Liens list for RO-C-MULTI-5-67P-SHAPE-V2.0 based on 2017 August 24 external peer review. Review Result: CERTIFIED, with minor liens. Check the dsks and verify the rotation and reference frames. Presentation sources: https://pdssbn.astro.umd.edu/review/201708_67P-shape/presentations/ NOTES sources: https://pdssbn.astro.umd.edu/review/201708_67P-shape/NOTES/ Abbreviations for presentation/comment source: BG: Bjoern Grieger (ESAC) BS: Boris Semenov (NAIF) FS: Frank Scholten OB: Olivier Barnouin (APL) RK: Randolph Kirk (USGS) TB: Tilden Barnes (SBN) General comments/liens: OB s2: Not a requirement but a good to have: Would have liked to see some more details on the estimated precision and accuracy of the models and what scales of objects can be safely measured. Hate for folks to over interpret the models. FS: Within label files substitute "the stereophotogranulometry technique" by "stereo-photogrammetric (SPG) methods". --> TB: Found here: =================== data/triplate/spg_dlr/shap4s/cg_dlr_spg_shap4s_100k.lbl: German Aerospace Center (DLR) using the stereophotogranulometry data/triplate/spg_dlr/shap4s/cg_dlr_spg_shap4s_1m.lbl: German Aerospace Center (DLR) using the stereophotogranulometry data/triplate/spg_dlr/shap4s/cg_dlr_spg_shap4s_4m.lbl: German Aerospace Center (DLR) using the stereophotogranulometry data/triplate/spg_dlr/shap4s/cg_dlr_spg_shap4s_200k.lbl: German Aerospace Center (DLR) using the stereophotogranulometry data/triplate/spg_dlr/shap4s/cg_dlr_spg_shap4s_050k.lbl: German Aerospace Center (DLR) using the stereophotogranulometry data/spice_dsk/spg_dlr/shap4s/cg_dlr_spg_shap4s_100k.lbl: German Aerospace Center (DLR) using the stereophotogranulometry data/spice_dsk/spg_dlr/shap4s/cg_dlr_spg_shap4s_1m.lbl: German Aerospace Center (DLR) using the stereophotogranulometry data/spice_dsk/spg_dlr/shap4s/cg_dlr_spg_shap4s_4m.lbl: German Aerospace Center (DLR) using the stereophotogranulometry data/spice_dsk/spg_dlr/shap4s/cg_dlr_spg_shap4s_200k.lbl: German Aerospace Center (DLR) using the stereophotogranulometry data/spice_dsk/spg_dlr/shap4s/cg_dlr_spg_shap4s_050k.lbl: German Aerospace Center (DLR) using the stereophotogranulometry document/shape_data_organization.asc:Science Institute, and 4) spg_dlr, StereoPhotoGranulometry produced at the document/user_guide.asc:SPG - StereoPhotoGranulometry =================== BS B4: Optional: PRODUCT_ID values inconsistently use file extension and not. Make consistant. --> TB: Will consider implementing by either removing the extension (if ID will be unique) or replacing the dot with an underscore. Note if implemented that all CITATION_DESC values will also need to be updated in product labels and citations index. --> --> TB: Affected PRODUCT_IDs: =================== "CG_DLR_SPG_SHAP4S_100K.WRL" "CG_DLR_SPG_SHAP4S_1M.WRL" "CG_DLR_SPG_SHAP4S_4M.WRL" "CG_DLR_SPG_SHAP4S_200K.WRL" "CG_DLR_SPG_SHAP4S_050K.WRL" "CSHP_DV_130_01_LORES_00200.ROS" "CSHP_DV_130_01_HIRES_00200.ROS" "CG_DLR_SPG_SHAP4S_100K.BDS" "CG_DLR_SPG_SHAP4S_1M.BDS" "CG_DLR_SPG_SHAP4S_4M.BDS" "CG_DLR_SPG_SHAP4S_200K.BDS" "CG_DLR_SPG_SHAP4S_050K.BDS" =================== Are the changes over time in the models representative? Are these models going to be reproducible? Is it doable to specify how to place X picture onto Y model? What readjustments need to be made? Are they recorded? If so where? If not, just stating that should be fine. Recommend placing this information in a user doc. The spc/mscp models appears to be rotated whereas the dlr and moc is consistant. Could this just be an issue with the preview images, or something deeper? The LAM models appears to be rotated compared with the MOC & DLR models. Provide better documentation regarding the limitations of the data, for example, average resolution, and height resolution that we can trust these models too. Also, whether they have been updated and match the updated SPKs that have been corrected for spacecraft position, etc. Maybe in the .info files as well as the documentation/users guide. File specific comments/liens: file: 'aareadme.txt' --> RK s5: 'DATA/TRIPLATE/PRODUCER' should be described as "Subdirectory for each model producer" files: 'data/triplate/spc_esa/mtp*/*.lbl --> BS B8: Add UNIT in the vertex coordinate column objects --> BS B9: Add INSTRUMENT_ID keyword files: 'data/*/spg_dlr/shap4s/*.lbl' --> FS: Correct CITATION_DESC author "Scholten, F." to "Preusker, F. and Scholten, F.". files: 'data/spice_dsk/spc_esa/*/*.lbl' --> BS B6: Add the 'PRODUCT_VERSION_TYPE = "ACTUAL"' line to the implied FILE object. files: 'data/spice_dsk/spc_esa/mtp019/*.bds' --> BS B2: Replace these files with those produced by NAIF found in RO/RL-E/M/A/C-SPICE-6-V1.0: --> --> http://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/naif/ROSETTA/misc/mcosta/ROS_CG_K104_NSPCESA_U_V1.BDS --> --> http://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/naif/ROSETTA/misc/mcosta/ROS_CG_M002_NSPCESA_U_V1.BDS files: 'data/spice_dsk/mspcd_lam/*/*.lbl' --> BS B7: For all models using OSIRIS images change NAIF_INSTRUMENT_ID to equal '{-226111,-226112,-226113,-226114}' files: 'data/spice_dsk/spc_lam_psi/*/*.lbl' --> BS B7: For all models using OSIRIS images change NAIF_INSTRUMENT_ID to equal '{-226111,-226112,-226113,-226114}' files: 'data/spice_dsk/spg_dlr/*/*.lbl' --> BS B6: Add the 'PRODUCT_VERSION_TYPE = "ACTUAL"' line to the implied FILE object. --> BS B7: For all models using OSIRIS images change NAIF_INSTRUMENT_ID to equal '{-226111,-226112,-226113,-226114}' file: 'document/eaicd.pdf' (liens here may also apply to 'user_guide.asc' and '*_model_info.asc' files) --> RK s8: Guide to usage needs to say something about reliability of SPG models. SPG methodology is much better understood and validated than SPC. --> TB: 1.3 par 1, last sentence: "on-board Rosetta mission." doesn't make sense. Should 'mission' be replaced with 'spacecraft'? --> BS C8: 1.7: does not mention SPICE and DSK --> TB: 2.2 bullet 1: typo: "(WAV)" => "(WAC)" --> TB: 2.3.1.1 #1/#2: rewording and typo: "previous to the arrival to the commet" => "prior to the arrival at the comet" --> TB: 2.2.1.1: typo: "commet" => "comet". Found throughout. --> TB: 2.3.1.7: Should more precise times be provided similar to 2.3.1.6 for consistency? --> TB: 2.3.2.1 par1: Should it be made clear who developed which models? Gaskell only participated in SPC from my understanding. --> TB: 2.3.2.3: It might be good to have the bolded subsection headers on the same page as the section. For instance "Details about the MSPCD SHAP2 files" header is on one page, while the entire section is on the next. --> BS C9: 2.3.3: "Information on the shape models created by DLR can be found in ..." should two references given in this paragraph be in references section and be pointed at using RD.#? --> TB: 2.3.3 par 1: typo: "This shape models" => "These shape models" OR "This shape model" --> TB: 2.3.3 par 2: The references here are not full. Only gives author, year, and title, but not publisher. Is that okay? --> BS C10: 2.4.1: change "DBS (.DSK extension)" to "DSK (.BDS extension)" and change "DBS (.DSK)" to "DSK (.BDS)" --> TB: 2.4.1 last bullet: We should shy away from including web links (or don't let Anne R. see them). Instead should state who created or currently managed the tool kit, i.e. PDS's NAIF. In addition to the weblink, suggest stating for the user to look for more information at the PDS NAIF node. --> TB: 3.1.1.1: Side note: DLR does not fully follow the file_name format. SHAPx_yyyy_CART part is different. Ex: cg_dlr_spg_shap4s_1m.wrl --> BS C11: 3.2.2: same concerns about SHAP5 SPC frame offset paragraph as for user_guide.asc (see BS C5) --> BS C12: 3.2.2: should mention that rotation constants from CHEOPS_REF_FRAME_V1.PDF apply only to Aug-Sep 2014. --> TB: 3.3.3: EXTRAS dir does not maintain a similar directory structure as DATA dir as described here. --> TB: 3.3.3 par 2, last sentence: typo: "to read this files." => "to read these files." --> TB: 3.3.4 bullet 7 (ref.cat): typo: "per reviewed" => "peer reviewed" --> TB: 3.3.4 bullet 8 (soft.cat): typo: "SFTWARE.CAT" => "SOFTWARE.CAT". As an aside, this file will not be found in the PDS copy the data set. --> BS C13: 3.3.4: DOCINF.TXT -> CATINFO.TXT --> TB: 3.3.4 last par: typo: "DOCINF.TXT" => "DOCINFO.TXT" --> BS C14: 3.3.5: does not mention SCIENCE_INDEX.TAB --> TB: 3.3.5: The SCIENCE_INDEX.TAB is not described here even though it is referenced in another part of this document. --> BS C15: 4: says nothing about DLR SPG models --> TB: 4: Should there be a section on the DLR SPG models? --> TB: 4.1 par 3: suggest putting this on the next page to be with its bullet points. --> BS: In regards to liens C5-C11: Clarify which reference frame is being used for each