Jump to content
PDS Geosciences Node Community

Forums

  1. PDS Geosciences Node

    1. Announcements

      The latest news from the Geosciences Node

      349
      posts
    2. For data providers

      Discussions pertaining to preparing data for archiving with PDS

      14
      posts
    3. For data users

      Questions and comments related to locating, accessing, and using PDS Geo data

      725
      posts
  2. PDS Geo Tools

    1. Analyst's Notebook

      Posts relating to the Analyst's Notebook

      89
      posts
    2. ODE - Orbital Data Explorer

      Posts related to the Orbital Data Explorer

    3. Spectral Library

      Posts relating to the PDS Geosciences Node Spectral Library

      40
      posts
    4. 4
      posts
  3. Workshops

    1. MRO/CRISM Data Users' Workshop 2012

      Posts relating to the 2012 MRO/CRISM Data Users' Workshop.

      5
      posts
  • Recent Topics

    • Hi John, Thanks for confirming and letting me know about BD1900_2. Whilst we are on this topic - for MIN2200, there is no stated kernel width for R2210 in the documentation: I found a kernel width of 3 is required to replicate the results, so either that needs to be added to the documentation or maybe the calculation is a little amiss there. Thanks, and have a good weekend. Tejay
    • March 13, 2025 - New MEX HRSC RDR Version 4 data loaded into ODE -    Added HRSC new radiometrically calibrated (RDR version 4) image data into ODE, with coverage from August 6, 2024 to December 29, 2024 (Orbit 26500). ODE product search page: https://ode.rsl.wustl.edu/mars/productsearch ODE map search page: https://ode.rsl.wustl.edu/mars/mapsearch ODE data holdings page: https://ode.rsl.wustl.edu/odeholdings/Mars_holdings.html
    • Hi Tejay,   I've confirmed your assessment that the BD1900_2 values reported are actually calculations for BD1930, instead. I've also tracked down the issue with BD1900R2 - in the SU file you referenced, the slopes for RC#### were calculated using R1815 and R2132, instead of R1850 and R2060.   Your calculations for BD1900_2 and BD1900R2 are correct, so I would recommend you keep using those. I'll reach out to the CRISM team regarding these issues you identified in the parameter calculations so we can get them corrected.   John
    • Hi Tejay,   Thanks for bringing this to our attention! There's definitely something odd going on with those two parameters in the SU file you referenced, and I agree with your initial assessment that the BD1900_2 values reported look like they're reporting BD1930, instead. I'll look into this in more detail, and report back here once I figure out what's going on.   John
    • Upon looking in this further, all BD1900_2 seems to be returning is BD1930:   The error between BD1900_2 as per the CRISM DPSIS documentation is this: But when I just return BD1930 instead:   Is anyone able to verify my suspicion. The next question is how is BD1900r2 really calculated as that one is going to be a lot hard to tease out?
×
×
  • Create New...