Full Version: Juno at Jupiter
This topic will consist of discussion of Juno operations post-JOI until end of mission, currently anticipated in Feb 2018.
Just under 24 hours after JOI, just inside Ganymede's orbit, on the way out.
I am surprised how far out Juno is going on these two 53 day orbits.
as of right now
This looks more like a projection of the second 53-day orbit, for some time in late August or early September.
Otherwise how to account for the extra red loop?
Otherwise how to account for the extra red loop?
It looks like the Celestia orbit plans ahead a certain amount of time; in a 2d image these things are a bit tricky to tell. It's also a bit tough to track how far in the background or foreground the irregular moons are from Juno. I don't have the program myself so I can't be sure if there would even be any chance distant encounters.
i put a 120 day period for displaying the orbit
otherwise the WHOLE thing is a RED MESS
the field of view is the default 35 deg.
for the orbit from April 13 to Sept 13
"spk_pre_160413_160913_160613_jm0002.bsp"
basically the best guess at the time as of June 13
in a week or so there will be a update
otherwise the WHOLE thing is a RED MESS
the field of view is the default 35 deg.
for the orbit from April 13 to Sept 13
"spk_pre_160413_160913_160613_jm0002.bsp"
basically the best guess at the time as of June 13
in a week or so there will be a update
The best Juno mission public site is: https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/
The Microwave Radiometer (MWR) turned on Wednesday July 6 and has now received a clear signal from Jupiter, although the planet is unresolved, at a wavelength of 50 cm. Stay tuned for more instruments turning on very soon.
-Glenn Orton, Juno team member
The Microwave Radiometer (MWR) turned on Wednesday July 6 and has now received a clear signal from Jupiter, although the planet is unresolved, at a wavelength of 50 cm. Stay tuned for more instruments turning on very soon.
-Glenn Orton, Juno team member
QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Apr 9 2006, 07:05 PM) 
OK, here are those crumbs. The JPL description is pretty good, but there are a few things missing from it:
(1) The 2002 Solar System Decadal Survey noted that the five main goals for the next Jupiter mission are: (A) Determine if Jupiter has a central core to constrain models of its formation; ( B ) determine the planetary water abundance; ( C ) determine if the winds persist into Jupiter's interior or are confined to the weather layer; (D) assess the structure of Jupiter's magnetic field to learn how the internal dynamo works; and (E) measure the polar magnetosphere to understand its rotation and relation to the aurora. Juno will do a nice job on all five - and while, the Survey's original desire for at least one and preferably 2 or 3 deep entry probes (down to 100 bars) would have further improved the data on ( B ) and ( C ), the added expense was so great that a deep Jovian Multiprobe Flyby mission by itself is now ranked pretty low on the list of desired New Horizons missions -- shallow Galileo-type entry probes of the other giant planets are higher-ranked. Moreover, the data from Juno will allow us to better plan the targeting of those deep Jupiter entry probes when we finally DO fly them. (Note also that -- if they absolutely have to descope Juno -- they could toss off every single instrument except the microwave radiometer and magnetometer, and lose only goal (E) in the process.)
(2) Currently we know Jupiter's gravity-field harmonics down to level 6 -- Juno will take it down to level 12 to 14. Not only can it nail down the size of any hevy-element core -- which is crucial to decide which of the two rival theories of giant-planet formation is true -- but it can measure that core's rotation rate, and even obtain profiles of the density of the planet's middle layers sensitive enough to determine how deep its convective wind cycles really run, all the way down 1/5 of the way to the core!
(3) Our current knowledge of Jupiter's magnetic-field harmonics is level 4. Juno will take it all the way down to level 20 -- much BETTER than we can ever obtain for Earth itself, where we're forever limited to level 14 due to interference from crustal fields! Thus Juno is likely to provide radical new information not only on the generative processes of Jupiter's magnetic field (including the dynamo radius and changes with time), but of Earth's field as well.
(4) Knowledge of the total oxygen content of Jupiter's atmosphere is crucial -- and the Galileo entry proe didn't get it because of its bad-luck fall (9-1 odds against) into a hot spot where a downdraft removed the local water vapor. The probe DID find not only that the concentration of the other heavier elements -- Ar, Kr, Xe, C, N and S -- was somewhat lower than expected, but that they were very consistent in being enriched about threefold relative to the Sun, whereas much bigger element-to-element differences had been expected in that ratio. This was a shock. The logical conclusion is that the icy planetesimals that formed Jupiter were actually made of much colder ice than that which existed at the planet's current distance from the Sun (150 K) -- those other elements were imprisoned either in regular ice at only 20-30 deg K or clathrates at >38 K, so either the planet itself formed much farther from the Sun and migrated a great distance inwards, or the planetesimals that formed it themselves came from much farther out and migrated inwards before accreting to form Jupiter at something like its present distance from the Sun. (The entry probe found further confirmation of this in the nitrogen isotopic ratios, which indicates that Jupiter's nitrogen was originally delivered as molecular N rather than as ammonia -- which in turn provides an odd clash that I've mentioned elsewhere with the indications from Huygens that Titan's nitrogen DID arrive as ammonia in relatively warm ice.)
