Martian Cartography Options

[karolp]

I have recently freaked out a little bit about Martian maps of all sorts. And finally I was astonished with those highly detailed beauties that I list below. Nonetheless. some of them have huge inconsistencies (crater names) easily noticed when we compare the surroundings of Gusev crater. Enjoy:

http://www.ralphaeschliman.com/
http://planetologia.elte.hu/1cikkeke.phtml...arsmapinte.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/imap/i2782/

[Guest_PhilCo126_*]

http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/dataViz/

[Phil Stooke]

karolp, I have looked at these maps, and I don't see any real discrepancy with the names - I only checked around the Gusev area, since you mentioned it.

The apparent difference is caused by the fact that these maps only use a selectuion of all available names. Each map has a slightly different selection. For instance, the multilingual map from Hungary does not include the name 'de Vaucouleurs'. You need larger scale maps to include all the names which have been assigned to Mars. The USGS set at 1:5,000,000 is a good start, but of course there is the problem of updating.

Phil

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

I like the second USGS map.

[attachment=5804:attachment]

Nice hill shading, nice subtle colors, not the usual fully-saturated acid-trip color schemes you see in a lot of NASA images. My one criticism is that the hypsometric color pallette should go from dark to light monotonically with altitude. It's a little confusing that you go from light brown to dark brown and back to light brown again as you head up the Tharsis rise. Things to keep in mind when making your own maps.

Here are two wonderful sites about map making, full of good ideas and wise advice:

The National Park Service: Shaded Relief

History and techniques: Relief Shading. Explore this site, check out the section on Cartographers and examples of their work. What a fascinating art.

For example, look at this amazing projection of a map of Europe designed by Heinrich Berann:

[attachment=5805:attachment]


(By the way, to yank pictures out of the annoying pdf files, you can use PDFExtractTiff by verypdf.com)

[chuckclark]

Here are two constant-scale natural boundary maps of Mars showing color topography.
CSNB maps are made by a geometrical method of my own devising. These of Mars were suggested by Rene de Hon at the 2003 ISPRS meeting in Houston.

The "Mars as a dale" CSNB map has as its edge the primary ridges of the southern highlands. It's the view from the top down, so to speak, from the edge of the map inward.

The Mars as a hill" CSNB map has as its edge the primary valley-lines of the northern lowlands. It's the view from the bottom up, relative to the edge of the map inward.

The dividing line of the crustal dichotomy thus occurs as a ring around the middle of each map.

The maps or as twins, mirrored points of view.

The accompanying cylindrical insets show the boundaries of the respective CSNB maps.

Cheers

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Guest_PhilCo126_*]

About three years ago, I've written an article on mapping the planet Mars and its Moons (with cylindrical projections of Phobos and Deimos provided by Philip Stooke ), more specifically about producing 3D models of the planet (4 foot diameter globes) and the Moons (made by Ralph Turner). E-mail me if You wont those articles in .pdf format...

[Phil Stooke]

here's an interesting comparison if anyone's interested. It's a comparison of global cylindrical (that is, simple cylindrical, or equirectangular) projection maps of Mars from Mariner 9, Viking and MGS. The Mariner 9 one is the 1975 USGS map, reprojected into Simple Cylindrical. Viking is the global mosaic made by USGS. MGS is a composite of TES albedo mapping and the MOC wide angle geodesy mosaic, both with artifacts removed. Some problems remain in all of them, but you do get to see significant changes in the pattern of albedo markings. We tend to forget about them now, being so focussed on boulders and layering. It would be possible to make maps like these for every opposition since about 1840 - that would make an amazing animation!

Phil

[dvandorn]

Great comparison presentation, Phil. Very easy to compare the albedo features mapped by each team.

I do want to point out that the Mariner 9 map was prepared with far greater contrast than the other two maps, which attempt to present realistic-to-the-eye contrast levels. So it's easier to compare features between the Viking and MGS maps. Variations between the Mariner 9 map and the other two maps seem just as likely to be artifacts of the preparation as they are actual changes over time.

Also, I think it bears mentioning that Viking and MGS overflew the terrain at different times of day nadir LST. IIRC, MGS flew over terrain which, at nadir, was at roughly 2pm LST, and I believe Viking had a couple of different windows (with the two different orbiters) but saw nadir at generally lower sun angles (I want to say between 3 and 4 pm LST, but I just can't remember with confidence... *sigh*... ).

We all know albedo features can vary somewhat by sun angle, so at least some of the variations between the Viking and MGS maps may be due to different sun angles.

