IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The Sojourner Pool, Where HAVE you got to...
tuvas
post Dec 19 2006, 05:33 PM
Post #61


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 428
Joined: 21-August 06
From: Northern Virginia
Member No.: 1062



QUOTE (ugordan @ Dec 19 2006, 02:37 AM) *
If there's color coverage of the spot where Sojourner is, IMHO it shouldn't be that difficult to distinguish it from ordinary rocks. It's just bound to have a slightly different spectra.


That is true, but at the same time it's bound to only be a few pixels across, and if you take a look at the high-resolution color images, there are a fair number of small pixel effects that creep in. Still, there is the hope, but first we have to find pathfinder, and then we can worry about Sojourner.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Dec 19 2006, 07:19 PM
Post #62


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (tuvas @ Dec 19 2006, 06:33 PM) *
if you take a look at the high-resolution color images, there are a fair number of small pixel effects that creep in.

My reasoning on those color fringing effects is that they arise due to small stereo effects from the 3 color CCDs being offset vertically. That means that while the central detector (let's say) looks at a given point directly nadir, the other two will have a slightly different viewing angle when the groundtrack brings that point into their view. It should be fairly easy to match up the 3 channels locally if the terrain is approximately flat as the stereo effect differences will be negligible. It's bound to produce drastical fringes on sharp topography, such as that famous Victoria image - you could register correctly for the flat terrain outside OR you could register for the crater floor, but you can't have both. Unless you come up with a 3D terrain model and properly reproject all channels a-la Mars Express imagery.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tim53
post Dec 21 2006, 12:14 AM
Post #63


Member
***

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 8-August 06
Member No.: 1022



Remember that the color channels are typically binned 2x2 or even 4x4 pixels, and Sojourner is only a half meter long or so.

I'm betting we'll be able to identify it unless it's moved far from where we last saw it.

Coolest would be to see tracks from a "rock" fading back toward the lander, indicating recent movement.

But it's not likely. Both the lander and rover have been subjected to 5 winters at 20N latitude, colder than Spirit's suffered at Gusev (and with working batteries to keep warm nights).

-Tim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Dec 21 2006, 08:25 AM
Post #64


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14433
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (ugordan @ Dec 19 2006, 07:19 PM) *
My reasoning on those color fringing effects is that they arise due to small stereo effects from the 3 color CCDs being offset vertically.


I would say that effect is too small to be really worth considering - how far apart are the CCD's - a cm, an inch - not much more than that....over a distance of 250km We're talking .000002 to .000011 degrees ( for 1 to 5 centimetre offset...if my very old Trig isn't letting me down)

I agree that the colour fringing is there - but it's down to downsampling imho. I agree with Tim - Tuvas et.al. should be able to fill us in on tha tone.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Dec 21 2006, 09:27 AM
Post #65


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 21 2006, 09:25 AM) *
I would say that effect is too small to be really worth considering - how far apart are the CCD's - a cm, an inch - not much more than that....over a distance of 250km We're talking .000002 to .000011 degrees ( for 1 to 5 centimetre offset...if my very old Trig isn't letting me down)

I think your reasoning might be wrong. Let's say the camera has a 1 degree FOV (yes, I know HiRISE is a fraction of this) projected on a 10 cm diameter image area at focus. If the two detectors were 5 cm apart, would that not imply around 0.5 degree look difference? It is small (gives around 0.6 meters ground parallax for topography at 70 meters height), but it's still vastly larger an angle than what your simple trigonometric method neglecting camera projection gives. I wonder what the real numbers for HiRISE are.
That said, color binning on the other two filters is a real possibility and quite likely to make things harder. Sojourner won't be resolvable with 1x1 binning and its spectral signature can only be further diluted in 2x2 binning. Assuming they even get the color portion of the swath over the rover. It's definitely possible some of the color fringes in other color images are due to binning, but the fringes do look a bit stereo-ish to me.