Since water ice was the carrier of all these other heavier elements, we need to know the ratio of water ice to them -- for which we must know Jupiter's current oxygen content. If the planet's oxygen is enriched to only about the same degree relative to the Sun as all the other heavier elements measured by the Galileo entry probe, then they must have been carried into the planet in very cold water ice, from the Kuiper Belt or beyond -- and Jupiter itself may have originally accreted at that distance and then spiralled a great distance inwards. But if oxygen turns out to be enriched more relative to its solar abundance than those other elements -- say, about 9 times solar abundance -- then those other elements were trapped by water ice, and carried into the forming Jupiter, in a more diluted form as clathrate ices, which could have formed somewhat closer to the Sun.
The microwave radiometer (whose viewfield is 1 degree at the equator and 4 degrees at the poles) should allow water abundance measurements down to about 100 bars -- plus better ammonia data (which is a bit fuzzier from the Galileo probe than we would like), thus nailing down both Jupiter's overall oxygen content, and further sharpen our data on its nitrogen content. It will also get more data on the temperature and cloud depth profiles in different parts of the planet, which in turn should help tell us more about just how deep the convective and wind patterns that create the belt-zone structures really run. But it can only do all this reliably because the Galileo entry probe measured the other trace components of Jupiter's atmosphere -- some of which, like PH3, have a significant effect on the planet's microwave spectrum.
(5) Juno's mission is scheduled to run 32 orbits of 11 days each -- and any extended mission will be only a month or so, because they want to make sure that they can crash it into Jupiter, and thus avoid any chance of contaminating Europa, before they lose control of it from radiation damage. In fact, they may end the mission ahead of time -- most of its science will come from its first 16 orbits, and its periapsis latitudes are designed to give it only 5% of its total radiation dosage during that period. (As the JPL paper says, 5 of its first 7 orbits are directed toward microwave radiometry, with all the rest of its orbits being devoted to precision tracking for gravity-field data.)
(6) Juno spins at 3 rpm. Its "JunoCam" -- the most dispensable of all its instruments, whose data will be processed by students at JPL -- should send back 5-10 images per orbit. Juno is focused entirely on the planet itself -- any data it does get on the moons will be pure gravy. For instance, it's very unlikely that they will be able to arrange for it to fly through Io's flux tube.
(1) The 2002 Solar System Decadal Survey noted that the five main goals for the next Jupiter mission are: (A) Determine if Jupiter has a central core to constrain models of its formation; ( B ) determine the planetary water abundance; ( C ) determine if the winds persist into Jupiter's interior or are confined to the weather layer; (D) assess the structure of Jupiter's magnetic field to learn how the internal dynamo works; and (E) measure the polar magnetosphere to understand its rotation and relation to the aurora. Juno will do a nice job on all five - and while, the Survey's original desire for at least one and preferably 2 or 3 deep entry probes (down to 100 bars) would have further improved the data on ( B ) and ( C ), the added expense was so great that a deep Jovian Multiprobe Flyby mission by itself is now ranked pretty low on the list of desired New Horizons missions -- shallow Galileo-type entry probes of the other giant planets are higher-ranked. Moreover, the data from Juno will allow us to better plan the targeting of those deep Jupiter entry probes when we finally DO fly them. (Note also that -- if they absolutely have to descope Juno -- they could toss off every single instrument except the microwave radiometer and magnetometer, and lose only goal (E) in the process.)
(2) Currently we know Jupiter's gravity-field harmonics down to level 6 -- Juno will take it down to level 12 to 14. Not only can it nail down the size of any hevy-element core -- which is crucial to decide which of the two rival theories of giant-planet formation is true -- but it can measure that core's rotation rate, and even obtain profiles of the density of the planet's middle layers sensitive enough to determine how deep its convective wind cycles really run, all the way down 1/5 of the way to the core!
(3) Our current knowledge of Jupiter's magnetic-field harmonics is level 4. Juno will take it all the way down to level 20 -- much BETTER than we can ever obtain for Earth itself, where we're forever limited to level 14 due to interference from crustal fields! Thus Juno is likely to provide radical new information not only on the generative processes of Jupiter's magnetic field (including the dynamo radius and changes with time), but of Earth's field as well.