However, all of that said, there are obviously places where large gross changes (and also small, subtle changes) have occurred in the times between the three eras. And that is very definitely fascinating. Plus, I seem to recall that some people already have done analyses of albedo variations in telescopic images/drawings from oppositions since, oh, probably 1840....

In fact, I remember reading a book when I was a kid that presented Mars images from several successive oppositions, comparing the albedo features and noting observed changes. It might make a good thesis for some astrogeology postgrad out there to pull up all those old telescopic analyses and plug them into the patterns of changes we've seen from our orbiters from 1971 to present...

-the other Doug

[Phil Stooke]

Very true, Doug. The top image was produced in a very different way. While the other two are spacecraft data, albeit manipulated, the top one is a drawing. It exaggerates small details more than the other two, and is more contrasty. My intention is to show surface changes, and it does do that well - look around Isidis and Elysium, or north of Tharsis, especially.

Actually I had another reason for making these. I'm preparing a set of maps to serve as base maps for my Mars atlas. As I go through the history of Mars exploration the base map I use will evolve to follow the growth of our knowledge, and then the changing appearance of the planet. Step 1 is the old ACIC map, pre-Mariner 4, with canals. They have to be converted to Simple Cylindrical so my software can reproject them into the azimuthal projection I will actually use in the book.

Phil

[tedstryk]

I have a set going back to I think the 1890s...If I can find it I will post it (that is a big if).

Ted

[AndyG]

Hi Don,

Mapping is an ancient art, and I'm a great fan of relief shading (my Dad's ancient cloth map of the UK's Lake District is a joy to behold). It's a shame that the technique's fallen out of popularity.

AndyG

[Phil Stooke]

Speaking of ancient art... here's a map of Mars made from the Mariner 6 far encounter images.

Phil

[Phil Stooke]

... and here's Mars seen by Mariner 7, far encounter only. It took a better set of images than Mariner 6. Next step - add the near encounter frames.

Phil

[elakdawalla]

Very cool. Mars comes in to focus. Thanks for posting these.

Does the shape of Mars and the variety of mapping conventions that have been used over the years cause problems with geographic features appearing to shift from one mission to the next? (Obviously, it's not the geographic features shifting, just the coordinate systems we use to represent them...)

--Emily

[Phil Stooke]

Not really - shifts between these mariner maps, and between them and the later maps I posted, are partly caused by registration errors (mariner 7 here is more carefully done than mariner 6 was), and partly by albedo boundary shifts - Syrtis Major especially has changed a lot.

Phil

[mcaplinger]

Does the shape of Mars and the variety of mapping conventions that have been used over the years cause problems with geographic features appearing to shift from one mission to the next?

The main problem other than registration errors has been the various redefinitions of W0 and to a lesser extent, the IAU spheroid. See http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/Teams/Geomati...esy/P22D-06.pdf

Hopefully we are now past these problems, at least at the 100-meter scale.

[Phil Stooke]

Here is a comparison between a MOC wide-angle mosaic - courtesy of Malin Space Science Systems - and a reprojected version of Mariner 4 frame 1. I can't recall seeing this frame matched to topography before (correct me if I'm wrong). At the time I think people said many features were likely atmospheric rather than on the surface, but this comparison shows a very close match even to the smallest bright spots on the surface. It also suggests only the most trivial changes have occurred in this area. Orcus Patera at bottom right gives the location. Blinking the two halves reinforces the close match.

Phil

[Phil Stooke]

This is Mars as it was known just after the Mariner 6 flyby. The background is Mariner 6 far encounter frames, except the north pole which is filled in with a USAF map based on telescopic data. Superimposed on that are the Mariner 4 images (left hemisphere) and Mariner 6's near encounter frames (right side).

Phil

[Guest_PhilCo126_*]

This is a nice poster: Mariner IV Mars flyby 1965

[Phil Stooke]

It's a very nice poster, but the locations of the first few images are based on predictions, not feature mapping, and they are not very reliable. The inset at lower left shows the area of image no. 3. It suggests that this was the first one for which surface features could be identified. My post above in this thread shows that even image 1 reveals actual surface features, but they were not recognized at the time.

(sorry, Tayfun!)

Phil

[t_oner]

(sorry, Tayfun!)

Phil

As far as I remember it was based on a figure from a very old article by Leighton, if I can find the original file I will update the poster.

[Phil Stooke]

Don't worry, you didn't do it incorrectly, it was your source that was wrong. The original image location predictions are a bit off.

