http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/guest/phoenix/R23_phoenix.html
Some of those areas have NO features at all!! Even with a descent camera - I wonder how easy localisation will be
Actually - given MRO's huge swath width and resolution, easy
Doug
the main thing is to analyse some sub-surface ices right?
MPL was a while ago and I can't remember the details anymore...
In a way I hope it does land in a pretty blank place. After the MERs, I would hate to land with something interesting just poking out from behind a hill or just out of reach of the arm. I think for those of us obsessed with imagery, this mission will get frustrating once the initial pan is taken, although images of its activities, different times of day, and frosts it might or might not spot (and clouds, now that I think of it) might mitigate this somewhat.
Ted
Yeah. We're so accustomed now to actually moving around. I propose that Phoenix be the LAST static lander mission.
Well, it's a long shot, but maybe the decent rockets will have enough gas left in them to take a small hop to a not-so-far-away spot. (One of the Lunar Surveyors did that - although only a few meters away)
Oh - static landers still have their place - but I think Phoenix may be the last 'primary' martian mission without wheels.
i.e. Netlander or a similar mission would be hugely worth while - you dont HAVE to have wheels to do good science, and they cost you a LOT of volume, mass, power, and money
Doug
Well, for some kind of missions, such as setting up meteorological stations and seisometry, static is best. But for other types, I hope we go mobile (or the Pathfinder approach - a small lander with a rover).
Yeah, that is true. It would be way neat to have many many small meteorology landers scattered about the planet.
This is the 'other' Phoenix website - to be honest, neither are any good
http://planetary.chem.tufts.edu/Phoenix/
A real pity that Marie Curie got dropped from the '01 payload - I hope she finds a good home somewhere
Yup - the lander pad sensor thing was the most popular reason for the '98 failure - however - there are suggestions that fuel sloshing might have had something to do with it as well
doug
Ditto - my initial reaction was "well - surely the cruise stage didnt seperate properly or something?" - but actually- the DS2 probes would have still been released as they deployed just before the main spacecraft.
What amased me is to see how amazingly easy it was to spot the MER's from MOC, yet nothing of MSL, the DS2 probes, or B2
Doug
I think it was brilliant to add the low-level comms to the MER landers; it just sent simple beeps but it was something to watch during the entire landing process. In case there is failure a lot can be learned from a simple beep...
The DS2 probes were designed to re-enter totally unguided from any tumble / orientation
I loved those little guys - they were superb. Such a pity they didnt work.
I think EDL tones are almost a requirement for a Mars Scout mission arnt they? They're not a new thing - MPF had them in 97
Doug
Will MGS and Odyssey still be operational in 2008? If MRO fails Phoenix has no other option than to communicate with the old MGS. Is it designed to do this?
Well - MGS is currently 8 years 1 month old and working just about fine, less the MOLA trigger - Odyssey currently 3 years 8 months old and working fine minus the MARIE instrument.
Come Mid 2008 - MGS would be 11 years 7 months old, Odyssey 7 years 4 months old
So - when Phoenix is on-form, Odyssey will be younger than MGS is now And - to be honnest - I'm almost 100% sure that Odyssey will be FINE then, and MGS - well - it's a bit 50/50 - no reason why not in priciple, but batteries may be dead by then, Gyros, hydrazine etc etc - so I wouldnt put money on it - but it's Odyssey that's relayed the HUGE percentage of MER data - MGS hasnt relayed MER data for months - and I'd imagine that Phoenix will have similar bandwidth requirements as a single MER - so Odyssey alone could manage it - and assuming MRO arrives OK- there'll be plenty of assets available - and there's always DTE
Doug
Some communications during descent -- as well as a post-landing DTE link -- was regarded as a mandatory addition to the 2001 Lander even when they were still considering flying it in 2001 after the MPL failure. Phoenix definitely has it. (Phoenix also has retained the precision landing system -- involving active aerodynamic control during entry -- that was always planned for the 2001 Lander; but the landing obstacle detection and avoidance system that was originally supposed to be added to it has been rejected now as too power-consuming to be worthwhile for this mission. Thus the first Mars lander to feature active obstacle avoidance will be MSL two years later.)
Phoenix landing site: in case people didn't see it, a very interesting discussion with maps was presented at the Mars Express conference earlier this year:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/doc.cfm?fobjectid=36770
I've had students looking at the area - it's not as bland as some early messages in this thread suggested, but some earler images were taken under very hazy conditions.
