Analysis of Projection Effects in OSIRIS-REx Spectral Mapping Methods: Recommended Protocols for Facet-Based Mapping
Author
Ferrone, S.M.Clark, B.E.
Hawley, C.L.
Joseph, J.
Nolan, M.C.
Bennett, C.
Zou, X.-D.
Selznick, S.
Loveridge, M.
Deshapriya, P.
Lauretta, D.S.
Affiliation
Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of ArizonaIssue Date
2021
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
Blackwell Publishing LtdCitation
Ferrone, S. M., Clark, B. E., Hawley, C. L., Joseph, J., Nolan, M. C., Bennett, C., ... & Lauretta, D. S. (2021). Analysis of Projection Effects in OSIRIS‐REx Spectral Mapping Methods: Recommended Protocols for Facet‐Based Mapping. Earth and Space Science, 8(3), e2020EA000613.Journal
Earth and Space ScienceRights
Copyright © 2021. The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
We searched for an optimized protocol for mapping observations from a point spectrometer onto a shape model composed of triangular facets, in the context of NASA's asteroid sample return mission, OSIRIS-REx (Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, and Security-Regolith Explorer). Our study was conducted before the spacecraft arrived at the mission target asteroid (101955) Bennu, and we used observational sequence plans of the OSIRIS-REx Visible and InfraRed Spectrometer (OVIRS). We explored six methods of mapping data to shape model facets, using three spatial resolutions. We attempted to boost map fidelity by increasing the observational coverage of the surface. We find that increasing shape model resolution improves mapping quality. However, once the shape model's mean facet edge length is smaller than two-fifths of the diameter of the instrument's field of view (FOV), the increase in quality tapers off. The six mapping methods can be broken into two categories: facets that (1) select or (2) combine (average) data from observations. The quality differences between similar averaging methods (clipped average, weighted average, etc.) are insignificant. Selecting the nearest observation to a facet best preserves an enclosed outcrop's shape and signal, but averaging spots are more conservative against errors in photometric modeling. A completely enclosed outcrop border expands into the surrounding region by 0.8–1.5 radii of the instrument's FOV. Regions smaller than the instrument's FOV are present in resulting maps; however, their signal strength is reduced as a function of their size relative to the instrument FOV. © 2021. The Authors.Note
Open access articleISSN
2333-5084Version
Final published versionae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1029/2019EA000613
Scopus Count
Collections
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Copyright © 2021. The Authors. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.