(4) Knowledge of the total oxygen content of Jupiter's atmosphere is crucial -- and the Galileo entry proe didn't get it because of its bad-luck fall (9-1 odds against) into a hot spot where a downdraft removed the local water vapor. The probe DID find not only that the concentration of the other heavier elements -- Ar, Kr, Xe, C, N and S -- was somewhat lower than expected, but that they were very consistent in being enriched about threefold relative to the Sun, whereas much bigger element-to-element differences had been expected in that ratio. This was a shock. The logical conclusion is that the icy planetesimals that formed Jupiter were actually made of much colder ice than that which existed at the planet's current distance from the Sun (150 K) -- those other elements were imprisoned either in regular ice at only 20-30 deg K or clathrates at >38 K, so either the planet itself formed much farther from the Sun and migrated a great distance inwards, or the planetesimals that formed it themselves came from much farther out and migrated inwards before accreting to form Jupiter at something like its present distance from the Sun. (The entry probe found further confirmation of this in the nitrogen isotopic ratios, which indicates that Jupiter's nitrogen was originally delivered as molecular N rather than as ammonia -- which in turn provides an odd clash that I've mentioned elsewhere with the indications from Huygens that Titan's nitrogen DID arrive as ammonia in relatively warm ice.)
Since water ice was the carrier of all these other heavier elements, we need to know the ratio of water ice to them -- for which we must know Jupiter's current oxygen content. If the planet's oxygen is enriched to only about the same degree relative to the Sun as all the other heavier elements measured by the Galileo entry probe, then they must have been carried into the planet in very cold water ice, from the Kuiper Belt or beyond -- and Jupiter itself may have originally accreted at that distance and then spiralled a great distance inwards. But if oxygen turns out to be enriched more relative to its solar abundance than those other elements -- say, about 9 times solar abundance -- then those other elements were trapped by water ice, and carried into the forming Jupiter, in a more diluted form as clathrate ices, which could have formed somewhat closer to the Sun.
The microwave radiometer (whose viewfield is 1 degree at the equator and 4 degrees at the poles) should allow water abundance measurements down to about 100 bars -- plus better ammonia data (which is a bit fuzzier from the Galileo probe than we would like), thus nailing down both Jupiter's overall oxygen content, and further sharpen our data on its nitrogen content. It will also get more data on the temperature and cloud depth profiles in different parts of the planet, which in turn should help tell us more about just how deep the convective and wind patterns that create the belt-zone structures really run. But it can only do all this reliably because the Galileo entry probe measured the other trace components of Jupiter's atmosphere -- some of which, like PH3, have a significant effect on the planet's microwave spectrum.
(5) Juno's mission is scheduled to run 32 orbits of 11 days each -- and any extended mission will be only a month or so, because they want to make sure that they can crash it into Jupiter, and thus avoid any chance of contaminating Europa, before they lose control of it from radiation damage. In fact, they may end the mission ahead of time -- most of its science will come from its first 16 orbits, and its periapsis latitudes are designed to give it only 5% of its total radiation dosage during that period. (As the JPL paper says, 5 of its first 7 orbits are directed toward microwave radiometry, with all the rest of its orbits being devoted to precision tracking for gravity-field data.)
(6) Juno spins at 3 rpm. Its "JunoCam" -- the most dispensable of all its instruments, whose data will be processed by students at JPL -- should send back 5-10 images per orbit. Juno is focused entirely on the planet itself -- any data it does get on the moons will be pure gravy. For instance, it's very unlikely that they will be able to arrange for it to fly through Io's flux tube.
This is a nice summary, but I'm going to correct and update a little.
(5) PH3 will have a minor, although non-zero, effect on the microwave spectrum. The biggest effect by far is that of absorption by gaseous ammonia (NH3), and we need to sort it out carefully before we can find the holy grail of water vapor abundance at depth, from which we will derive the presumptive O/H ratio at depth.
We thought a couple of years ago that the 11-day orbit would be too short if there were a spacecraft 'safing' event, as these have taken typically 3-5 days to recover from. So we requested NASA to move to 14-day orbit, but retain the 32-orbit mission. They agreed, despite the increased cost. It still seems like a good idea.
(6) JunoCam's operation accepts images from all amateur astronomers focusing on Jupiter: they are our extended Co-Investigator team! We at JPL create cylindrical maps every 2 weeks and post these, maintaining a thread of discussion on each feature and noting when a feature no longer exists. About two weeks before the time of perijove 4 (PJ4), we will solicit and gather votes on which features to observe that will be in our expected field of view for that orbit, gather the votes in priority order, then upload commands to the spacecraft on what to observe. These images will then be transmitted back to earth and we'll post them in the same Mission Juno / JunoCam web site. Students at Caltech may well work on them, but so can the entire rest of the world. Processed images can be uploaded to the site. The only orbit where we don't intend to post immediate images is the current orbit (Orbit 0), when we're engaging in a lot of testing of procedures that may or may not work. We will also take science-driven images of the polar regions on each orbit before the features voted on by the public.
-Glenn Orton, JPL
Juno Science Team member
(6)
MOD NOTE: Big welcome to Glenn! Have moved his posts to this thread since they provide valuable insight into coming mission ops.
Appreciated! I am also amused by the pull quote from a decade ago... though maybe I shouldn't be because, hey, I'm still following along.
That quote is sure a blast from the past; interesting to see the many changes to the mission architecture (and the constants)! I recall that Bruce was one of the most informed posters on here, but actual science team participation is one step beyond...
Can anyone resolve this inconsistency?