Phil
Paper: astro-ph/0507317
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:40:53 GMT (888kb)
Title: Radiative Habitable Zones in Martian Polar Environments
Authors: C. Cordoba-Jabonero, M.-P. Zorzano, F. Selsis, M. R. Patel and C. S.
Cockell
Comments: 44 pages, 8 figures
Report-no: CAB-lcasat/04057
Journal-ref: Icarus 175 (2005) 360-371
DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2004.12.009
The biologically damaging solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation (quantified by the
DNA-weighted dose) reaches the Martian surface in extremely high levels.
Searching for potentially habitable UV-protected environments on Mars, we
considered the polar ice caps that consist of a seasonally varying CO2 ice
cover and a permanent H2O ice layer. It was found that, though the CO2 ice is
insufficient by itself to screen the UV radiation, at 1 m depth within the
perennial H2O ice the DNA-weighted dose is reduced to terrestrial levels. This
depth depends strongly on the optical properties ofthe H2O ice layers (for
instance snow-lile layes). The Earth-like DNA-weighted dose and
Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) requirements were used to define the
upper and lower limits of the nortern and southern polar radiative habitable
zone (RHZ) for which a temporal and spatial mapping was performed. Based on
these studies we conclude that phtosynthetic life might be possible within the
ice layers of the polar regions. The thickness varies along each Martian polar
spring and summer between 1.5 m and 2.4 m for H2= ice-like layers, and a few
centimeters for snow-like covers. These Martian Earth-like radiative habitable
environments may be primary targets for future Martian astrobiological
missions. Special attention should be paid to planetary protection, since the
polar RHZ may also be subject to terrestrial contamination by probes.
\\ ( http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507317 , 888kb)
What I thought was fairly mundane terrain is looking a little more interesting...
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/guest/phoenix/2005/01/S02-01184m.gif
Look at all the boulders at top left - it's a 50cm CPROTO image.
Doug
Guys how about somebody makes a scaled down version of that enormous image?
Doug?, Ustrax?
I've just received an answer from Doug Lombardi, the Education and Public Outreach Manager for the PML mission regarding the discussion about the landing site choice and he told me that the team is working very hard on the selection. By now the proposed region for is between 65 and 72 deg N and 120 and 140 deg E, making a quick search that would put us on the vicinity of Panchaia Rupes...
By looking into the maps it looks like a quite plain area with some large craters here and there with some possible ice on it...
What might be their intention? Landing on one of this or go for a safer touchdown?
[quote name='ustrax' date='Jun 8 2006, 12:08 PM' post='57527']
What might be their intention? Landing on one of this or go for a safer touchdown?
I have little doubts on this. "If you don't land safely, you've got nothing," said Matt Golombek
on a Space.com article I posted yesterday on MSL's topic.
Maybe it's better to start looking at this place...Maybe it will become familiar in the days to come...:
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b14/ustrax3/PanchaiaRupes1.jpg
[quote name='ustrax' date='Jun 8 2006, 12:33 PM' post='57533']
Maybe it's better to start looking at this place...Maybe it will become familiar in the days to come...:
Can we already put an elipse ? By the way, I guess that we'll have the same elipse size as Mer's ?
MSL's will be a lot smaller refering to the same source as above
'Can we already put an elipse ?'
I don't think so... It is the current proposed landing site, not the definitive one...
The MSL landing ellipse would be much smaller than MER's one. I think that the longest (major axis) would be around 10 20 km versus 50 km of MERs.
Rodolfo
[quote name='RNeuhaus' date='Jun 9 2006, 04:09 AM' post='57679']
The MSL landing ellipse would be much smaller than MER's one. I think that the longest (major axis) would be around 10 km versus 50 km of MERs.
Rodolfo
Yep, but as Phoenix will use basicaly the same EDL system as MER, it'll about 50 km, right ?
Climber, good question. I have still not found about the Phoenix EDL details but a brief ones. The best I know is from http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/the_mission/entry.php which does not mention about the elliptical landing. Maybe Bruce or Ustrax can jump into that!
Rodolfo
As I understand it, the following three locations (two of them appear to overlap, but they are diagonally oriented) are now being considered for Phoenix.
Area B, box 1 66º to 68º N 225º to 234º.
Area B, box 2 66º to 68º N 224º to 227º
Area B, box 3 70º to 71º N 220º to 227º
MOC images are being collected within each box.