Phil

[Phil Stooke]

Here's the very beginning of Mars cartography. Who drew the first map of Mars? It wasn't Beer and Madler, as most sources seem to assume. It was William Herschel, in 1783. This is his map, compared with a map drawn in 1962 by the U. S. Air Force for NASA.

Herschel drew Mars over several weeks, observing all longitudes eventually. The small south polar cap was visible in every drawing. He conceived the idea of arranging the full disk images like flower petals, using the polar cap as a fixed central point, so he could see the global distribution of dark markings. In my illustration, his map (labelled A) shows that pattern, with an overlay of circles indicating the individual views which made up his set of observations. In his original, each circle is labelled with the date of observation. Map B is the USAF MEC-1 Prototype made by the Aeronautical Chart and Information Center in 1962 for NASA's Mars mission planning. I have removed the grid and placenames and reprojected it to match the south polar projection of Herschel's map.

The shape of Sinus Meridiani and Sinus Sabaeus at left will be familiar to Mars viewers. The bulge above it is Syrtis Major, not as pointed as in the USAF map, and the triangle at the bottom is probably Lunae Lacus, or a confused combination of that and Margaritifer Sinus. The hook shape at the top is Thoth-Nepenthes.

Phil

[tedstryk]

Excellent work! I have worked with a lot of these images, but making a map like this is out of my league!

[tedstryk]

Here is a comparison between a MOC wide-angle mosaic - courtesy of Malin Space Science Systems - and a reprojected version of Mariner 4 frame 1. I can't recall seeing this frame matched to topography before (correct me if I'm wrong). At the time I think people said many features were likely atmospheric rather than on the surface, but this comparison shows a very close match even to the smallest bright spots on the surface. It also suggests only the most trivial changes have occurred in this area. Orcus Patera at bottom right gives the location. Blinking the two halves reinforces the close match.

Phil

This makes sense, based on my mosaic of the first four frames.



Here is my complete set of two frame mosaics....the image in the lower right hand corner is a telescopic view of the area taken around the time of the flyby.

[Phil Stooke]

I posted a map showing Mars as it was known after the Mariner 6 flyby, a bit earlier. Here's the post-Mariner 7 version. A slight misregistration of the Mariner 6 near encounter mosaic has been corrected here.

Phil

[Byran]

Main results current and history cartography Mars

http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3416.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.P31D..04E
ftp://ftp.lpi.usra.edu/pub/outgoing/lpsc2009/full626.pdf

Mariner-9 (1971-1972) 85% 1-2 km 7329 picture
Viking-1,2 (1976-1978) 97% 300 m 51539 picture
MGS (1999-2006) 100% 225m 93893+32414 picture
3% 1.4-12m 85859 picture
Mars Odyssey (2001-2006) 19% <20 m 35% <50 m
Mars Express (2003-2008) 50% 15 m 100% 30 m
Mars Reconnaissance orbiter (2006-2008) 38% 6 m
0.6% 0.25-1.2 m 9549 picture


My prediction future for 2015
Mars Express - 15 metres resolution 3D color global map Mars
Mars Reconnaissance orbiter - 6 metres resolution monochrome global map Mars
MGS+MEX+MRO 0.25-2.5 metres resolution 10% map Mars

[djellison]

You can scrap MEX from your last line. It can't produced imagery at 2.5m/pixel - the SRC channel that it has is out of focus, so it's best imagery is basically the HRSC Nadir Channel.

Also - at 0.6% in 2 years - a further 6 years will allow MRO to have mapped a further 1.8% - for a total of 2.4% at <2.5m res. Add on MGS's 3% (not all of which is < 2.5m/pixel). That's 5.4%.

Where are you getting 10% from?

It would take MRO 20+ years to get to that figure.

[Byran]

10% were not precise calculations, but just at random assumption

The future can be better than plans!

Example

http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/3416.pdf
Context camera (CTX) Planned: 15% (R=6m/px)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.P31D..04E
As of 31 August 2008, 36% of Mars was imaged at 6 m/pixel and 10.8% was covered more than once.

[Phil Stooke]

Here is a very unusual Mars map - in two different projections. If anybody can identify its source* I'll give them a virtual Mars Bar. Answer next week...

Phil



* I mean its original source - it didn't look exactly like this originally, I have made changes.

[stevesliva]

Schiaparelli? Wasn't my first guess. Lowell was.

[Phil Stooke]

No, but from the same period as Schiaparelli - even the same opposition as the famous one that resulted in canali and satellites, I think.