Both the website, wikiedia, and emily's posts say JunoCam's maximum resolution it will achieve of Jupiter is 15 km/pixel
However, JunoCam operation engineer Elsa Jensen says it will be 3 km/pixel in this interview on twitter:
https://twitter.com/NASAJuno/status/750068514560495616
Both the website, wikiedia, and emily's posts say JunoCam's maximum resolution it will achieve of Jupiter is 15 km/pixel
However, JunoCam operation engineer Elsa Jensen says it will be 3 km/pixel in this interview on twitter:
https://twitter.com/NASAJuno/status/750068514560495616
QUOTE (Saturns Moon Titan @ Jul 10 2016, 01:32 PM)
Can anyone resolve this inconsistency?
It's about 15 km/pixel over the poles and about 4 km/pixel at closest approach.
The IFOV (per-pixel field of view) is 673 microradians, so the resolution at distance d is 673e-6*d.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-014-0079-x
Oh, the Great (but elusive) Red Spot. For us part time amateur astronomers (work, clouds, weather etc)
our friend is very shy. About 2 months ago, peering through a fellow Society members, nice 10" f5 Newtonian,
it was a case of bullseye.
There it was, just coming into view on the eastern limb. For me, being absent due to the above
factors, it was several years. For others, it was first time or more than 20 years. Has the spot livened up
or was the weather at our deep sky site ideal and the timing spot on. Also, initially I could see only 3 of the
Galilean moons. But one of our young members, accessing SkySafari, said there should be 4. Fair enough,
closer inspection saw Europa in conjunction with Io. Over a matter of half an hour, they slowly drew apart.
Maybe not Juno, but definitely Jupiter, King of the Planets.
our friend is very shy. About 2 months ago, peering through a fellow Society members, nice 10" f5 Newtonian,
it was a case of bullseye.
There it was, just coming into view on the eastern limb. For me, being absent due to the above
factors, it was several years. For others, it was first time or more than 20 years. Has the spot livened up
or was the weather at our deep sky site ideal and the timing spot on. Also, initially I could see only 3 of the
Galilean moons. But one of our young members, accessing SkySafari, said there should be 4. Fair enough,
closer inspection saw Europa in conjunction with Io. Over a matter of half an hour, they slowly drew apart.
Maybe not Juno, but definitely Jupiter, King of the Planets.
There is a higher resolution version here:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/images...20707_hires.jpg
I can't wait till late August to see closer images. I wonder if Jupiter has a polar hexagon like Saturn...
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/images...20707_hires.jpg
I can't wait till late August to see closer images. I wonder if Jupiter has a polar hexagon like Saturn...
This makes me feeling a mix of happy, curious, excited, and nervous:
Juno Sends First In-orbit View:
Hope, the EDRs will be included, and I'll be able to process them appropriately. MSSS seems to be able to provide excellent results, so I'm a bit more relaxed, that not all the processing is going to depend on me.
Juno Sends First In-orbit View:
QUOTE
"... JunoCam ... survived its first pass through Jupiter's extreme radiation environment without any degradation ..."
The Juno team is currently working to place all images taken by JunoCam on the mission's website, where the public can access them.
The Juno team is currently working to place all images taken by JunoCam on the mission's website, where the public can access them.
Hope, the EDRs will be included, and I'll be able to process them appropriately. MSSS seems to be able to provide excellent results, so I'm a bit more relaxed, that not all the processing is going to depend on me.
I'm happy to report that, so far as I know, all instruments on the Juno spacecraft are reported to be healthy.
The mission folks will run a JOI-cleanup orbit-trim maneuver (OTM) on July 13. Its performance will determine if we need a subsequent OTM on July 27, 4 days before apojove. That maneuver is not necessarily required; it depends on how the cleanup OTM goes. If we did well enough with the July 13 cleanup OTM, then the July 27 OTM will be cancelled, and the mission will live with a little bit of discrepancy in the PJ1 longitude and timing (probably just a few seconds and less than a degree of longitude).
The mission folks will run a JOI-cleanup orbit-trim maneuver (OTM) on July 13. Its performance will determine if we need a subsequent OTM on July 27, 4 days before apojove. That maneuver is not necessarily required; it depends on how the cleanup OTM goes. If we did well enough with the July 13 cleanup OTM, then the July 27 OTM will be cancelled, and the mission will live with a little bit of discrepancy in the PJ1 longitude and timing (probably just a few seconds and less than a degree of longitude).
Good shooting, Glenn! 
QUOTE (Glenn Orton @ Jul 14 2016, 05:57 PM)
... the mission will live with a little bit of discrepancy in the PJ1 longitude and timing (probably just a few seconds and less than a degree of longitude).
After I figured out what PJ meant, I had to think, "At what point does exclaiming 'By Jove I think we got it!' after an OTM become a tired joke?" Probably wore that one out during the 90s with Galileo.
Pioneer 10. Trust me!
Phil
Phil
Be warned that these all-spin images are large (1648 wide by 128*3*82 high) and mostly black, though the PNG format compresses them reasonably well.
