silvia about this just before the data delivery and I am sorry if I missed that it should actually be the way that it currently is...but, the fits header keyword TEMPSCAL and the PDS label keyword TEMPSCAL have different equations in their comments. Please e note that the value 0.684100 is the same in both, it is just the equation comment that is in question right now because of the inconsistency. fits: TEMPSCAL=             0.684100 / Scaling [A0*EXP(A1/Tsim)+B0*EXP(B1/Tfpa)+C0] PDS label: TEMPSCAL=             0.6841000 / Scaling [A0*EXP(A1/Tfpa)+B0*EXP(B1/Tsim)] + This lien is redundant. + Not applicable. Only applies to PDS data labels in DIF-C-HRII-3/4-EPOXI-HARTLEY2-V1.0. x In the column description for INSTRUMENT_MODE_ID, recommend adding a note explaining HRII DIAG mode's reset and read frames. These files are affected: di-c-hrii_hriv_mri_its-6-doc-set-v3.0/document/flight_data/epoxi/image_param_tables/ ./hartley2_obs_raw/hrii_2_epoxi_hartley2.lbl ./hartley2_obs_reduced/hrii_3_4_epoxi_hartley2.lbl ./calibrations_raw/hrii_2_epoxi_calibrations.lbl dif-c-hrii-2-epoxi-hartley2-v1.0/document/hrii_2_epoxi_hartley2.lbl dif-c-hrii-3_4-epoxi-hartley2-v1.0/hrii_3_4_epoxi_hartley2.lbl dif-cal-hrii-2-epoxi-calibrations-v2.0/hrii_2_epoxi_calibrations.lbl If time allows change the HRIV and MRI image parameter table labels in the calibration and Hartley2 HRIV and MRI datasets because the HRII modes are included in those labels, too. However these datasets do NOT include HRII data so this improvement is not really needed. + Done. x Fix typos in ExpID/Dates list: "Flyby imaging E+2 hours E+2 days;" -> "Flyby imaging E+2 hours to E+2 days;" "2010-11-06/311" -> "2010-11-06/310" + Done. x Check frequency of coma scans for departure imaging E+12 to E+21 days: 12-15 min is given in the table in the dataset oveview but 30 min is specified in the paragraph "Hartley 2 Departure Imaging, E+12 to E+21 Days". + Done.