Phil

[nprev]

WAG based on a half-memory: Herschel?

[Phil Stooke]

You Doofus! No... He was 100 years before the opposition I just mentioned.

Phil

[nprev]

...sorry, haven't been drinking enough lately!

[Simon_Frazier]

Hi Phil:

I think this might be Dawes' work.

If I recall correctly, he was an English astronomer in the mid-19th century, and he named all the continents and seas he observed on Mars. Places like "Dawes' Continent", and "Dawes' Ocean"...

Simon

[mhoward]

Hmm. Flammarion? Looks similar, but different.

[volcanopele]

Asaph Hall?

[Phil Stooke]

Simon is close... but Dawes was the observer, not the cartographer.

Phil

[mhoward]

Proctor, then? I wouldn't have guessed that.

[Phil Stooke]

Excellent - now we have the cartographer, Richard Proctor. All we need now for the unveiling of the great Mars Bar is the publication. Who can track that down?

Proctor was criticised quite correctly for naming too many things after Dawes - including Dawes' Forked Bay, which was Schiaparelli's Sinus Meridiani. So he revised his naming scheme. And look at the map... where Schiaparelli had 'canali', he has rivers!

Phil

[stevesliva]

where Schiaparelli had 'canali', he has rivers!

Did these guys know how large Mars was? Would have been some wide rivers.

[nprev]

Okay, an attempt at redemption: Proctor's Other Worlds Than Ours, 1870.

[Phil Stooke]

No, the 'Other Worlds' map was his first, the one with the flawed nomenclature.

"Did these guys know how large Mars was? Would have been some wide rivers. "
Not really - lines are not usually drawn with width to scale - look at the width of a highway on a road map of a continent.


Phil

[stevesliva]

"Did these guys know how large Mars was? Would have been some wide rivers. "
Not really - lines are not usually drawn with width to scale - look at the width of a highway on a road map of a continent.

Yeah. And I'm not saying they didn't lack the skepticism to consider that linear features could be lots of other things. It's just that when you look at a globe of the earth, and imagine it through a telescope, you won't see rivers. It would have been interesting to wonder what they expected Earth's albedo features to be. Were they expecting Amazon and Nile or even Red Sea in amongst water, brown land, green land, ice, and clouds?

Might actually be interesting to get a few photos of Mars at opposition through similar or antique telescopes and say, this is about what they were looking at. Granted, the eyeball is a little better than a photo.

[centsworth_II]

...It's just that when you look at a globe of the earth, and imagine it through a telescope, you won't see rivers....

But you may see a band of enhanced vegetation along them.

[Phil Stooke]

Right - the fertile Nile Valley is much wider than the river and shows up clearly against its dry surroundings. The supposed canals were also thought to be surrounded by irrigated land - the canal itself would have been invisible, they all accepted that.

Proctor and others at the time thought Mars was reasonably Earthlike. Lowell had given up on oceans, but Proctor had not. Rivers were a perfectly sensible interpretation of the faint and barely glimpsed markings. More sensible than canals, really.

Phil

[MarsIsImportant]

Those maps are interesting from an historical aspect. It's a nice tour down memory lane.

My interest is mainly concentrated on real surface features of Mars and what they tell us about geologic history. Given that Block Island proves a much thicker atmosphere on Mars in the distant past, what does that tell us about the prospects for ice and water related surface features?

Most everything I've been reading lately suggest enormous reservoirs of water ice just underneath the surface of large tracts in many vastly different latitudes of Mars. The more that is found, the more that this suggests there must have been large glacial fields on Mars at one time in the very distant past. Occam's razor tells us that water or ice related processes cannot be logically ignored - as so often has been done in the past.

[Phil Stooke]

Here's the answer to my map question - the map was published here:

Proctor, R. A., 1888. Maps and Views of Mars. Scientific American, supplement, v. 26, July-December 1888, pp. 10659-10660.

It seems that the map is not very well known. The earlier map from 'Other Worlds than Ours' is well known but has different names for many features. I'm assuming I can post this pic of the original as it's 120 years old. For my illustration I reprojected it to match the division into hemispheres that I am using elsewhere.

Phil

[djellison]

Snow on the poles. I think he can be quite proud of that in 1888

[nprev]

Very cool map, thanks for educating (me, at least), Phil!

"Fogland"...interesting. That wouldn't happen to coincide approximately with the Tharsis region, would it?