Phil
Using the tool: Jmars, I have snapshot the area of 229.90E to 239.30E (approx. 215 km) and 66.83N to 68.88 N (approx. 120 km).
Has anybody mentioned this MOC April 2006 imaging update?
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/guest/phoenix/S17_phoenix.html
Thanks Aldo, for a very good reference URL!
Rodolfo
Rodolfo, I'm sorry I forgot to add east or west to my Phoenix coordinates. They are west longitudes. Your image is at 230 east, or 130 west. The Phoenix landing area B is at 230 west. That area is much smoother.
Phil
Thanks Phil for the notification. Now the probably landing zone looks easier, however it still of low resolution from ODY images. Now the longitudi line is above of Elysium volcans.
Area B, Box 1:
My coordinates come from the Malin Space Science Systems website, where new MOC images of the three
'boxes' are being released each month.
Phil
'We will have a landing ellipse...however, because our landing site is in the high northern latitudes the geometry of the ellipse will be different than those for the MERs...ours will be longer and thinner.
I didn't tought about that; could be more difficult to find the right place.
On Earth, Northern latitudes have thiner air than equatorials; Do you know if it's the same on Mars and if so, if this could have an effect on the size of the elipse? Does somebody know the size and shape of MPL's elipse back in 1999 ? It shouldn't be much different to Phoenix's.
As I understand it - the pre-launch ellipse ( i.e. what they'll pick ) will be 'butterfly' shape becasue the geometry will change so much between the opening and closing of the launch window.
Now - as the ellipse moves from the opening to the closing position, it draws out quite a large area they have to 'certify' as suitable for landing....not easy.
More equatorial sites, the ellipse just moves around just a little.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/doc.cfm?fobjectid=36770 is quite interesting on the issue - not sure how up to date that is however. (attached - screenshot of interesting page)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2006/pdf/2341.pdf as well
The phrase 'butteryfly' gets mentioned, which I believe is the shape drawn by the opening and closing ellipse
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/guest/phoenix/R23_phoenix.html
Doug
Found out this:
http://planetary.chem.tufts.edu/Phoenix/landing_site_selection.htm
There are also some cool Death Valley pictures in the site...
Hmmm, that link shows co-ordinates of 120 degrees West and 67 north. Is this a second landing site candidate (eg. Area A?), separate from the one Phil and Rodolfo describe?
The site mentioned above (area D, adjacent to Area A) is only an illustration of a feasible site for pre-mission publication. It's not a new site and will certainly not be used.
Phil
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10654-boulders-dash-hopes-for-mars-landing-site.html
NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) has started scanning the arctic plains of Mars for possible landing sites for the next spacecraft, the Phoenix Mars Lander.
Some of the first pictures returned to Earth have already dashed the hopes of scientists who wanted to land Phoenix at a place they call Region B. It turns out Region B is littered with boulders, which could make a landing very dangerous.
Perhaps Mars Polar Lander struck a boulder while landing ? If it made it to the surface that is.
I'm having deja vu all over again, as I recall the frantic search by the Viking 1 orbiter for a landing site for Viking 1, after landing site mapping images with 50 meter/pixel resolution of (I think Ares Valles outwash plain) showed rough erosional features and blew the planned July 4'th landing out of consideration.
Yes, it was the outwash area.
I've been looking at the Phoenix site planning:
Phoenix potential landing areas
Step 1: select areas (D and E: rejected)
A 65º to 72º N 250º to 270º E
B 65º to 72º N 120º to 140º E
C 65º to 72º N 65º to 85º E
D 65º to 72º N 230º to 250º E
E 65º to 72º N 300º to 320º E
Step 2 : Examine preferred box in each area
Area A box 68º N 260º E
Area B box 67.5º N 130º E
Area C box 70º N 80º E
Step 3 :Seek preferred boxes in the best area
Area B, box 1 67.5º N 130º E
Area B, box 2 66º N 136º E
Area B, box 3 70.5º N 136º E
The MRO images of "northern plains" are mostly in these areas.
orbit 828 is in B-1
orbit 841 is in B-2
orbit 848 is in B-3
orbit 856 is near C
orbit 861 is in B-2
orbit 881 is in B-1
Phil
Unless ice/frost/soil processes heaved buried boulders to the surface in a slow peri-glacial "churning process", I just UTTERLY don't understand the boulder populations on the northern plains. The VL2 site barely helps, since the boulder field MAY be ejecta from the large and quite reasonably fresh (remarkably little degraded) Mie crater to the east.
