Orientation of the items on the surface was as expected is pretty significant, IMO.

If confirmed at some point, it is heartening to know so much went correctly during the mission. Late 60s/early 70s technology and they got a probe on the surface, count me thunderstruck. Impressive accomplishment!

IIRC, there was some speculation (if this is the right mission) the parachute might have come done on the probe, which would have been a frustrating outcome. To there credit, that may not have happened.

LOL, just pondering the imaging wizards here and elsewhere might already be trying to match up surface rocks supposedly visible on the partial video frame sent down with the images possibly showing the hardware with the surface features in the area.

That would've been an interesting way to explain the brief transmission, and then silence. However it's hard to imagine the chute was radio opaque.

I'm pretty sure there was no identifiable data in that image, since what looks like the 'horizon' is actually vertical. And since Mars 3 appears to be right side up, it can't be even that.
Only way to figure it out for sure would be to send something to get the 'ground truth'.

To me, that's one of the most amazing things in the whole story, that apparently it came down almost exactly in the position they had calculated long ago (45S 158W). There were so many unknown factors (it was '71, the original landingsite might have been selected based on Mariner 4 images), that landing ellipse was hundreds of kilometers big, and then seemingly it ends up almost exactly on the calculated spot..

I wonder if the entire "chain" in the HiRISE image is all chain, or possibly the darkness at the beginning of the chain is a rock or some other soil discoloration causing the chain to appear longer.

Solving the Mars 6 landing mistery would be great also...

It not the rock, is the engine of soft landing.



We will be engaged in it

Luna 9 had one camera, but Luna 13 had two - but only one worked. The Luna 13 panorama starts with a view of the second camera, a fuzzy blob of light and dark patches.

http://mentallandscape.com/C_Luna13_2.jpg

( thanks to Don Mitchell for collecting this and many other images here:

http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm

Mars 3 had the same dual camera design as Luna 13. If there is any real information in the Mars 3 image it is almost certainly part of the second camera, not the surface of Mars.

Phil

So this was an amazing precursor to the MSL "Skycrane" technique. Impressive, since it almost worked.

--Bill

It did work, unless the landing shock somehow disabled the lander 14.5s late.

Phil, I know, you are drooling over the Mars 3 images...
So, I decided to make a pixel overlap just for you (and also for our UMSF members) between the 2 HiRISE images PSP_006154_1345 and ESP_031036_1345 to show the Mars 3 lander with some more details...
The petals are readily visible now. This work is dedicated to you and your outstanding "Atlas of Mars" book. Enjoy !

This really look suggestive, thank you for your post and image.

Thanks! Yes, it looks very good.

Phil

Given the changes in coordinate systems since then (tens of km difference at least) I'd say that's a coincidence at best. What we call 158W today is quite different from what they called it in 1971.



It was more like the Pathfinder/MER landing system without the airbags IMHO.

Well... the early Soviet Luna moon landers (Lunas 9 and 13 in particular), which were configured somewhat similarly to the Mars 3 lander, did have airbags. Are we certain that Mars 3 did not employ them?

-the other Doug