[elakdawalla]

I like "windy land." Is that Hellas? Appropriate name for the source of planet-encircling dust storms

--Emily

[Phil Stooke]

This original map is south up - mine was north up. So yes, Windy Land is Hellas, but Fog Land is Argyre, not Tharsis!

Phil

[JohnVV]

It's a nice tour down memory lane.

i have 12 maps

CODE

.
|-- marte_1960.png
|-- marte_1988.png
|-- marte_alpo.png
|-- marte_antoniadi_1896.png
|-- marte_antoniadi_1909.png
|-- marte_antoniadi_1930.png
|-- marte_demottoni_1957.png
|-- marte_green_1877.png
|-- marte_lowell_1894.png
|-- marte_maggini_1939.png
|-- marte_schiapparelli_1881_82.png
`-- marte_schiapparelli_1883_84.png

all south up , well the image in the scope is upside down without a Barlow lens .
the 3 oldest
the images are 2048x1024

i was having some fun with them years ago in Celestia back in `03

it is interesting how things have changed over the years . From Edgar Rice Burroughs to " it's like the moon" with Merrier
then to date with "hay there is melting water STILL " shots from mro and hirise

[Phil Stooke]

Here's another oldie but goldie:

The 1783 map by William Herschel, drawn in a south polar azimuthal projection, here reprojected into a cylindrical projection with north up. This was the first map of Mars ever compiled. It's often overlooked because of the unusual projection, but in cylindrical projection it's not bad at all. The big dark-ringed shape at the bottom is the residual south polar cap.

Phil

[JohnVV]

Phil I did not know of that one
from 1783 cool

[Phil Stooke]

Here are a couple of other early maps which I have converted to cylindrical projection for use elsewhere. The Beer and Madler map corrects a mistake in their original. The Green map adds the poles, and in both cases the original grid and text labels have been removed.

Phil

Beer and Madler:


Green:

[Phil Stooke]

I've added an illustration showing five historic maps of Mars, including the three shown above, but all reprojected into a different projection, to my Mars Atlas web page:

http://publish.uwo.ca/~pjstooke/marsatlas.htm

This is from the historical intro part of the book.

Phil

[ElkGroveDan]

Phil I really love the Lunar Book. I can't wait for this one.

[machi]

I did my first map - Martian topography map.
I suppose, that I'll write more info about it tomorrow on my blog.
Map is now available as 9MB jpeg (with equivalent resolution 2 km/pix) and if it'll be okay (all comments are welcome!),
then I want to upload PDF version (which is much more useful, but also much larger - 56 MB):

[Phil Stooke]

Nice map! One comment - the position for Mars 2 should be 10 degrees further east. The position you show is the one reported as "where Mars 2 entered the atmosphere", but it was not travelling vertically to impact at that point, it was travelling to the east at a very low angle. The published locations of atmospheric entry and impact for Mars 6 make it very clear how this worked.

Phil

[djellison]

I especially love the color scale used - very nice - it retains that blue 'Oh..was this an ocean??' of the low altitude, but is clearly martian above it. LOVELY work.

D

[vikingmars]

CONGRATULATIONS Machi : how beautiful (and useful with all those elevations) !
(PS : I thought that the minimum depth in Hellas was -8,200 m, the USGS figure. Please, how did you get -8,530 m ?)

[machi]

Nice map! One comment - the position for Mars 2 should be 10 degrees further east. The position you show is the one reported as "where Mars 2 entered the atmosphere", but it was not travelling vertically to impact at that point, it was travelling to the east at a very low angle. The published locations of atmospheric entry and impact for Mars 6 make it very clear how this worked.

Phil

Thanks and thanks as well for info about Mars 2 (this will be repaired in pdf).

I especially love the color scale used - very nice - it retains that blue 'Oh..was this an ocean??' of the low altitude, but is clearly martian above it. LOVELY work.

D

Thanks! I used altimetry scale similar to that from maps in my old school atlas. I always liked these maps, so I think that's good idea.
And false color images from HRSC (with infrared as red) have similar colors in dependence on elevation. Deeper -> more atmosphere -> bluer, heigher -> less atmosphere -> redder.

CONGRATULATIONS Machi : how beautiful (and useful with all those elevations) !
(PS : I thought that the minimum depth in Hellas was -8,200 m, the USGS figure. Please, how did you get -8,530 m ?)

Thanks!