I agree, it's puzzling. To me it says "lag deposit", but I still don't see exactly what's happened here.
There are less blocky patches between the clusters of rocks. I suppose the next year will be spent trying to find one relatively block-free patch big enough to fit a "butterfly" (post 53 above) in.
Phil
We have a humongously widespread plains deposit -- it ain't called Vastitas Borealis for nothing -- in which 100 km craters are obliterated, apparently buried, showing up as topographic ghost craters: rimless crater"ish" depressions visible only in the MOLA topography.
We have a surface that appears mantled, so that the ghost craters appear to be visible only by the "sagging" or compression of the mantling overburden, which is burying those 100'ish km diameter craters to depths of many tens to hundreds of meters. (that's my interpretation)
Yet large concentrations of boulders, some very large, that should utterly be buried beneath this mantle show up on the surface, concentrating on -- or seemingly over -- the rims of more or less buried, massively subdued small sub-kilometer or few kilometers diameter craters that seem to be mantled, or blurred beyind recognition of any original topographic form.
In the words of a Robot I learned to loathe quite some decades ago: IT DOES NOT COMPUTE!
Aren't you assuming simple scenarios here? Namely, that the event which buried the craters ought also to have buried the boulders as well?
But what if the reality is that multiple events have happened at such sites, no doubt separated by millions or hundreds of millions of years? For example, one event buried the craters, a subsequent event (or sequence of events) transported & deposited the boulders on top & buried them in another layer, and a third event eroded the topmost later and uncovered the boulders again.
Just a thought.
======
Stephen
The thing is that the muted terrain implies mantling to a depth of tens of meters, somewhat less on mantled crater rims. And the boulder fields seem associated with the craters.. .. TELEPORTED !?! up from underneath? Yeah... RIGHT!. They're not impact ejecta from distant craters, or we'd see lots of the same at Meridian, other than Bounce rock and a few meteorites.
I'm starting to think that the muted look of the terrain means the craters aren't just mantled, but the surface ice+dust+sand+boulders has done a periglacial churning and brought the boulders to the surface the way things happen on Earth.
For anyone struggling with the large images there is a nice manageable image of some of these 'boulders' in Emily's Planetary Society blog. I agree they look very strange. For a start far too many of them are about the same size. Although I can't imagine one yet I suppose an upward extrusion process of some kind might achieve a degree of size sorting.
Frost heave? Seems like a perfectly plausible explanation especially given the latitude and expected presence of water ice.
Just noticed this is also being discussed in 'November 22 MRO' thread.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070110_mar_phoenix_landing.html
By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer, Space.com
posted: 10 January 2007
06:38 am ET
I got to go to a little of the landing site meeting yesterday and am working up a Web article. Could I get a little help from those of you who are slavering over the MRO images? I've got the center coordinates of the three landing sites under consideration. (Does anyone know offhand how large the boxes are supposed to be around those center coordinates?) I'd like to know which of those dozens of "Northern Plains" images are closest to these locations.
Box 1 68.35 N, 233. E
Box 2 66.75 N, 247.6 E
Box 3 71.2 N, 253 E
(lat/lons are Areocentric)
One is in region A, the other two are in region D, which was actually the region that Peter Smith first proposed to send Phoenix to based upon high water content in GRS maps, and which they had to return to when they had to throw out region B because of all those boulders.
--Emily
Emily, I think the boxes are 150 km E-W, 75 km N-S - I will confirm that for you shortly. These new locations are very useful for me - thanks.
edit - yes, this is confirmed.
Phil
I don't know but for some reason I'm reminded of http://www.pbs.org/marktwain/learnmore/writings_tom.html.
I'm just joking, of course. At least you give credit, Emily, unlike, for example, Jim Oberg, who was (and probably still is) pretty effective at Tomsawyering his acolytes on Usenet. Typically, he started out with something like, "Hey, I'm working on a story about X and I need answers to the following fifteen questions. Thanks in advance, you guys are the greatest!"
