Liens for New Horizon PEPSSI data sets (Dec 2016 peer review) ------------------------------------------------------------- * Last updated 2016-12-09 by SBN:T.Barnes Certification Status: Certification status: Rejected. The issues with missing data, questionable results, and warnings in the data set documentation that the data should not be used for science, are overwhelming. These data should be overhauled and submitted again for a full review. The first data on July 14, 2015 occur slightly after 18:00 UTC. Closest Approach was at 11:49 UTC. Where are the Pluto data? For data files covering the dates 7/12 - 7/16, the files all appear to be missing data from the first ~18 hrs of the day - this needs to be corrected. In the data set catalog file, it states: "For PEPSSI, the electron count rates have not changed as expected with distance from the sun. The team is aware of this and is reviewing the data." Note that this is of concern. If the electron count rates are found to be caused by some instrumental artifact and not representative of the heliospheric environment, then they should be removed as a science data product from this data set and a note added to the data set documentation to explain the findings. We do not want someone to pick up these electron measurements if they do not represent electrons in the heliosphere Regarding the 'Calibration' section in the pepssi.cat (instrument catalog file), although accurate and it should be in this text, it seems odd that such statement needs to be included at this stage of the mission. Is there a good reason why the PEPSSI instrument was not and has not been absolutely calibrated at this late stage in the mission? Regarding the last paragraph in the 'Flux Calibration' section in the pepssi.cat (instrument catalog file), the text would seem to indicate that there have been no adjustments made to the PEPSSI calibration parameters in a while. Shouldn't the experimenters pay more attention to these "preliminary" values so that they can be finalized? This statement and the previous statements raise the question of whether the PEPSSI data is of high enough quality to be useful for future scientific investigations. Regarding the last paragraph in the 'PHA Event Calibration' section in the pepssi.cat (instrument catalog file), it is not clear to which column is being referred. Since this information is expected in the data files, both the science and engineering data packets were examined. No column holding the rate weights was found. The ICD is not clear whether or not any data other than that in the Primary HDU is rate corrected. Some questions/comments regarding the PC/PE level 3 data: (see Frahm slides 26-36) 1) Electrons are showing no variation with distance. 2) The helium channel looks like it is contaminated. 3) Helium energy dependence is masked? 4) The electron PHA data signifies the spectral shape, but not its Intensity. The electrons here could have the same shape, but the variation could be in the sampling rate. 5) Why are the fluxes from PEPSSI abnormally high? 6) Counts in this Helium band look too high 7) Helium looks like vertical strips with no energy dependence. 8) Without Pluto Encounter data science goals 1 and 2 cannot be accomplished. 9) The Electrons look like noise. 10) The Helium looks like noise. 11) A polling time effect could caused when counts for multiple species become disjointed so that the ability to statistical sample is influenced by the count. If you have two input sources with both generating a number at a constant rate, then the probability of polling is constant. However, if the rate of one source increases, then the polling will find that the increased source occurs more frequently due to the increased rate. During this time, the constant source count would look depressed if this is not taken into account. The EXPOSURE_TIME in the data products may not be correct. Since each file is each a one day observation, the value should be 86400. The correct value should be discernable based on the START_TIME and STOP_TIME values within the PDS label or the MET and METEND found in the FITS header. file: 'aareadme.txt' --> line 65: "subphase on the day of Pluto flyby: the first period"; please add the Pluto flyby date i.e. Pluto flyby (14 July 2015): ... file: 'calib/calinfo.txt' --> typo: "Directry" => "Directory" --> The '[calpars]' directory only exists in the L3 data sets, but is referenced in the L2 data sets. file: 'calib/calpars/calpinfo.txt' --> The 'calpar_columns.fmt' file is not listed in this file. --> Every line is 80 characters + CRLF but should be 78 + CRLF. I believe every line has at least two spaces at the end. file: 'calib/rateboxdefinitionplanes.lbl' --> typo: Details section, par 1, last sentence: 'The each position' => 'Each position' --> typo: "to one on nineteen" => "one of nineteen" --> typo: Details section, par 3: '20148' => '2048'. file: 'catalog/dataset.cat' --> Second paragraph Data Set Overview section in DATA_SET_DESC: delete the word 'pitch' from "broad range of energies and pitch angles" since NH has no magnetonets --> All files on the volumes have 0x691 in the APID area of the filename but contain data from APIDs 0x691 to 0x694 internally. In the 'Filename/Product IDs' section, change the description to indicate that this is a placeholder field leftover from earlier versions (or whatever). --> Note that in the ApIDs table, the 0x691-4 description match those of 0x695-8. Please fix. SIS and pepssi.cat files only mention ApIDs 0x691-0x694. Are these included by mistake or do they need to described properly here and elsewhere? --> For the statement: The PHA event data are 'raw' values and some subset of them are noise or other instrumental artifacts, so PHA events with parameters outside the stated instrument sensitivity limits (see SPECIFICATION above) should be ignored, or, at the very least, used with extreme caution. --> --> Please change "above" to "SPECIFICATIONS in the pepssi.cat file" or "SPECIFICATIONS in the PEPSSI instrument catalog file" since it is not "above" in the dataset.cat files (Note the ending "S" on SPECIFICATIONS). --> --> Note: This same statement occurs in both the -2- and -3- dataset.cat files. In the calibrated (-3-) data files, the PHA data should not be 'raw' and values outside the sensitivity limits of the instrument should not be present. file: 'catalog/pepssi.cat' --> There appears to be no description of ApIDs 0x695-0x698. Are these included by mistake or do they need to described properly here and elsewhere? --> line 234: 'product, so they' => 'product. They' --> line 327-8: align these lines with prior lines. --> line 341: "In this initial delivery" => "In the initial delivery" --> line 375-8: align these lines with prior lines. --> line 381-3: align these lines with prior lines. files: '*-3-*/calib/calpars/*.tab' --> It would be preferable to move the spaces to outside the quotes. Example: DATA_SET_ID = "NH-X-PEPSSI-3-PLUTOCRUISE-V2.0 " file: 'document/aa_generic_readme/e_filenames.txt' --> All files in the volumes have 0x691 in the APID area of the filename but contain data from APIDs 0x691 to 0x694 internally. In the 'Filename/Product IDs' section, change the description to indicate that this is a placeholder field leftover from earlier versions (or whatever). Same issue in dataset.cat.