USGS figure is somewhat weird. Lowest point in Hellas Planitia was measured as -8197.51 meters below areoid. This is information from PEDR MOLA altimetry profiles. But in MEGDR maps, they have lowest point as -8208 meters. And MEGDR maps are constructed from PEDR profiles! I suppose, that this is some minor flaw in interpolation algorithm, which can did some errors (+/- 10 meters in some points). Or this algorithm works with slopes and can extrapolate possible peaks and depressions. I don't know.
Hellas' depth (-8530 meters) in the map is based on HRSC DTMRDR dataset. All data from this dataset are depicted as blue triangles (it is depicted in small legend down in the map). It's not so good visible in jpeg, it's better in pdf.
This dataset has digital terrain models with better local coverage and because of that often with better data for some regions. Authors of this dataset used data from MOLA altimeter as source of true elevations (they mapped elevations in DTM with help of MEGDR maps). Because they used not only same dataset, but also same areoid model, informations about elevation are (in theory) compatible between MOLA PEDR and HRSC DTMRDR.
This (-8530m) information looks weird, but I look at these DTM and MOLA detected lowest point as deep crater and in DTM data, smaller crater (undetected by MOLA) is in the middle of this crater, so this small crater in larger crater (which is in another crater - Hellas Planitia ) is actual deepest point on Mars.

[vikingmars]

This (-8530m) information looks weird, but I look at these DTM and MOLA detected lowest point as deep crater and in DTM data, smaller crater (undetected by MOLA) is in the middle of this crater, so this small crater in larger crater (which is in another crater - Hellas Planitia ) is actual deepest point on Mars.

Thanks a lot Machi for all your good explanations.
Did you make a more detailed hi-res elevation map of the inside of the crater with its small crater in its middle ? (please, see CTX image herewith, with the small crater marked with a yellow "+")

[machi]

"Did you make a more detailed hi-res elevation map of the inside of the crater with its small crater in its middle ?"
No, I didn't. It's possible (one can use local DTM in same way as global DEM), but my plan was to work only on global map of Mars.
But I can confirm, that your crater is that lowest place.
Here is part of browse image for h0532_0000 observations (shadow relief, BW image, color image) and DTM (with "cool" LUT) with dark (deep) crater.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[vikingmars]

Here is part of browse image for h0532_0000 observations (shadow relief, BW image, color image) and DTM (with "cool" LUT) with dark (deep) crater.

Thanks so much Machi
And about Olympus Mons ? I guess that your 21,281 m elevation now replaces 21,229 m as calculated by USGS ?
As for the crater in Hellas, could you, please, be so kind to show us a detailed map showing us where is the exact topmost place on the summit of Olympus Mons (between the main caldeira and Pangboche crater I guess...) ? Thanks a lot !

[machi]

Finally I did blog entry about my map.
I downloaded new improved version (26.6.2012) with corrected Mars 2 landing site and minor changes (more HRSC elevations, proper citations).
Map is now available as JPG (9MB) and as PDF (56MB).
JPG is alright, but I have some problems with PDF. It is too big for Google Docs, so it is not so easy to download this version. For example, Google writes, that it cannot check PDF with antivirus, because it's too big. But download link is despite this fully functional, and I don't know about any virus in my PDF .

Thanks so much Machi
And about Olympus Mons ? I guess that your 21,281 m elevation now replaces 21,229 m as calculated by USGS ?
As for the crater in Hellas, could you, please, be so kind to show us a detailed map showing us where is the exact topmost place on the summit of Olympus Mons (between the main caldeira and Pangboche crater I guess...) ? Thanks a lot !

I plan smaller blog entry about highest and lowest place on Mars, so patience!

[machi]

I have uploaded new (fifth) version of my topographic map of Mars (14 MB jpg):



Most of changes are related to the new names on Mars. Those names can be found on USGS page.

Here is map as PDF (57 MB!).

[TheAnt]

Thank you machi, wonderful map. I spent quite some time browsing around on it.
A map like this gives one really good context for what Mars is like.
And thank you for posting the old maps, some of them do indeed remind me of what Mars looks like in a telescope.
I have seen the bows and hook shape, though the map by Beer and Madler does not look much to how I remember Mars trough the ocular - that's one oddball.

Also I took a look of the highest and lowest points, so rest assured that your blog might be of interest.

[machi]

You're welcome!

But old maps are mostly posted by Phil, not by me!

[TheAnt]

Yes I felt it as a good time to make a nod to Phil and JohnVV while I were at it posting in this thread.

[machi]

I see that I promised post about lowest and highest points on Mars and I forgot to give a link.

[vikingmars]

I see that I promised post about lowest and highest points on Mars and I forgot to give a link.