Here's a graphic that describes the processing flow at a very basic level. Note that for the movie we just aligned the images in the three colors, there was no additional geometric processing.
Enjoy!
Click to view attachment
Here's a graphic that describes the processing flow at a very basic level. Note that for the movie we just aligned the images in the three colors, there was no additional geometric processing.
Enjoy!
Click to view attachment
Those images are great! You can actually see features rotating with Jupiter, easiest the Great Red Spot, but more.
Here crops of processed versions of the lossless images 1586 and 1588:
Click to view attachment Click to view attachment
and as 2-images animated gif:
Click to view attachment
The gif is rather lossy, so comparing the two above images is recommended.
Processing parameters:
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
Here crops of processed versions of the lossless images 1586 and 1588:
Click to view attachment Click to view attachment
and as 2-images animated gif:
Click to view attachment
The gif is rather lossy, so comparing the two above images is recommended.
Processing parameters:
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
I'm trying to figure out how best to serve up these data to make them more accessible to people.
To begin with, here is an Excel spreadsheet containing all the information stripped from all the headers.
https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/data/jun...h_metadata.xlsx
I'd like to examine the images one by one to look for cool things like moon shadows on the planet, but it's a little tedious because of the images' great lengths. I thought that as I went through the photos I'd chop out the framelets of most interest, but I can't decide whether to leave the cropped images grayscale or to colorize them according to whether they're the red, green, or blue framelets. Would anyone here use either product if I went to the trouble of posting such crops? See attached for two examples. Each is the same crop from JNCE_2016181_00C1585_V01, containing 6 RGB triplets around the image of Jupiter and its moons. One has been colorized, one not.
To begin with, here is an Excel spreadsheet containing all the information stripped from all the headers.
https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/data/jun...h_metadata.xlsx
I'd like to examine the images one by one to look for cool things like moon shadows on the planet, but it's a little tedious because of the images' great lengths. I thought that as I went through the photos I'd chop out the framelets of most interest, but I can't decide whether to leave the cropped images grayscale or to colorize them according to whether they're the red, green, or blue framelets. Would anyone here use either product if I went to the trouble of posting such crops? See attached for two examples. Each is the same crop from JNCE_2016181_00C1585_V01, containing 6 RGB triplets around the image of Jupiter and its moons. One has been colorized, one not.
Currently, I'm working on overview products like this preliminary one, in this case consisting of 30 roughly processed images (1307 to 1336):
Click to view attachment
Tomorrow I'll try to adjust the positions, as needed for movies or for stacking.
To obtain the crops, I first create a processed full swath with 6 pixels per degree, then look for the position of Jupiter, in order to know which crop to define for hires images. This is almost fully automated; I'm extending this automation to further processing. Processing of the full dataset of 1200 images will take about one day per run (about one minute per image).
I'd think, that eventually different types of products will be required for different purposes. This includes the narrow crops with focus on Jupiter, map projections, wider views including the Galilean satellites, up to the whole swathes for counting radiation, or looking for other satellites.
Click to view attachment
Tomorrow I'll try to adjust the positions, as needed for movies or for stacking.
To obtain the crops, I first create a processed full swath with 6 pixels per degree, then look for the position of Jupiter, in order to know which crop to define for hires images. This is almost fully automated; I'm extending this automation to further processing. Processing of the full dataset of 1200 images will take about one day per run (about one minute per image).
I'd think, that eventually different types of products will be required for different purposes. This includes the narrow crops with focus on Jupiter, map projections, wider views including the Galilean satellites, up to the whole swathes for counting radiation, or looking for other satellites.
QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Jul 20 2016, 12:00 PM)
I thought that as I went through the photos I'd chop out the framelets of most interest, but I can't decide whether to leave the cropped images grayscale or to colorize them according to whether they're the red, green, or blue framelets.
If you do the latter then it's a little more obvious which band is which, and people can get into Photoshop and hand-register the images, though I sure hope no one is obsessive enough to do all 1400 images by hand that way!
We considered putting out only the framelets containing the planet and a few surrounding ones, but raw is raw. My processing generates color-registered 800x400 images and throws all intermediate products away. We thought the 800x400s were too processed, though most people would probably be better served by something like that.
See http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive...r-space/491963/ for an interesting take on the raw data release.
For those who can't wait, here preliminary renditions of images 1310 to 1449.
10x reduced:
Click to view attachment
...And I'm convinced, that it has been a good decision to publish the full EDRs. Otherwise you always get the discussion, that NASA would be hiding something. And you never know what's serendipitiously waiting to be discovered outside the primary objectives.
10x reduced:
Click to view attachment
...And I'm convinced, that it has been a good decision to publish the full EDRs. Otherwise you always get the discussion, that NASA would be hiding something. And you never know what's serendipitiously waiting to be discovered outside the primary objectives.