model. Was the model was produced in a different frame and then transformed to cheops frame? Please clarify the situation. directory: 'document/preview_images/' --> RK s10: SPC and MSPCD model images still appear rotated relative to SPG (which defines the Cheops frame). --> --> Verify the images. Regenerate the images to see if issue is still present file: 'document/shap*_model_info.asc' --> RK s11: The shap*_model_info.asc files mention the Cheops frame but do not discuss any alternate frames or attempts to measure the alignment of models or place them in a consistent reference frame. Should be consistent with the user guide. --> BG s185: The other model info documents could also be referenced in the user_guide.asc. Currently only the shap2_model_info.asc is referenced. --> BS C16: what is the applicability period for Axis orientation: and Rotation Period:? --> BS C17: none of rotation constants sets is sufficient to compute inertial orientation of the comet (no W0, incomplete precession constants) --> Add average precision and accuracy of each model to their corresponding doc file. file: 'document/shap4s_model_info.asc' --> FS: Provided updated file to replace shap4s_model_info.asc (NOTES/shap4s_model_info_correctionFrankScholten_2017-07-27.asc) --> RK s8: shap4s_model_info.asc says producers are Frank Scholten (LAM) and Frank Preusker (DLR). In reality both are DLR and Preusker is the lead author. --> RK s9: shap4s_model_info.asc also says "The SHAP4S model represents the final version of the model derived from the images obtained for the SPG models." The SPC models are SHAP2 and SHAP5 so this is not strictly correct if I am right in understanding that SHAPn refers to image campaigns. file: 'document/user_guide.asc' (liens here may also apply to 'eaicd.pdf' and '*_model_info.asc' files) --> RK s8: Guide to usage needs to say something about reliability of SPG models. SPG methodology is much better understood and validated than SPC. --> RK s11: Discussion of reference frames and orientation of the various models is confusing and inconsistent. The user_guide.asc says SHAP2 and MTP009 were developed in the Cheops frame (so they ought to be consistent with SPG but are not; MTP019 is not mentioned) and that SHAP5 was developed in a different frame whose relative alignment was determined by using pc_align. Does this mean it was transformed to the Cheops frame using pc_align? It appears not. These 3 are aligned with each other and not with the SHAP4s SPG model. --> BS C2: '.DSK' in "Shape Model Formats" should be changed to 'DSK (.BDS)' --> BS C3: "Reference Frame and Rotation State" does not mention SHAP4 and SHAP4S models --> --> TB: Nor the MTP019 model. --> BS C5: The SHAP5 SPC paragraph in the "REFERENCE Frame and Rotation State" section mentions a rotation by 0.28 deg. Some questions: --> --> did the team that produced SHAP5 SPC confirm that they used a different frame? --> --> --> if yes, --> --> --> --> what document defines this frame? --> --> --> --> is this frame just a refinement of CHEOPS_REF_FRAME_V1 or something different? --> --> --> --> is it "IAU-compliant"? --> --> --> --> why the labels for SHAP5 SPC still say that they use "the reference frame described in CHEOPS_REF_FRAME_V1"? --> --> --> if no, --> --> --> --> can this offset be disregarded and shapes used with CHEOPS_REF_FRAME_V1? --> --> --> --> if the offset cannot be disregarded, are users supposed to apply this offset on top of any positional/rotational information for G-C/CHEOPS_REF_FRAME_V1 obtained from SPICE of elsewhere? --> --> --> --> how would is this info supposed to be applied when they use DSKs? --> --> what axis is the rotational offset about? --> BS C6: There is no description of the SPG technique. --> BS C7: Provides comparison/suggestions only regarding SPC and MSPCD and makes no suggestions regarding using SPC vs SPG vs ESA/RMOC. --> BS: In regards to liens C5-C11: Clarify which reference frame is being used for each model. Was the model was produced in a different frame and then transformed to cheops frame? Please clarify the situation. file: 'index/citations.tab' --> FS: Correct CITATION_DESC author "Scholten, F." to "Preusker, F. and Scholten, F." for SHAP4S models. Recommendations for the future: OB s2: May want to consider providing more than the WRL format files, for example the OBJ format used by wavefront.