Opportunity Route Map |
Opportunity Route Map |
Feb 28 2006, 09:51 AM
Post
#1036
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 4279 Joined: 19-April 05 From: .br at .es Member No.: 253 |
|
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 01:13 PM
Post
#1037
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
Route map, including my estimation for sol 745 (based on Phil polar pan for sol 742). Edit: I've included the landing ellipse on it. What do you think? As ever, great - but no hypothetical path? Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 01:43 PM
Post
#1038
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Spot On for the ellipse as I understand it - the only ellipse worth using really is the pre-launch ellipse, which my photoshopping shows to be in the same spot as yours there.
Doug |
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 01:51 PM
Post
#1039
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3009 Joined: 30-October 04 Member No.: 105 |
>Edit: I've included the landing ellipse on it. What do you think?
I'd label it "southern edge of landing ellipse" since those who have not followed the landing ellipse discussion might not understand which part it is. I would be inclined to make the line narrower since the width of the line was due to the small scale of the original landing site image. Otherwise, it's fine. --Bill -------------------- |
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 01:57 PM
Post
#1040
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
I'd keep the ellipse line large - that demonstrates the level of accuracy to which we know it (and probably just as accurate as when it was defined) To make it thinner would suggest a level of accuracy we just don't have.
Doug |
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 02:15 PM
Post
#1041
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3009 Joined: 30-October 04 Member No.: 105 |
QUOTE I'd keep the ellipse line large - that demonstrates the level of accuracy to which we know it... Good point and that crossed my mind after I posted. Actually, the landing ellipse is an area of uncertainty around the landing point and we certainly don't know that zone of uncertainty with precision. --Bill -------------------- |
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 02:32 PM
Post
#1042
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 510 Joined: 17-March 05 From: Southeast Michigan Member No.: 209 |
So does Oppy get her 6 points when she breaks the plane of the ellipse, or does she need to be completely in the end zone?
-------------------- --O'Dave
|
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 02:39 PM
Post
#1043
|
|
Dublin Correspondent Group: Admin Posts: 1799 Joined: 28-March 05 From: Celbridge, Ireland Member No.: 220 |
|
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 02:56 PM
Post
#1044
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
No, no, no -- the *ball* has to cross the plane of the ellipse line. That's all that's required.
Oppy is a pretty good running back, she's rushed for well over a thousand yards in this, her rookie season. But who are we going to get to kick the extra point? -the other Doug -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 03:06 PM
Post
#1045
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 4279 Joined: 19-April 05 From: .br at .es Member No.: 253 |
As ever, great - but no hypothetical path? Bob Shaw Oh, not for the moment. I had one when we were discussing about the way to Mogollon rim, which makes no sense now. Future path to Victoria? That would be too much for a guess. Spot On for the ellipse as I understand it - the only ellipse worth using really is the pre-launch ellipse, which my photoshopping shows to be in the same spot as yours there. Doug It's a mask based on a copy&paste from your previous post, that's why they are at the same spot. |
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 03:09 PM
Post
#1046
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 252 Joined: 27-April 05 Member No.: 365 |
|
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 03:28 PM
Post
#1047
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3009 Joined: 30-October 04 Member No.: 105 |
Right, the hypothetical paths were done because that area north of Erebus was a big Skinner Box and we didn't know which way Oppy would go.
My guess for a possible path would be along the light bedrock exposure in a southeast direction with stops as needed. After that, who knows? Hopefully by that time we'll have orbital imagery from MRO for guidance. --Bill -------------------- |
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 03:47 PM
Post
#1048
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 4279 Joined: 19-April 05 From: .br at .es Member No.: 253 |
OT: The landing ellipse issue reminded me of an indication about the Greenwich meridian in the highway going from Madrid to Barcelona.
Google found me this: http://www.microsiervos.com/archivo/mundor...-greenwich.html (Text in spanish, but there are some pics to the right) |
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 08:25 PM
Post
#1049
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1636 Joined: 9-May 05 From: Lima, Peru Member No.: 385 |
Outside of ellipse line, is like as an unknown terrain so, after crossing that line, Oppy becomes an interprid adventurer and it must take own risks on their hike toward to Victoria crater.
Rodolfo |
|
|
Feb 28 2006, 10:58 PM
Post
#1050
|
||
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 15-November 05 Member No.: 553 |
Route map, including my estimation for sol 745 (based on Phil polar pan for sol 742). Edit: I've included the landing ellipse on it. What do you think? Anyone care to estimate where that pile of dark rocks (we passed by) is on this image. The dark area to the right of the rover looks to be easily penetrated and might be worth investigating to see what it represents.I personally am not in a hurry to get to Victoria because I don't see any access to the crater, so what do we do then. |
|
|
||
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th September 2024 - 04:46 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. |