MEX VMC - Back on, and online! |
MEX VMC - Back on, and online! |
Aug 22 2008, 01:58 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14448 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
I heard about this 24 hours ago, and couldn't believe it - this is EXACTLY what has been missing from ESA. MASSIVE kudos to the ESOC MEX flight ops team for doing it
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/VMC/index.html The last time I wrote a post and hit 'submit' at UMSF with a smile this big on my face, was when Oppy successfully got out of Purgatory. |
|
|
Sep 5 2008, 05:53 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 37 Joined: 27-August 08 From: Darmstadt, Germany Member No.: 4320 |
Just to put my two cents in, you're right that the "object" fades a lot towards the end of the observation. It could well be that we're seeing something like the face on Mars - just a combination of light and shadow that looks like something we want to see. Nonetheless there aren't any major features I can see on the Mars map that would give rise to such a large flare/shadow. In ustrax's plot the crater identified is (I believe from looking at the Celestia file) Copernicus.
Using Ian Musgrave's Registax techniques he describes here http://astroblogger.blogspot.com/2008/08/w...-over-mars.html, combined with ugordon's colour processing script, I wonder if it's possible to clean up the image and see if we can place it more precisely on a map of Mars. Would be great to see what more it could teach us! P.S. Top theories so far include trick of the light, cloud or (a long shot, but a cool one) an impact event plume... -------------------- |
|
|
Sep 6 2008, 10:12 AM
Post
#3
|
||
Special Cookie Group: Members Posts: 2168 Joined: 6-April 05 From: Sintra | Portugal Member No.: 228 |
dear Ormstont, I am sorry to be a bit limited in terms of software for the moment but if that carter is indeed Copernicus then, looking at Google Mars, I see a bright patch to the right of the crater (marked) that could be the "culprit"...assuming that I am getting the right orientation and scale...
-------------------- "Ride, boldly ride," The shade replied, "If you seek for Eldorado!"
Edgar Alan Poe |
|
|
||
Sep 6 2008, 07:02 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3652 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
It definitely appears to be atmospheric as the shadow moves below it (click to enlarge):
It seems to have dissipated at the end. Based on the rough 100 km size estimate I get a height in excess of 100 km (around 110 km, but the uncertainty is rather large) if my back-of-the-envelope calculation is right using this 3x magnified bit: If it's an ordinary cloud, what would make it so circular at that altitude and would it dissipate quickly in sunlight? If it's an impact plume, wouldn't we expect a darker color and much lower and more persistent plume? -------------------- |
|
|
Sep 6 2008, 11:08 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 128 Joined: 10-December 06 From: Atlanta Member No.: 1472 |
Based on the rough 100 km size estimate I get a height in excess of 100 km (around 110 km, but the uncertainty is rather large) if my back-of-the-envelope calculation is right using this 3x magnified bit: How do you calculate the height? My back-of-envelop calculation based on the ratio and of the shadow to the object size and its distance from the object is more consistent with an altitude half the object size (50 km if the diameter is 100 km). |
|
|
Sep 6 2008, 11:39 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3652 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
Yep, it appears I messed up the calculation of (at least) illumination incidence angle using the shadow shape, I did an inverse tangent of a/b instead of inverse cosine of b/a. That, by itself, lowers the end result to some 80-ish km, which might still be wrong. 110 km was no doubt suspicious, being at upper fringes of the atmosphere.
-------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 11:18 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. |