Viking Lander 1 detailed w/MRO, Results of imaging process VL1 detailed with MRO |
Viking Lander 1 detailed w/MRO, Results of imaging process VL1 detailed with MRO |
Aug 25 2007, 09:43 PM
Post
#1
|
||
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1089 Joined: 19-February 05 From: Close to Meudon Observatory in France Member No.: 172 |
- PSP_001521_2025_RED.jp2 taken on 11 November 2006 (w/30.3 cm/pixel resolution) at 3:20 PM ; - PSP_001719_2025_RED.JP2 taken on 12 december 2006 (w/28.8 cm/pixel resolution) at 3:27 PM. So I decided to pixel overlap the 2 pictures retrieved from the LPL site at their maximum resolution (as "full JPEG 2000" images), knowing that each individual pixel from those 2 images would not cover exactly the same area on Mars. The goal was : 1. to gain some resolution over individual pictures ; 2. to assess the reality of some features as seen from orbit ; 3. to determine is some individual Lander components could be seen ; 4. to see an "average" site free from bad pixel and false features. After a painstaking process, here are the results on the 4 goals : 1. resolution gained : ==> not obvious on overlap image ; 2. reality of some features : ==> real features are seen on overlap image ; 3. Lander components : ==> some individual components discriminated ; 4. "average" site free from bad pixel and false features ==> goal attained. About the lander itself : the shadow seen for its high-gain antenna mast and for its antenna itself is narrow. This implies that the disk-shaped antenna was not facing the sun when the images were taken, meaning that the high-gain antenna is pointing either towards the north or towards the south. The same overlap processings were also applied to the area where the backshell touched down the surface with its parachute ==> An overlap image is seen also. About the landing site itself around Lander 1 with its features, please refer to the explanations given it the previous post : http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...ost&p=79379 Enjoy ! |
|
|
||
Guest_Sunspot_* |
Apr 5 2008, 06:03 AM
Post
#2
|
Guests |
But technical problems with some channels in the camera are well known, which has let a dramatic increase in noise in the images and decrease in image quality.
See these: November 2006: http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_001513_1655 January 2008: http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_006735_1650 |
|
|
Apr 5 2008, 08:26 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
t a dramatic increase in noise in the images and decrease in image quality. Both of those are used in the animation I did of EVERY HiRISE image taken of Spirit. It's in it's own thread in the Spirit forum. Spirit is as visible as ever, and I would say the tracks are more visible than ever, Home Plate as clear as ever. I'm well aware of the reports of trouble with HiRISE, but they have been mainly solved as I understand it. Some images are, indeed, worse than others - but the most recent one is damn good. Image quality now is NOT significantly ( or ever, imho, noticeably ) worse than the start of the science orbit. Suggesting that it wont be able to see Phoenix (a larger vehicle than MER) when it can see Spirit better than ever is just totally wrong. Doug |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th September 2024 - 09:00 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE 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. |