Thanks a lot Machi. A long belief was that the topmost point of Olympus Mons was somewhere between the main caldeira and Pangboche crater. Now, thanks to you, we know now that it's right at Pangboche crater rim... What a BIG improvement you made on the global Martian topographic data.
Your work deserves (i.e. an "Olympus Games" GOLD medal !!!!)

[Lucas]

There is a new geologic map of Mars that was recently released by the USGS -- check it out!

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3292/

[machi]

I've just published my new topographic map of Mars in Mercator and polar stereographic projections.
Basic info is directly in the map.
Map is available as 17 400 × 14 700 pix 78 MB jpeg via Flickr and as PDF with searchable text via Google Disc (106 MB!).
As always for big PDFs, I recommend Sumatra viewer.
Some other infos are on my blog but it's in Czech language.

[vikingmars]

I've just published my new topographic map of Mars in Mercator and polar stereographic projections.
Basic info is directly in the map.

WOW ! WOW ! WOW ! What a MAP !!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks so much Machi for sharing this impressive work of yours.
Thank you so much again.
With warmest regards, VM

[Bjorn Jonsson]

Very impressive work. And Google translate apparently does a relatively good job translating the Czech text into English - I think I was able to understand/interpret all of translated text.

[machi]

You're welcome!

Very impressive work. And Google translate apparently does a relatively good job translating the Czech text into English - I think I was able to understand/interpret all of translated text.

Google translate is very good for some languages in case of translating them to English and Czech is one of them ( I think ).

[machi]

New version of my topographic map of Mars is now available.
This "Easter egg" version has high resolution (~ 100 m/pix) parts around most of the landing sites.
It works only as PDF so only this version is available. It has 116 MB and it needs good PDF viewer and
computer with enough power (tested with Sumatra, FOXIT, SMART viewer and 8GB RAM).

For an example here is part around Mars 3 landing site (located via HiView, longitude 202.01934056, latitude 45.0445105).

EDIT: Files are now with correct English abbreviation for Soviet Union.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[vikingmars]

.../... For an example here is part around Mars 3 landing site (located via HiView, longitude 202.01934056, latitude 45.0445105).

Dear Machi, thanks so much !!!!
Could you, please, be so kind to provide us also with the Mars 3 lander elevation ?
Thanks so much in advance and with warmest regards,
VM

[machi]

You're welcome!
Closest measurement from MOLA gives 1626 meters, HRSC DEM with better coverage but with lower precision gives ~1660 meters.
Best guess based on published data 1655+/-30 meters. I suppose that I will add elevations for every identified lander in future version of the map.
BTW, according to HiView coordinates of Beagle 2 are 90.4303226,11.5270253. These are slightly different than values which Doug Ellison extracted from Google Earth (90.4295E 11.5265N). This very small difference gives location error ~500 meters. But I have no idea how precise HiView is but based on my experience with other landers I suppose
that Google is worse than HiView.

[djellison]

BTW, according to HiView coordinates of Beagle 2 are 90.4303226,11.5270253. These are slightly different than values which Doug Ellison extracted from Google Earth (90.4295E 11.5265N).

I pulled my values from HiView also...which is worrying.

[vikingmars]

You're welcome!
Closest measurement from MOLA gives 1626 meters, HRSC DEM with better coverage but with lower precision gives ~1660 meters.
Best guess based on published data 1655+/-30 meters. I suppose that I will add elevations for every identified lander in future version of the map.
BTW, according to HiView coordinates of Beagle 2 are 90.4303226,11.5270253. These are slightly different than values which Doug Ellison extracted from Google Earth (90.4295E 11.5265N). This very small difference gives location error ~500 meters. But I have no idea how precise HiView is but based on my experience with other landers I suppose
that Google is worse than HiView.

Thanks a lot Machi !

[machi]

I pulled my values from HiView also...which is worrying.

From which image? I've used ESP_037145_1915.
I tried to extract location again in full resolution and it gives me 90.43036115568,11.52698736394 or 90.43036543916,11.52698314553.
And I used wrong number in calculation so it's not error ~500 meters but only 50 meters. That's relatively negligible error.

[machi]

My apology, as in previous version, I forgot Czech abbreviation of the Soviet Union in the map.
Now links leads to version with correct English abbreviation.
And I've added small new feature - the map has hidden word "outpost" which facilitates the searching for landing sites.

[machi]

Updated version of my map with all official names up to date 14.1.2016.
Full resolution image has ~110MB and PDF has 117MB.
BTW, lowest place on Mars has finally official name - crater Badwater.