QUOTE (Gerald @ Jul 20 2016, 01:21 PM)
Currently, I'm working on overview products like this preliminary one, in this case consisting of 30 roughly processed images (1307 to 1336):
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
These are terrific. I'm in need of some kind of thumbnail product I can use as a visual index to the files, so whenever you produce something that covers the entire data set, please share it with me!
QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Jul 20 2016, 01:28 PM)
We considered putting out only the framelets containing the planet and a few surrounding ones, but raw is raw. My processing generates color-registered 800x400 images and throws all intermediate products away. We thought the 800x400s were too processed, though most people would probably be better served by something like that.
I agree that if you're required to choose among options, the rawest option is the best option because it allows the greatest flexibility. But why limit it to just one option? I'd love to get my hands on your 800x400 versions as well!
QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Jul 20 2016, 09:28 PM)
We considered putting out only the framelets containing the planet and a few surrounding ones, but raw is raw.
Good decision. Including everything (i.e. including blank framelets and not cropping the images) eliminates a lot of possible problems and confusion (for example if I want to reproject images in the future and use information like image start/stop times from the metadata).
QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Jul 21 2016, 01:04 AM)
I'm in need of some kind of thumbnail product I can use as a visual index to the files, so whenever you produce something that covers the entire data set, please share it with me!
Part 5 of 5.
A jpg version of the 5x-reduced overview:
Click to view attachment
The zip file contains two kinds of png images, an enlarged crop of Jupiter, and a reduced processed full swath, together with the applied processing parameters for each swath in a textfile with extension LBL.
(The suffix "proc005" is just for disambiguation on my local computer, since I'm testing various processing methods and parameters. I'm working with BMP files, which are converted from or to PNG, therefore the "BMP" in filenames or parameters.)
--
Two CPU cores are currently running on parts 3 and 4. If everything works as expected, I'll add these two parts in a few hours.
Added the drafts for parts 3 and 4 to the same url as part 5.
Reduced overviews:
Click to view attachment Click to view attachment
At first glance I saw three invalid results, the cause of which is yet to be identified.
Reduced overviews:
Click to view attachment Click to view attachment
At first glance I saw three invalid results, the cause of which is yet to be identified.
@Gerald....In the pictures that you posted in Post #25, the edge of Jupiter appears to be blue. Gas molecules in atmospheres tend to scatter blue light, so I'm wondering if that is real or if it is an artifact of processing. If it is real, then do you think it would be possible to point Junocam towards the horizon when we get closer to the planet to see if there are any clouds or haze layers visible in the atmosphere?
My understanding is that Junocam rotates with the spacecraft, so it seems like it would be possible to take a picture when the camera sweeps across the edge of the planet.
This shot from the ISS gives an idea of what I have in mind. I know that Juno is in a higher orbit than ISS but Jupiter has a larger diameter than earth and the scale height of the atmosphere is higher, so maybe it would work out.
There's also artistic and public relations reasons to do this. The public likes novelty, and this is an angle on Jupiter which has never been seen before.
Another reason to point the camera towards the horizon would be to capture the aurora. That would probably require a fair amount of luck or clever timing, but it might be possible because Jupiter's aurora run continuously. Here is a stunning ISS aurora picture.
This sunset picture from ISS is gorgeous as well and the viewing geometry enables you to appreciate the vertical structure of the clouds. I think the low sun angle is making the clouds stand out against the background. Junocam is going to have a lot less resolution than this, but maybe Jupiter clouds are bigger.
Here's another ISS picture showing the potential of low sun angles.
My understanding is that Junocam rotates with the spacecraft, so it seems like it would be possible to take a picture when the camera sweeps across the edge of the planet.
This shot from the ISS gives an idea of what I have in mind. I know that Juno is in a higher orbit than ISS but Jupiter has a larger diameter than earth and the scale height of the atmosphere is higher, so maybe it would work out.
There's also artistic and public relations reasons to do this. The public likes novelty, and this is an angle on Jupiter which has never been seen before.
Another reason to point the camera towards the horizon would be to capture the aurora. That would probably require a fair amount of luck or clever timing, but it might be possible because Jupiter's aurora run continuously. Here is a stunning ISS aurora picture.
This sunset picture from ISS is gorgeous as well and the viewing geometry enables you to appreciate the vertical structure of the clouds. I think the low sun angle is making the clouds stand out against the background. Junocam is going to have a lot less resolution than this, but maybe Jupiter clouds are bigger.
Here's another ISS picture showing the potential of low sun angles.
One more low sun angle picture from ISS. Jupiter has these 'hot spots', which are regions of descending gas which make holes in the cloud layer. The Galileo atmosphere probe fell into one of these. This ISS picture of the eye of a hurricane gives a real 3-D sense of a hole in the clouds. I think the low sun angle and oblique view is what makes it work. Trying to time a picture to catch something like this would be hard, but maybe worth a try.
QUOTE (Don1 @ Jul 22 2016, 10:45 AM)
@Gerald....In the pictures that you posted in Post #25, the edge of Jupiter appears to be blue. Gas molecules in atmospheres tend to scatter blue light, so I'm wondering if that is real or if it is an artifact of processing.
