U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Untitled Document
Planetary SDI
Toggle Dark/Light/Auto mode Toggle Dark/Light/Auto mode Toggle Dark/Light/Auto mode Back to homepage
Edit page

2024-3-28 Working Meeting (DRAFT)

Meeting Notes from: November 17, 2022

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


  • Cynthia
  • Mike
  • Jay
  • Paul


  • Horizontal Datum
    • Recap from a smaller meeting last week.
    • Outstanding question: Is the addition of the Juno data causing the USGS network to shift?
      • Mike is working on adding one observation to the USGS network.
      • Able to process the JunoCam observation to mapprojected form.
      • Spun wheels for a bit how to get map projected to un-projected. How is Paul using these data?
        • JunoCam2ISIS breaks the observations into framelets. Results in ~40 images.
      • Ran a cnet add to get this added to the USGS network, points have been added. Time out at that point.
      • Next steps are clear, so just need some more time.
    • Question: Just 1 image?
      • Yes, not a replication test, just a test to see what adding one, blue filter, observation does.
      • Adding just one to try and reduce the number of variables that can be contributing to the observed shifts.
      • This is solid due diligence.
    • Question: What is the difference between the Gallileo and JunoCam observation resolution?
      • Off the cuff, km per pixel in Gallileo, JunoCam ~1km per pixel to ~3km per pixel.
      • Signal to noise is a lot better in the JunoCam observations.
      • Lots of high sun angles, which is good for feature observation.
      • Needs to have higher density of control point to the edge of the observation. Need good span to either side of the disc so due to observation geometry.
    • Both products are using the exact same kernels - no need to test further.
    • For map projection, the radii need to be carefully specified.
      • Only need to re-run map projection.
    • Paul is verifying his network via manual inspection.
      • This is a work in progress, nothing obviously wrong.
      • It is hard to match the high sun observations to low sun observations with confidence.
        • Mike affirms.
      • Consider: Go ahead and keep the USGS map and publish the JunoCam map with that being labelled as a preliminary product.
        • Nice to have the product out in the world.
        • Makes sense to label as preliminary.
        • Yes on helping get docs for a data release. Yes on releasing these as ARD.
    • Question: Is the JunoCam lense and lense distoration the reason that dense control to the observation edges is needed?
      • Yes.
    • It would be valuable to have a displacement map.
      • Mike can generate a dispalcement map.
    • Discssion on preliminary data releases, general idea what EIS is planning.
  • Geologic map is released.
    • Trent working to get symbology so that Jay can release as ARD via our vector API.


Action Items

  • Jay: Send draft docs to the group to start drafting.
  • Mike/Paul: Continue working the offset issue.
  • Mike: Create a displacement map between Paul’s mosaic and the USGS products.
  • Jay: Get draft data generated as ARD and send to the group for review.

Next Meeting