Mars 3 (Various Topics Merged) |
Mars 3 (Various Topics Merged) |
Dec 29 2004, 10:36 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4404 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
On my website sometime back, I added a page on the image fragment sent back by the Mars-3 Lander. I released serveral versions, including the best quality processing using othodox techniques I would use on other images plus colorization here:
http://pages.preferred.com/%7Etedstryk/fragmentc.jpg However, I released another image, which I called a "What if" image. This image can be seen here http://pages.preferred.com/%7Etedstryk/m3s5b.jpg It was produced via extreme processing of the original data to make a Mars-like scene, but I made it clear on my website it was only a speculative image. I strongly doubt if the raw data even shows Mars at all - it could be all noise. But since this mode of processing looked strangely Viking-like, I figured I would put it on the web. I was warned by several, who said that while fun, some kooks might take it seriously. My response was that I really don't care what kooks think. Then I noticed this web page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_2 They used the overprocessed image. I feel like it is being presented as a true photograph. This is of concern. -------------------- |
|
|
Apr 11 2013, 07:39 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 495 Joined: 12-February 12 Member No.: 6336 |
I've read the text and found that they did their homework well, with models of what each component would look like etc. Good job. But the fact that the images do leave room for other interpretations leaves me still hesitant. Yet if the further studies they mention do show that this is the real thing I do say congratulations to Vitali Egorov, Alexander Basilevsky and others for the detective work of locating Mars 3! |
|
|
Apr 12 2013, 06:57 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 215 Joined: 23-October 12 From: Russia Member No.: 6725 |
I did offer some advice on this, though I had nothing to do with finding the objects in the image. But I don't actually see that reference to me in any of the links. Your thought of a movement trajectory very much helped. But the fact that the images do leave room for other interpretations leaves me still hesitant. Important argument - chain length on retrorocket. HiRise showed 4,8 m, and check according to drawings in NPO Lavochkin - 4,5 m + retrorocket engine. -------------------- My blog on Patreon
|
|
|
Apr 12 2013, 10:00 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 495 Joined: 12-February 12 Member No.: 6336 |
Important argument - chain length on retrorocket. HiRise showed 4,8 m, and check according to drawings in NPO Lavochkin - 4,5 m + retrorocket engine. Oh yes I did note that, and it's one reason I found this finding interesting enough to reply to. And we do know Mars 3 are in this area, or perhaps somewhat to the north. Yet at 25cm per pixel is the highest resolution we might get. (For the near future at least.) And that leaves the lander and those retrorocket parts at a size just at just a few pixels wide. Subsequent images where the light comes from different directions might perhaps give us an better idea of the hight of each of these item. which might give more credence to this. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st May 2024 - 03:44 AM |
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. |