Opened 9 years ago
Last modified 9 years ago
#588 closed flight processing
EUFAR15/28, flight day 175a/2015, Mont Blanc — at Version 10
| Reported by: | stgo | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | immediate | Milestone: | |
| Component: | Processing: general | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Other processors: |
Description (last modified by stgo)
Data location: ~/arsf_data/2015/flight_data/france/EUFAR15_28-2015_175a_Mont_Blanc
Data arrived from ARSF via SATA disk on 09/07/2015
Scientific objective: Hyperspectral airborne measurements over snow, glaciers and vegetation; intercomparison with ground-based
measurements and modelling.
Priority: Unknown
PI: Antoine Rabatel
EUFAR Project ID: ISOTHERM
Sensors
- Fenix (requested)
- Leica LIDAR (requested)
- Leica FW LIDAR (not requested, not flown)
- Owl (not requested but flown anyway)
Change History (10)
comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by stgo
comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by stgo
Navigation Processing
basestation ppp:
| lat | 45 44 21.34921 |
| long | 7 21 53.26501 |
| height | 598.474 |
comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by stgo
Navigation Processing
Good solution found with Ipas TC
comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by stgo
Fenix Processing
Lines 5, 6, 9, 11, 21 and 22 are all affected by identical GPS start/end points and times. The new end times have been calculated by dividing the lines by the sensor framerate and adding this to the end time. Using no nav so GPS points have been ignored.
comment:5 Changed 9 years ago by stgo
Fenix Processing
Found SCT values, these are drastically effected by using no nav files resulting in large offsets:
| Flightline | FENIX |
| 1 | 1.80 |
| 2 | 3.18 |
| 3 | 2.09 |
| 4 | 3.60 |
| 5 | 9.98 |
| 6 | 44.93 |
| 7 | 2.28 |
| 8 | 3.96 |
| 9 | 8.32 |
| 10 | 1.04 |
| 11 | 2.55 |
| 12 | 4.00 |
| 13 | 2.75 |
| 14 | 2.71 |
| 15 | 8.34 |
| 16 | 3.54 |
| 17 | 3.90 |
| 18 | 3.22 |
| 19 | 2.94 |
| 20 | 2.06 |
| 21 | 57.03 |
| 22 | 48.81 |
| 23 | 2.58 |
comment:6 Changed 9 years ago by stgo
Lidar Processing
There are two separate sites in the dataset, one has a consistent pitch and roll error, the other varies wildly.
Site 1 consists of lines:
still finding pitch and roll values for these
150624_085753
150624_090334
150624_090912
150624_091446
150624_092003
150624_092504
150624_093027
150624_093602
150624_094159
150624_095317
site 2 consists of lines:
| pitch | -0.00246 |
| roll | -0.00081 |
| heading | 0 |
150624_100029
150624_100628
150624_101145
150624_101732
150624_102254
150624_102840
150624_103420
150624_104055
150624_104711
150624_105443
150624_110026
150624_110631
150624_111258
150624_111902
150624_112423
comment:7 Changed 9 years ago by stgo
Lidar processing
Pitch and roll found for lines:
150624_091446
150624_092003
150624_092504
150624_093027
150624_093602
150624_094159
150624_095317
| pitch | -0.00246 |
| roll | -0.00091 |
| heading | 0 |
The following lines have variable pitch and roll:
150624_085753
150624_090334
150624_090912
comment:8 Changed 9 years ago by stgo
Pitch and roll found:
150624_085753
| pitch | -0.00226 |
| roll | -0.00131 |
| heading | 0 |
150624_090334
| pitch | -0.00111 |
| roll | -0.00206 |
| heading | 0 |
The pitch and roll cannot be confirmed for 150624_090912 as it is not close enough to other flightlines to compare.
comment:9 Changed 9 years ago by stgo
Lidar Processing
No waveform files available, continuing as discrete laser delivery.
comment:10 Changed 9 years ago by stgo
- Description modified (diff)
Navigation processing
Starting