[vikingmars]

[quote name='machi' date='Jan 15 2016, 03:12 AM' post='229048']
Updated version of my map with all official names up to date 14.1.2016.

What an INCREDIBLE work !!!!! Thanks a lot Machi !

[serpens]

Interesting to match Machi's stunning topographical map with the just completed Gravity and crustal thickness maps.

http://mars.nasa.gov/mro/news/whatsnew/ind...amp;NewsID=1899

[kamkaran]

what a nice photos

[Rain]

https://www.voxxlr.com/1531074107806

My Mars model

Where can i get digital elevation data for Mars?

[RoverDriver]

https://www.voxxlr.com/1531074107806

My Mars model

Where can i get digital elevation data for Mars?

HiRISE DEMs are available here: https://www.uahirise.org/dtm/ Keep in mind that the corner coordinates can be of by quite a bit.

Paolo

[kymani76]

I am currently doing some Mars cartography work and just realised that Spirit and Opportunity tracks in Mars2000 Sphere projection published at Analyst's Notebook don't align with Google Earth kml based data and vice versa. Does anyone have any idea which projection is used to display Google Mars data, as it does not seem to use standard GSC/WGS84? Thank you.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Phil Stooke]

I don't know, but I looked at the traverse map in Analysts Notebook and it matches the background map properly. That map is in a cylindrical projection. It might be that cylindrical projection data have been mapped straight onto the GE globe without correction.

Phil

[machi]

https://www.voxxlr.com/1531074107806

My Mars model

Where can i get digital elevation data for Mars?

Sorry for late reply,
you can download global DEMs from MOLA altimeter here: http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/mgs/megdr.html
There is also combined MOLA/HRSC DEM here but for now server is down thanks to US budget shutdown.

[machi]

New version (1.2) of my Topographic Map of Mars.
It contains all official names up to end of year 2018 but main difference between this version and the previous one is new base map with higher resolution
so now map shows almost twice as much details.
There are also new mini scale bars directly in the map so estimating size of surface features is now much easier when browsing at full resolution.
PDF version (171 MB!) contains on top of that more detailed regional maps of most of the landing sites including some future ones (Jezero crater and Oxia Planum).
More detailed description of changes is on my blog (in Czech language but there is a Google translate button on the page).

[vikingmars]

[quote name='machi' date='Jan 9 2019, 10:45 PM' post='243339']

What a feat ! Congratulations Machi for this outstanding work
Btw, about the deepest point in Hellas, which figure you would recommend for EPO purposes, please : the one derived from MOLA or the one from HRSC ?

[machi]

Thank you!

I would recommend HRSC result. MOLA result is in this case affected by lack of coverage as it clearly missed the lowest point.
It's a pity that MOLA suffered fatal malfunction long before MGS' end of mission. We could have better coverage of the Martian surface by the laser altimetry.

[vikingmars]

Thank you! I would recommend HRSC result. MOLA result is in this case affected by lack of coverage as it clearly missed the lowest point.
It's a pity that MOLA suffered fatal malfunction long before MGS' end of mission. We could have better coverage of the Martian surface by the laser altimetry.

Dear Machi, Thank you very much for your kind answer

[kymani76]

I don't know, but I looked at the traverse map in Analysts Notebook and it matches the background map properly. That map is in a cylindrical projection. It might be that cylindrical projection data have been mapped straight onto the GE globe without correction.

Phil

First of all, thank you Phil very much for your attention, I was really hoping for your answer.
Yes, the Analyst's track aligns perfectly with HiRISE imagery as well as with stereo DTM's in Equirectengular Cylindrical Projection using Mars2000 sphere. What does not align are Opportunity tracks (and other Mars data) I originaly got in KML format. The first picture illustrates the point. Even when the track is reprojected from basic WGS84 to Mars2000 sphere datum, KML track still won't align.
And vice versa. When I load SHP Analyst's track into GE Mars, it is off by about 200 meters (second picture), but all KML based data aligns nicely.
It appears to me the problem lies with the the fact the apparently unknown datum other than WGS84 or Mars2000 Sphere is used by Google Mars, and so the transformation does not work out.
For Curiosty rover I only have Fernando Nogal's excellent track in KML and am not sure how well it aligns when reprojected onto EC Mars2000 Sphere map
Is it in the right place or is off by the same amount as the other KML Mars data?

Thank you in advance, Jack

Attached thumbnail(s)