Europa SDI 2023-08-24 Working Meeting

When 8PM GMT, 12PM PST, 1PM MST https://jpl.webex.com/jpl/j.php?MTID=m3c96c22ed8e335e55dbd40c9084e3763

• Cynthia
• Mike
• Trent
• Paul
• Ross
• Jay

• Updates on data:
  • Vector data submissions?
    • Europa Geologic map, still not out. What’s going on?
  • Raster data submissions?
    • Raw image Voyager data. Whose court is that in? Jay and Mike will figure that out.
    • Versions with and without reseaus would be preferable. One where reseaus are nulled and not there, one where they are beautified.
• Paul’s data:
  • Thanks for delivering Paul!
  • What are these data? Paul:
    • Data provided are map projected mosaics of the key observations in the control network. These key observations are part of the global mosaic.
    • The data include observations from 5-7 km/pixel.
    • These were sent to ensure that the control network was not distorted to the existing USGS mosaics.
    • Not sure that these are in the same map projection as the data that USGS is comparing to.
  • Mike:
    • Started to do a comparison. No map2map yet.
    • Has been comparing these to the USGS products that were released.
    • What does it mean to have a horizontal datum? What do we do when there are offsets? Does that tell us anything about the accuracy of the mosaics?
    • Mike show’s the observation mosaics that the USGS made.
    • Comparison of the data:
      • Difference rasters do not work.
      • Paul’s data have been photometrically corrected.
      • Good alignment at the low resolution stuff. Cilix looks good between these.
      • Shifting areas to E15, their are offsets between E15 USGS and E15 from Paul. There is a ~950 m offset. Similar to E11.
      • Other areas (E3) are super locked in.
    • Each data set (USGS and Paul’s) are internally self consistent.
    • Question: Will the USGS high resolution stuff align with a Schenk mosaic?
      • It looks like it is generally at the pixel level. Maybe 2 pixels.
      • Is this the expected accuracy?
        • USGS states that internally, the accuracies are to 0.5 pixels. Are the USGS absolute uncertainties actually higher? By a factor of 2? Or is something else systematic going on?
  • Overall, looking really good. This is really hard.
  • Paul thoughts:
    • These data used the USGS points plus his own points that include JunoCam and New Horizons.
    • USGS:Paul, 5:1 ratio of points.
    • Paul’s points were all hand picked. He found errors in the USGS points.
    • The number of points that Paul removed was trivial. He does not think that that really changed anything. He assumed that this was a weight of numbers approach that swamped the bad points.
    • The JunoCam area is important to see what the effects might be.
    • It might twist the control on the antipodal side.
  • One option: when selecting a horizontal datum would be to re-create the USGS products using Paul’s updated network.
  • Paul can send the high resolution mosaics.
  • Once this datum (Paul’s mosaic as the proxy for the horizontal datum) is okayed, USGS products and DTMs would be recreated.
  • Nominally, this is the path to take after more analysis.
  • Where does it make sense to focus comparisons?
    • In the JunoCam areas.
  • ToDo: Is the 1km offset significant?
  • E4 and Cilix mosaics are uploading now. Others will take a while to upload.
• Mike Malaska and Ashley Davies are about to release the NIMs data.
  • How does 360 band get served?
  • It’s not a ton of data.
  • Data are hand controlled to what?
    • The old USGS base map (2000).
    • This is so low resolution, does it matter?
  • Mike talked to Mike and offered support (at LPSC).
  • This is a small archive, so it gets an internal PDS review. ANyone interested in doing a science review?
• Beau vector data?
  • Not sure yet. No time pressure.
• Rest of the year:
  • Outreach to JUICE (Jay; still todo.)
  • Build engagement materials (punt into September)

• Review the strategy and roadmap documents
• What do we want to achieve next year?

September 28th @12PM PST