65, 235 - http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/PSP/PSP_001484_2455/
68, 265 - http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/PSP/PSP_001496_2485/
68, 241 - http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/PSP/PSP_001497_2480/
68, 223 - http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/PSP/PSP_001392_2490/
69, 254 - http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/PSP/PSP_001404_2490/
71, 260 - http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/PSP/PSP_001417_2510/
69, 234 - http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/PSP/PSP_001418_2495/
67, 266 - http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/PSP/PSP_001430_2470/
65, 240 - http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/PSP/PSP_001431_2460/
68, 260 - http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/PSP/PSP_001431_2460/
69, 260 - http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/PSP/PSP_001351_2490/
The best I can do running thru the Hi-Bucket.
Here's a list of a few that seem to be fairly close to the sites, along with their release number.
PSP_001351_2490 5
PSP_001418_2495 6
PSP_001404_2490 6
PSP_001392_2490 6
PSP_001431_2460 6
PSP_001417_2510 6
I'll look for a few more, hope this helps!
Emily has a really http://planetary.org/news/2007/0125_A_Green_Valley_for_Phoenix.html at TPS, as well as a http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000840/.
Thanks for "being there," Emily.
Minor correction to the blog entry: The Robotic Arm's reach is eight feet, not eight meters!
Go, MRO!!! Man, that mission is really paving the way for the future of Mars surface exploration...incredible imagery.
Those 'polygons' seem to be, well, rather bumpy. Boulder hazard aside, how much tilt can Phoenix withstand & still function (to say nothing of land) nominally? Just eyeballing this without stereo, it looks like some of those bumps might have incident slopes on the order of 20 deg or more.
It's good that Emily could go to the meeting, because the process has not been as open as MER or MSL (for those of us who are into these things).
Phil
I've re-tweaked my sim of Phoenix. I wish I could get the right ammount of detail to show - still not quite there, it's a bit too sharp...I'll get it right eventually.
Also - the orig test image of the model - it's basically a VRML I found of MPL, + different arrays. I know the deck has changed shape, but at 33cm/pixel it's about right
Doug
The one that landed in the 3:00 position looks like it might have some "issues" with a small boulder.
I now have a mental picture of Phoenix, with a broken transmitter after the long winter - waking up in 2011, and using the arm to fashion the local terrain into a replica of the ATLO facility.
Doug
I can see her building a CO2 snow fort during the winter in order to stave off further encroachment...
Still a bit worried about the uneven terrain, though. Other places we've landed have pretty uniform slopes with respect to the lander's scale, albeit usually studded with rocks; the polar areas (esp. region D) seem to have these hummocks much like terrestrial permafrost mounds...fairly treacherous.
I think people are much more concerned about the rocks than they are about meter-scale slopes. I wonder if these areas look more treacherous than they are because of the low angle of illumination that prevails at polar latitudes -- that would emphasize topography and make things look bumpier than they really are.
Unfortunately I missed the talks on meter-scale slopes at the meeting so I don't know what kinds of slopes they're finding in these terrains.
--Emily
Great update, Emily! Hopefully there'll be nothing to downgrade Green Valley as Phoenix approaches next next May
Emily, just curious, which HiRISE image did you end up using for your report? Thanks!
I should probably write that in the caption...anyway, I rarely change the filenames of images as I work with them, so it's still on there in the image in the post. Just save picture as and you'll see it: PSP_001497_2480_RED
I got an interesting email from Mark Lemmon, which I'll blog next week as I've done enough for today, but I thought y'all would enjoy it here:
Emily wrote "which will align the solar panels roughly E-W."
May be I'm too impatient but as I see how important it's for Spirit to get her panel in the right orientation I may be understand why the "slope issue" (of having slopes less than a few degree) is as important as the "boulder issue"
Tried again - 33cm/pixel ( it just seems better at that res ) - with all the landers pointing with arms going north...makes it harder to see with a 30 degree high Sun off to the west - as the shadow falls more under the lander and less onto the ground beside it. Thanks for the pointers Mark
Doug
Landing site update from Peter Smith's LPSC poster. Of the three boxes considered in Regions D and A, Box 1 has been selected as the final 'box' (2.5 degrees north to south, 9 degrees east-west, which is about 150 km square). This is in the 'green valley' area, about 80 km west of a 10 km crater on the south edge of the valley. The ellipse can still move around a bit within the box.
Phil
Cool. Nice to know Phoenix's future home on the Red Planet has been selected
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070312/full/070312-5.html
Update from LPSC on the Phoenix site.