It's clearly an artifact of processing. You need to know, either explicitely or implicitely, camera parameters down to 4 or 5 decimals to obtain subpixel-accurate registering. And even then, a tiny blur, be it from the camera or from processing, induces a colored margin on at least one side of Jupiter. Those images are enlarged considerably, so you see each small flaw in the color registering. I played a bit with Juno's angular velocity in terms of JunoCam interframe delay, but didn't find the perfect solution (yet).
Since there are several sensitive parameters, it's very hard and time-consuming to find a set of parameters which is optimal for all circumstances. M.Caplinger used a different approach for the movie, and just aligned the color bands without considering precisely the properties of the camera.
But I'll need the approach with the parameters for the perijove images.
"That said", Jupiter's aurora might well become visible in the RGB range, think at the (red) H-alpha line of the Balmer series. But any conclusions wrt auroras from my draft processing would be premature. Clealy visible, however, is the Great Red Spot in some images; you can see it moving within a short sequence of consecutive images. And I think, that some satellite appears occasionally even in these narrow crops; but to verify, first look into the raws in order not to confuse them with hot pixels.
RGB processing of Jupiter's horizon will be particularly difficult due to the Juno's fast motion, but I'm nevertheless confident to be able to do so.
On the Juno mission site you can lobby for features your consider as most interesting.
---
Btw. give me another two hours to prepare parts 1 and 2 of the approach drafts.
QUOTE (Don1 @ Jul 22 2016, 01:50 AM)
I think the low sun angle and oblique view is what makes it work. Trying to time a picture to catch something like this would be hard, but maybe worth a try.
We have no control over the lighting, but every image Junocam takes can potentially contain the fore and aft limb.
QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Jul 20 2016, 03:04 PM)
But why limit it to just one option? I'd love to get my hands on your 800x400 versions as well!
There is a certain amount of overhead in putting the images on the missionjuno website and the advance thinking was more about the smaller number of orbital images than these big movie datasets.
That said, I expect some processed version of the approach images to show up there in the next week or so.
Although comprising only parts 1 and 5 of the approach movie, I thought, I should share these two preliminary AVI animations, simply because they subjectively look exciting to me, and kind of authentic.
One of the two versions (the smaller file) shows the approach sequence similar to the way the EDRs are encoded. This is similar to the scene as it would look like with naked eyes. In the second half features on Jupiter become visible, and satellites look faint.
The other version shows all the noisy background by stretching the images in a logarithmic way without prior background subtraction. Together with the background and compression noise, the satellites are enhanced. But consider the file being large (almost 100 MB). The three lossless images at the end of the sequence look considerably different, since they show much less compression artifacts.
I'm currently rendering parts 2 and 3. Since I'm rendering two versions, both with 10x15 degrees fov, and 120 pixels per degree, i.e. about 4-fold supersampled, it will likely take another day, before the movies will comprise the full approach sequence.
One of the two versions (the smaller file) shows the approach sequence similar to the way the EDRs are encoded. This is similar to the scene as it would look like with naked eyes. In the second half features on Jupiter become visible, and satellites look faint.
The other version shows all the noisy background by stretching the images in a logarithmic way without prior background subtraction. Together with the background and compression noise, the satellites are enhanced. But consider the file being large (almost 100 MB). The three lossless images at the end of the sequence look considerably different, since they show much less compression artifacts.
I'm currently rendering parts 2 and 3. Since I'm rendering two versions, both with 10x15 degrees fov, and 120 pixels per degree, i.e. about 4-fold supersampled, it will likely take another day, before the movies will comprise the full approach sequence.
... while rendering part 4 of the approach movie ...
Did you notice the background star (Betelgeuse / Alpha Orionis) moving into the scene?
Click to view attachment
Did you notice the background star (Betelgeuse / Alpha Orionis) moving into the scene?
Click to view attachment
Rendition of Jupiter approach movies completed.
Edit: Added zip-files (about 800 MB) with the frames used for the animations.
Edit: Added zip-files (about 800 MB) with the frames used for the animations.
QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Jul 20 2016, 10:00 PM)
I'd like to examine the images one by one to look for cool things like moon shadows on the planet...
Images 1392 to 1394:
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment Click to view attachment Click to view attachment
Brilliant - well done!
Phil
Phil
Thanks, Phil! It has been an easy exercise compared to your almost daily map updates on Mars.
... In the meanwhile I've composed an annotated AVI animation of part 5 for download, showing shadows of Io and Europa.
The moons are faint, so you'll need a darkened environment to see them on your computer screen.
Sometimes the moons are invisible while crossing Jupiter's shadow.
Three of the annotated still frames of the AVI:
Click to view attachment Click to view attachment Click to view attachment
... In the meanwhile I've composed an annotated AVI animation of part 5 for download, showing shadows of Io and Europa.
The moons are faint, so you'll need a darkened environment to see them on your computer screen.
Sometimes the moons are invisible while crossing Jupiter's shadow.
