New Horizon LORRI Specific Liens for Pluto Encounter Data Sets
--------------------------------------------------------------

Certification Status: Certified for release.


Request that for lossy compressed images that have a corrupted block of 40x8 pixels resulting from the 34 pixels of housekeeping data, the quality map indicate the pixels that are affected.  The team will look into doing this.

Neither the Hot Pixel Maps nor the Dead Pixel Maps have any flagged pixels.  Is this correct?

From DATASET.CAT:  For calibrated window objects, pixels outside the window are zero in raw, and pass through calibration.  Why can’t the quality map be used to produce a mask that can reset the bad pixels back to zero?

In radiance calibration: Need to provide coefficients/guidance/suggestions on how to calibrate small moons, etc. 

Is it stated anywhere how well the smear removal is supposed to work?  I see streaks in the data still  (about 1% level). 

Responsivity – Discussion of the conversion equation and plot in the SSR paper points out an error.  This is noted in various places in the documentation, but they say Fig 9 is wrong when it looks like it’s actually Eq 3 that is wrong .  Assuming units are (DN/s/pixel)/(W/cm^2/sr).  There are several affected files:
--> CALIB/LORRI_RESPONSIVITY:
--> --> Need to remove "/nm" from "(DN/s/pixel)/(W/cm^2/sr/nm) 
--> --> Note should say that Eq 3 from CHENGETAL2008 is wrong
--> DOCUMENT/LORRI_SSR.LBL 
--> --> Note should say that Eq 3 from CHENGETAL2008 is wrong
--> --> Also, "monocrhomatic" should be "monochromatic"
--> DOCUMENT/DOCINFO.TXT
--> --> Note should say that Eq 3 from CHENGETAL2008 is wrong
--> CATALOG/DATASET.CAT   (Calibrated dataset)
--> --> Note should say that Eq 3 from CHENGETAL2008 is wrong
--> perhaps other locations as well

IntroDoc also states that the first 34 pixels are flagged as missing in the quality map, but I never saw that information anywhere in the other documents.   Should be included somewhere that is part of the archive.

Lots of geometric information in the FITS header, but little in the PDS Labels
Please add to the PDS labels.  In general, data in common generally agree well.  Estimated pixel positions don’t. APPROX_TARGET_LINE / SAMPLE vs  TARGFOV00

Some position vectors in PDS label are inverse of those in FITS header. Fine if they are not lt & abberation corrected, but PDS label says they are corrected.  Geometry should be lt & abberation corrected.

My calculations suggest there is a mix of positions calculated with and without light time corrections.  For geometry listed in PDS labels (defined as light time corrected):
--> s/c – target position is best matched with "lt+s"
--> s/c – Sun position is best matched with no correction  (incorrect)
--> Target – Sun position best matched with "lt+s"
--> s/c – Earth  position best matched with "lt+s
For FITS headers, 
--> target-s/c  is given as the inverse of s/c-target (incorrect)
--> Earth – s/c  is given as the inverse of s/c-target (incorrect)

Solar phase angle in the PDS label should be checked.  Example:   LOR_0299124574_0X632_SCI.LBL gives a phase angle (Sun-Pluto-s/c)  for Pluto of 69.463 deg but I compute 16.09 deg and the Image suggests ~16 deg is correct.


For file: 'calib/calinfo.txt'
--> Update or remove the comment "Filenames of calibration file used in data calibration will be included in PDS labels produced after the 2014-01 peer review."

For file: 'catalog/dataset.cat'
--> For the statement: "some sequences may have failed to execute due to spacecraft events (e.g. safing) and there will be observations associated with those sequences."
--> --> Is this correct?
--> --> Not clear if observations are not obtained, or if they are obtained with bad pointing, etc. 
--> --> More detail would be useful.
--> Is it straightforward to determine what sequences were not obtained, simply by comparing to the index table.
--> Is it possible to get a list of known "interruptions" that might have affected the data sequences, just as a basic guide (e.g. a table of times when observations might have been affected)?
--> "The common data product is a 2-D image of brightnesses that is, or can be, calibrated to radiance." For LORRI, this should probably be  "… can be calibrated to radiance or irradiance"

For file: 'NOTES/introdoc.pdf'
--> Line 1:  is "[instrument]" supposed to be replaced by LORRI?
--> 4th paragraph:  "!25-30 microradians"    what is "!"?
--> Directory and filenames Paragraph
--> --> It would be useful to point to the DATASET.CAT file for definitions of the APID, etc.  
--> --> Filename definition includes a version number after the "eng" or "sci" identifier, but none of the files contains this version number and it is not mentioned in any other documentation.