This is the region of the landing site:
Yes, the first one is a simple cylindrical projection, which is why everything is so stretched out in longitude. 1 degree of longitude does not equal one degree of latitude this far north, not even close! Map projections are actually a real problem for this mission. Phil, of course, would be the correct authority on what projection they SHOULD be using for their maps...
Phil, where did you find that update? I couldn't find it on the Phoenix site. Can you post a link?
--Emily
The geometry is perfectly accurate - for that map projection. Simple Cylindrical does that to craters. The second image is part of the same thing, but stretched vertically to give a better idea of shape.
Emily - a polar sterographic or a conic projection at that latitude would be better for shape. I used the Simple Cylindrical because that's how we can now get all this good stuff straight off the Themis site:
http://jmars.asu.edu/data/
As for the update... Ah, Em, you shoulda been there! I took it from Peter Smith's LPSC talk and poster.
Phil
An interesting article on undergraduate labor. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.nl.html?pid=22456
I may have missed it somewhere else, but I've never heard whether MRO concluded it's HiRes imaging campaign of the entire Phoenix landing site. Did it finish? If not, is The Storm having any effect on it's imaging at this latitude?
I know the days have to be getting short at the site by this time of (martian) year. So if they're not done yet ...
Phil reporting in from an internet cafe in Tofino, BC:
No, I don't think there is very much coverage yet. New pics will be taken after the sun gets higher again, not too long before landing.
Phil
BAD QUOTING - STOP IT
That will feed our eager minds untill May...
Advanced discovery planning, we're into it...
Seems like there ought to be an updated landing ellipse out there somewhere by now, but I can't find it. Wouldn't it be frustrating if Phoenix lands on a slab of basalt?
Try this:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA09946
The lower image on that page shows ellipses. The actual ellipse depends on lauynch date, so we know that now - it's the one oriented from SE to NW, lower right to upper left.
Phil
Thanks, that is helpful. Looks like if it hits towards the southern portion of the ellipse there may even be some interesting topography on the horizon
"Looks like if it hits towards the southern portion of the ellipse there may even be some interesting topography on the horizon "
Yes. I said that to Peter Smith, but he pointed out that the relief is very low. They would have to be quite close to it to see very much, but in fact we might get a bit of relief. Certainly if we play our old trick on this forum of vertical exaggeration of horizon topography.
Phil
I'll be bitterly disappointed if there's any interesting topography. I've been looking forward to a landscape of surreal, mind-altering featurelessness.
Well - if the Martian Arctic doesn't deliver - you can just refer back to the Purgatory pan from Meridiani
Doug
I'm lazy I know...can someone indicate the HiRise images covering the area Phil indicated as Phoenix' ellipse?
EDITED: I decided to work a little...
Found out http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/martianterrain/PHX_20070801a.html.
EDITED: I'm tired of working so hard...
Even better...http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/geographikos.php?q1=67N&q2=69N&q3=230E&q4=238E&order=release_date&submit=Search taken by HiRise within the area indicated by Phil
A bit more info:
http://themis.asu.edu/discoveries-phoenix
Phil
I've been trying to bridge the gap between the large scale (THEMIS) and the super closeups (HiRISE) of the Phoenix landing site. CTX has decent, albeit incomplete, coverage of the ellipse. Here's a mosaic of 9 CTX images showing the northwest half of the landing ellipse (based on http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA09946). Unfortunately, the coverage of the south-east half was plagued by cloud cover. The image placement is based on matching features, and not proper full map-projection (caveat viewer).
http://www.lyle.org/~markoff/ctx/phoenix_landing_ctx.jpg
http://www.lyle.org/~markoff/ctx/phoenix_landing_ctx.jpg
That is very nice... I look forward to seeing the rest of the ellipse added in when it becomes possible.
Phil
HiRISE images allow some extension of this map to the southeast. There is more to add as well. This is just to show the available images and is very compressed. Something better will follow later.
Phil
This is an expanded HiRISE mosaic of the southeastern part of the ellipse, at greatly reduced resolution of course.
Phil
slinted and Stooke, the center of the landing ellipse has been shifted 13 kilometers (8 miles) southeastward...how significant will that be on your work?
It's moving more into my area. I'll post a higher resolution image of the central part of the ellipse soon.
Phil
Yes, 13km further southeast puts the center of the ellipse right along the edge of the CTX coverage. I can't wait to see what you can put together Phil, since HiRISE is definitely going to be the best way to see it. Is it safe to assume anything about what 'southeast' means in this context? Since the old ellipse was northwest -> southeast, I'm wondering if this TCM just pushed the landing spot 13km further down the center-line of the old ellipse.
