CIDA Review/Liens List ====================== Reviewers: David Lien, Marina Fomenkova. On telecon: Chuck Acton General Comments ---------------- M. Fomenkova feels the documentation is about 90% complete. Obvious errors have been corrected, and explanations have been supplied – although they are not easily understood. She feels the documentation is now sufficient (just). D. Lien says it looks like all the pieces are there, but has not actually attempted to do the calibration. There is some confusion over some inconsistencies between what the document describes as being present, and what is actually in the file. _______________________________________________________________________________ LIENS ===== Calibration Document -------------------- Unless otherwise noted, the following will be resolved by Marina Fomenkova and Ludmilla Kolokolova: o M. Fomenkova notes that the paragraph between formula 2 & 3 is confusing. Halfway through it appears to refer to the following equation rather than the first. The authors admit this is confusing, but offer no resolution. Marina and Ludmilla will attempt another round of editing and pass it by the investigators before archiving. o In the paragraph following formula 3, David notes that an example of typical values for the variables a and b would be a big help. Examples are given later for equation 4, but a forward reference to section 3.4 would help. Also, stating that the 10^-2 variation in a is of order a few percent would help. o Marina notes that there used to be a reference to a document of thumbnail images (in the first version reviewed) which was requested. This could not be generated by NAIF, so the references were deleted. It was a resource issue. Mike suggests this would take 3-5 days of effort to get. If it is possible to generate these, it would help. But this is not critical. NOTE: Anne Raugh will investigate generating a set of thumbnails to see if this can be done without extraordinary effort o Ludmilla will investigate improving the placement of tables in this document (a LaTeX issue). Mission.cat file ---------------- o "DFMI" is used without definition. o There is a reference to information being extracted from the "Stardust Mission Planning Document", without sufficient information to locate the document. Get that information, and if appropriate incorporate the document into the archive. Chuck found the document with a JPL publication number, which he will email to me. NOTE: I have a Word format of this document. Do we have permission to republish? If so, I will create a PDF form and include both in the archive. o Date formats in the text are inconsistent. o It is not clear why the listed REFERENCE_KEY_IDs are even in there - they're not cited or described. Investigate and edit accordingly. o Need specific references to papers describing the mission. Instrument host file -------------------- o Include the ASCII instrument art from the dataset catalog file. o Need specific references to papers describing the spacecraft. Instrument file --------------- o Need references to the locations of details of both the instrument (the Kissell paper), and the calibration document that will be included in the archive. Dataset Catalog file -------------------- o Note that the INTERSTELLAR PARTICLES target name is used because of the pointing of the instrument during cruise (away from interplanetary dust). Chuck notes there is a paragraph on interstellar dust collection in the mission file, though there is not a lot of detail. (The instrument was never actually turned on when interplanetary particles might have been observed.) o Put the actual STOP_TIME in. o Note the actual number of impact spectra recorded, plus the number of comet, interstellar particle and housekeeping observations. o David Lien will provide a description of the confusion he's encountered with trying to determine why and when pairs of channels are null. If it is possible to find an explanation, this should be included in the data set description. See also comments under "index.tab". Interstellar Particles target file ---------------------------------- o Change the description to something more appropriate, to distinguish between interstellar and interplanetary particles. Index.tab file -------------- o Figure out how PRODUCT_TYPE is being used in the labels and make sure it's being used correctly/consistently o There are STOP_TIME values of "N/A" in the index file. STOP_TIME should never be "N/A" when there is a valid START_TIME. o Invert the order of the lines (so that housekeeping is first) and sort the non-housekeeping data on START_TIME. Note the sort order in the label. o Column 11 ("LARGE" or "N/A") should be deleted and the notation made in the data set description that small target mode was never used. o There are apparent non-science observations with spectra that have an accelerating voltage of "0.0". Please explain (in the appropriate place). o Adjust the null voltage marker for column 12. ("999.9" is too large for a field that contains f3.1 numbers). o Adjust field sizes to appropriate widths and null values for the values in the field. o Column 12 has no units. Make sure all numerical columns have units. o Column 34: "data" appears twice in a row in the description. Also, all flags are "1", so is this column necessary? o Columns 57-9, et al.: there is a reference to spacecraft relative velocity to the interstellar particle stream. In the data set, the spatial reference for the apex of solar motion must be given so these velocities can be interpreted. cidasys.asc ----------- o The acronym "SDU" should be defined/explained as "StarDUst". cida_event.fmt -------------- o The terms "HIGH_STRAIGHT" and "LOW_STRAIGHT" are used where the calibration PDF files refers to these as "HIGH_DIRECT" and "LOW_DIRECT". The terminology should be consistent. Data files ---------- o David has found one file that does not conform to the pattern of the rest of the data. Is this a known anomaly? The file is T20040212144949A in the CRUISE/NEGATIVE branch. It appears to have two calibration signals, including one at the beginning of the observation. Other observations only seem to have these at the end. (Not all spectra were checked). The paper by the investigators implies there should only ever be one calibration signal per observation. o Attached labels are awkward to work with, as are the format files. SBN will investigate detaching the labels. If resources are available it will be done by SBN. In addition: ------------ o Tyler has some typos he will send under separate cover.