EDIT: Okay, I did a quick calculation based on the layout of the CCDs as seen in this document. The greatest stereo separation would be between the blue-green and NIR detectors. Visually, they seem to be separated by about 1 CCD width. Given that the CCD width is 2048 pix and with an IFOV of 1 microrad, that means the stereo look angles should differ by 2 millirad. Applied to Victoria crater depth of 70 meters that gives a parallax shift of 70*0.002 or 0.14 meters. This is well below the HiRISE minimal pixel size of 0.25 m/pix so in this case the color fringing probably was due to binning alone. Severe topography would be noticeably affected, however.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ElkGroveDan
post Dec 21 2006, 04:32 PM
Post #66


Senior Member
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4763
Joined: 15-March 05
From: Glendale, AZ
Member No.: 197



QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 21 2006, 12:25 AM) *
how far apart are the CCD's - a cm, an inch - not much more than that....

I don't know much about how the camera works, but if the color layers are taken sequentially would the movement of the spacecraft not account for a wider separation? Anyone know the timing of the image sequence? The speed of MRO relative to the ground track? Willing to do the calculations (I'm not. Y'all have made me lazy here).


--------------------
If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tim53
post Dec 23 2006, 11:51 PM
Post #67


Member
***

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 8-August 06
Member No.: 1022



Doug:

Wasn't it you who posted a pic of what the various hardware components would look like in hirise images?

I'll keep looking, but if you can point me to it before I find it...

Happy holidays, troops!

-Tim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Dec 24 2006, 12:09 AM
Post #68


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14433
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Yup - 'twas I...

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=3495

Specifically

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...ost&id=8409


I was quite pleased how the Viking back-shells turned out.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alan
post Jan 1 2007, 11:36 PM
Post #69


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1887
Joined: 20-November 04
From: Iowa
Member No.: 110



Any chance of getting an answer this week?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Jan 10 2007, 11:24 PM
Post #70


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14433
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



By my best estimate - Sojourner is estimated to be at...

1,-6...ish...

Rounding to .25 metres....

Mizarkey 1.5m
Rahkir 1.75m
Nix 2.0m
SL 2.5m
AM 3.0m
AlexB 3.5m
ME 3.5m
Tuvas 4.25m
James 5m

Nico the only person with a pin that got bent by Sojourner smile.gif

Kudos to Mizar and Rahkir.....both damned close smile.gif

The image is a bit of a mess - a combo of lots of different photoshop layers - but I'm open to interpretation at this stage - it's certainly between Mizar and Rahkir - that's for sure.

Doug
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AlexBlackwell_*
post Jan 11 2007, 08:25 PM
Post #71





Guests






So who won the pool?

See also this release.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elakdawalla
post Jan 11 2007, 08:37 PM
Post #72


Administrator
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 5172
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth
Member No.: 454



This may help a little with your map, Doug -- an unannotated image of the landing site at 300 percent, with a white dot in Sojourner's proposed position.

--Emily
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 


--------------------
My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AlexBlackwell_*
post Jan 11 2007, 08:41 PM
Post #73





Guests






See Emily's blog entry, too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tuvas
post Jan 11 2007, 08:49 PM
Post #74


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 428
Joined: 21-August 06
From: Northern Virginia
Member No.: 1062



QUOTE (djellison @ Jan 10 2007, 04:24 PM) *
By my best estimate - Sojourner is estimated to be at...

1,-6...ish...

Doug


Doug,

I'd have gone with 2, -6.5, but I guess it's hard to say exactly... I can't beleive how close I was with just using some wierd thing like pi... Congrats to everyone for their close guesses! I didn't know until yesterday where it was myself the location where the little rover was supposed to be, so...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Jan 11 2007, 09:49 PM
Post #75


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14433
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



I've tried putting the new topo map over the top of the pool 'sheet'....tried the HiRISE image on the sheet, and the overhead projections from the Pathfinder era just don't match up very well at all.

I always said I'd take just the numbers from the HiRISE imagery and consider the image on the Pool image to just be a 'guide' and not an actual reference..... but it's much harder than I expected to match them up.

Every overlay I've done has put it with Mizar JUST ahead of Rakhir.

If you look at the background image from the Pool itself - (which we said we wouldn't) Mizar got it bloody SPOT ON with Rakhir 2nd, SL 3rd.

I think Mizar gets it - Rakhir very very closely second.
Doug
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th June 2024 - 01:55 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.