Three of the annotated still frames of the AVI:
Click to view attachment Click to view attachment Click to view attachment
QUOTE (Gerald @ Jul 24 2016, 12:26 PM)
Rendition of Jupiter approach movies completed.
Edit: Added zip-files (about 800 MB) with the frames used for the animations.
Edit: Added zip-files (about 800 MB) with the frames used for the animations.
Nice work on the movie! It will be great to have your process all set up when the more detailed images start coming back.
Did you have to do much in the way of alignment and stabilization after chopping up the images?
Gerald,
Very nice work. Question, where does the Blue on top and Red on bottom artifact come from. Strangely, the moon shadow has the blue below the red image what's going on?
Very nice work. Question, where does the Blue on top and Red on bottom artifact come from. Strangely, the moon shadow has the blue below the red image what's going on?
@Brian Burns: Thanks! I hope so, too.
I'm simulating the behaviour of the camera as good as I can, and calc back from an output pixel position to pixel positions in the EDRs to obtain color information for the output pixel.
For the sequence I've moved the green channel of Jupiter's centroid to the center of the respective image to obtain alignment along the sequence.
@Floyd: Thank you! My camera simulation is not yet quite perfect; I needed to make a decision between investing more time to narrow down the parameters, or releasing images with imperfect RGB alignment. So I get some RGB misalignment. The apparent exchanged alignment error is essentialy the same misalignment; the difference between the two is dark shadow on bright background vs. bright object on dark background; this causes the observed effect.
My schedule was completing an RMS minimization for the parameters somewhere between end of July and end of August, with end of October as deadline, when the regular science mission begins. But I thought releasing processed images of imperfect quality is better than releasing no processed images. With a delay of several months I may be able to pin down the camera parameters to the best possible within a given family of camera models.
I'm simulating the behaviour of the camera as good as I can, and calc back from an output pixel position to pixel positions in the EDRs to obtain color information for the output pixel.
For the sequence I've moved the green channel of Jupiter's centroid to the center of the respective image to obtain alignment along the sequence.
@Floyd: Thank you! My camera simulation is not yet quite perfect; I needed to make a decision between investing more time to narrow down the parameters, or releasing images with imperfect RGB alignment. So I get some RGB misalignment. The apparent exchanged alignment error is essentialy the same misalignment; the difference between the two is dark shadow on bright background vs. bright object on dark background; this causes the observed effect.
My schedule was completing an RMS minimization for the parameters somewhere between end of July and end of August, with end of October as deadline, when the regular science mission begins. But I thought releasing processed images of imperfect quality is better than releasing no processed images. With a delay of several months I may be able to pin down the camera parameters to the best possible within a given family of camera models.
QUOTE (Gerald @ Jul 25 2016, 12:39 PM)
I'm simulating the behaviour of the camera as good as I can, and calc back from an output pixel position to pixel positions in the EDRs to obtain color information for the output pixel.
Despite the color misalignment, considering the method it's quite impressive and indicative of the amount of work you've done that this product is as well-aligned as it is. I made the decision with my movie processing to not try to model the camera at all, which actually works better in most cases while completely choking on images where the planet landed on framelet boundaries -- those had to be fixed by hand.
Are you using the C kernel data or coming up with some independent estimate of s/c orientation based only on camera images?
BTW, there is a large high-latitude shadow of Ganymede in frame 1196-1199 or so.
Thanks, well I had almost three years time to experiment with efb01.
For the distant Jupiter image I'm working completely different from an initial intuitive reality regarding the 3d scenario. In this case, it's sufficient instead to assume Juno staying in the center of a hollow sphere with a large radius, and all objects placed on the surface of this sphere.
I've used a by-hand approximation method to find Juno's rotation in terms of interframe delay, essentially a bisection method, working best for swathes where you get Jupiter at the start and at the end of the swath. But since I've used only a very small number of test images, and since there are other uncertain camera parameters, the value isn't optimized over the whole data set.
This approach won't work with Jupiter close-by. Then trajectory and Jupiter's shape and rotation need to be modeled. But with the latter approach the transition between Jupiter's shape and infinity gets somewhat tricky.
Edit: Yes, I see a clear shadow in 1196-1199. I'll post the cropped images later.
For the distant Jupiter image I'm working completely different from an initial intuitive reality regarding the 3d scenario. In this case, it's sufficient instead to assume Juno staying in the center of a hollow sphere with a large radius, and all objects placed on the surface of this sphere.
I've used a by-hand approximation method to find Juno's rotation in terms of interframe delay, essentially a bisection method, working best for swathes where you get Jupiter at the start and at the end of the swath. But since I've used only a very small number of test images, and since there are other uncertain camera parameters, the value isn't optimized over the whole data set.
This approach won't work with Jupiter close-by. Then trajectory and Jupiter's shape and rotation need to be modeled. But with the latter approach the transition between Jupiter's shape and infinity gets somewhat tricky.
Edit: Yes, I see a clear shadow in 1196-1199. I'll post the cropped images later.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.