September 2019 New Horizons Review 
==================================

LORRI KEM Cruise 1 and KEM1 Encounter Liens
===========================================

Reviewers: Tony Farnham, Xiao-Duan Zou
======================================

CATALOG

file: catalog/dataset.cat
--> Some of the text refers to the MU69 event in the future tense. Should be changed to past tense for consistency throughout.
--> Typo - Repeated "either." "This indicates either that the target was either a star, or that the..."
--> DATASET.CAT file states that the dataset used to compute geometry is NH-X-SPICE-6-PLUTO-V1.0, but the dataset available from NAIF is NH-J/P/SS-SPICE-6-V1.0. Coverage ends before this dataset starts. Couldn’t find a more updated set of kernels. Can’t check the geometry in the headers and labels without updated kernels. Does the SPICE dataset ID in the DATASET.CAT file need to be updated?
--> Add the images DKBOs list to the "data set overview"
--> There is this statement in level 3 dataset.cat: "The first 34 pixels (51 bytes) of each LORRI image contain housekeeping information." Are they still in level 3 image?
--> Under Version, there is text that begins, "Future datasets may include more data...". I'm concerned that the data are being released when they may be potentially incomplete. Thus, are there truly future data to be added to this dataset?

file: catalog/lorri.cat
--> Physical meaning of the value in images from level 2 and 3 unclear. "In calibrated images, radiance is stored as combination of two items: calibrated DN in peach pixel; scene spectrum-dependent divisors..." There are no divisors present in the FITS header or PDS label.

DATA

file: nh-x-lorri-2/3-kem1-v1.0/data/20181121_040511/lor_0405118588_0x633_eng.fit
--> Partially bad image in both raw and reduced. Does a good version exist? Include a note to document the cause of the bad iamge.

Engineering Review: Emily Law
=============================

nh-x-lorri-*/catalog/dataset.cat
- These targets are not in the PDS3 database and need target.cats:
  TARGET_NAME = "ASTEROID 119951 (2002 KX14)"
  TARGET_NAME = "ASTEROID 516977 (2012 HZ84)"
  TARGET_NAME = "2012 HE85"
  TARGET_NAME = "2011 HF103"
  TARGET_NAME = "2011 HJ103"
  TARGET_NAME = "2011 HK103"
  TARGET_NAME = "2011 JW31"
  TARGET_NAME = "2011 JY31"
  TARGET_NAME = "2011 HZ102"
  TARGET_NAME = "2014 OE394"
  
Technical Review: Tilden Barnes
===============================

DATA_SET_ID:  Should the KEM1 id not be '-X-' (for "Other") but '-A-' for "asteroid"?  Or are we stating the KBOs are other?

file: 'catalog/dataset.cat'
--> ABSTRACT_DESC: The abstracts between KEMCRUISE1 and KEM1 are almost identical, yet don't they include different things?  Most of the text makes sense for being the same, but I question if what is included is always the same.  Perhaps I'm wrong.
--> DATA_SET_DESC: The difference between KEMCRUIE1 and KEM1 are negligible.  Should that be the case of for a cruise data set and then an encounter?  The purposes and what is observed or done I would think would be different.

Certification: Certified with liens. Will require check from reviewers if there is missing data.