Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility

N IF

The NAIF Node

PDSMC Report

Addresses both NAIF Node and Core SPICE Development

August 23, 2011

Chuck Acton

SPICE components are not restricted under ITAR

Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility

N IF

2

The NAIF Team

Boris Semenov Ed Wright

Nat Bachman Sam KreningChuck Acton

Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility

N IF

3

NAIF Funding Sources for 2011

SPICE Development (25%)

NAIF Node (31%)

AMMOS* (10%)

All Flight Projects (34%)

All FlightProjects

SPICEDevelopment

NAIFNodeAMMOS* The PDS funds:

SPICE Development NAIF Node

*Advanced Multi-Mission Operations System

Percent of Total Available Funds

Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility

N IF

4

Summary - 1

• SPICE data archiving is in pretty good shape– Occasional problems with archives not produced at JPL

• Plan to do a major transformation of all archived SPICE data to PDS4 standards when PDS4 is stable and ready for ingest

– Will correct a few current issues at the same time

• User consulting continues to be a significant part of NAIF staff daily work

NAIF Node

Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility

N IF

5

Summary - 2

• Need to revise our SPICE training curriculum– Plan to break the current class into two or more units:

» Beginner» Advanced» Kernel producer?» SPICE archive producer?

• Training– Next SPICE training class will be September 13-15, near Pasadena– 49 people are enrolled, including 9 foreign

NAIF Node, continued

Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility

N IF

6

Summary - 3

• Ongoing major SPICE development work – Java Native Interface (JNI) Toolkit

» Alpha-test version is already being used by several groups

– New shape models» Digital terrain model» Tessellated plate model

• Already in use on Hayabusa, DAWN, Rosetta, MEX and PhSRM

PDS funded SPICE Development

Phobos ItokawaVesta

Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility

N IF

7

Summary - 4

• AMMOS funds three NAIF activities:– “New Development”

» “WebGeocalc”• You saw the demo• Looking for your feedback

– “Sustaining”» Funds used to port the Toolkit to new environments, and to

accommodate infrastructure changes

– “Repair”» Funds used to zap bugs

AMMOS* funded SPICE Development

*Advanced Multi-Mission Operations System

Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility

N IF

8

Summary - 5

• Ongoing SPICE operations for NASA flight projects are generally going well

• Upcoming NASA missions set to use SPICE are:– MSL, JUNO, GRAIL, MAVEN, SMAP (earth science)

• Unknown status re SPICE» LADEE, OSIRIS-REx, Mars 2016, Mars 2018

• Archive production by missions is generally going well. However…

– No sign of the final LCROSS input from Ames, needed for NAIF to complete the LCROSS SPICE archive

NASA Flight Projects(not funded by PDS)

Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility

N IF

9

Summary - 6

• ESA (MEX, VEX, Rosetta)– Occasional operations problems at ESAC– Archive increments are slow to come and often need fixes

• ISRO– Say they want more SPICE training (presumably for Luna-Resurs)

• RSA– NAIF cooperation with Phobos Sample Return is good– Support for Luna-Resurs (for both RSA and ISRO) will be proposed to

NASA, if a SALMON or similar opportunity opens up

• JAXA– NASA support for VCO was cancelled after VOI failure– A Hayabusa archive was prepared by NAIF, using a variety of inputs– Unclear as to other SPICE activities

• CAS/CSSAR– YH-1 has “shelved” plans for using SPICE with NASA help– But they are using SPK for trajectory exchange with Russia

International Flight Projects(A mixed bag of funding)

Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility

N IF

10

Archive Status

Mars OdysseyCassiniMER RoversMROMESSENGERNew HorizonsMars Express (ESA)Venus Express (ESA)Rosetta (ESA)LRONExTEPOXIDAWNMSLJunoGRAILPhobos-Grunt (RSA)MAVEN

Magellan

GalileoPhoenixLCROSS

?LADEE

Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility

N IF

11

NAIF’s Questions for PDS and HQS

• Comments on WebGeocalc?

• Does/will PDS2010 count on any SPICE capabilities not currently available?

• Should PDS strive to have “all” instrument teams create at least a minimal set of consistent observation geometry parameters, to be placed in product labels and/or data set index files?

– To be used in PDS4 data searches– Similar to “geolib” used on MEX and VEX

• Suggest the IPDA drop SPICE from further consideration.– Little interest from the advisory group– SPICE is largely a de facto standard– Inappropriate to have a standard that is substantially unusable by a member agency

• Suggestions for improving SPICE training?