I've been working on improving the CTX mosaic nonetheless. This new one was done in http://isis.astrogeology.usgs.gov/, and improves on both the resolution and tone-matching compared to the one I previously posted. The scale on the full resolution version is 10 m/pixel.
http://www.lyle.org/~markoff/ctx/ctx_phoenix_1sigma_041308.jpg
http://www.lyle.org/~markoff/ctx/ctx_phoenix_1sigma_041308.jpg
The ellipse shown above is NOT the full 3-sigma ellipse, but rather the smaller 1-sigma ellipse (32 km x 6.5 km). I based the ellipse on a KMZ file made by Ross Beyer that contained the coordinates of the old, post-launch pre-TCM ellipses (http://rossbeyer.net/science/kml/) and shifted it 13km down-range (which may be a bad assumption).
Here's a composite of slinted's new map and my latest HiRISE mosaic. Mine is uncontrolled - just matching features, and it's only very roughly fitted to the CTX map, just showing what we have for coverage. The 1 sigma ellipse is completely within the HiRISE coverage, as you might expect.
I think the ellipse is moved mostly along the axis. There isn't much room to push it sideways - not the 3 sigma ellipse, anyway.
Phil
Awesome, Phil. How about selecting a few representative patches of this view and giving it to us at absolute maximum resolution! I want to count the dandelions.
Great stuff Phil! Which HiRISE image shows the area from your closeup?
Great GREAT stuff!
I'm with Shaka here...We want more!
Another thing...some of you might know that I'll have at spacEurope today, the presence of Peter Smith for a live Q'n'A, but the man only confirmed the day not the hour...
I have proposed 1800UTC to 2000UTC, after that I may not have the chance to be present so, if I'm not there, Stu will assume the wheel, I asked this to Stu but I'll ask you the same, if some of you guys are thinking about dropping by, please, make PS feel like he's at home...
EDITED: Confirmed, Peter Smith will be there at 1800UTC, hope you guys can show up, it will be only for an hour but time enough to get some answers...
The image I showed is PSP_006996_2480_RED. I don't have time to do any full-res crops, but maybe someone else can play with it.
Phil
Wow! Are they relaxed impact craters or collapsed Martian pingos?
p
I'll have a go...
Here's a close-up of one of those intriguing "rings"...
I was thinking the bright "branches" are kind of troughs, with a floor of light material. I have been interpreting the dark "spots" as mounds or dunes with defrosting tops... any input from anyone else on this..?
Would it be possible to add some measure of scale onto these pictures?
It's a bit difficult to visualise the size of the 'objects' we are looking at.
Cheers!
The pictures I posted are at the maximum HiRISE resolution possible... I'm sure that the scale info you need is available on the HiRISE site somewhere, or maybe someone else can tell you. Sorry I can't help more, I'm tied up with the Peter Smith live Q&A over on Rui's spacEurope blog at the mo...
My eyes are being tricked similarly to imipak's. Is the light generally coming from the top of the images? I seem to see 'boulders' with 'shadows' below. What is the minimum size of boulders we can resolve? Basketballs? Beachballs?
Fascinating stuff, but I really wish I knew what I was seeing.
Patterns of light 'frost' and dark 'dust'?? Are there any tundra experts able to help??
Does standing on your head help? Ouch. No.
Do these patterns change seasonally?
Hmmm. I can't believe the shadow of the camera mast was the width of an armchair, Dan'l, ... a basketball maybe...but I would have guessed a softball... or one of those midget footballs... at most two squash balls...
This is a very quick and crude attempt to put some sort of scale to the landing site images... if I'm way out here, and making a mistake somewhere then my apologies, but I wanted to have a try! I've kept the same scale throughout this process so, in theory, this should be "right", but if it isn't then I'm happy to be told so - and for someone else to have a go!
Ok, here's a HiRISE 1:1 view of Spitrit (circled) at Homeplate...
Thanks Doug, I did remember you posting that, but someone asked about the scale of the features on the HiRISE images, so I was only using those crops to try and show how big local landscape and terrain features were, not how big Phoenix itself would be.
Just for fun, here's a version of that USGS base map (PIA09946), with only the "early in the window" ellipse drawn, and shifted (I think) about 13 km to the southeast. I left a sketch of the original ellipse in there, drawn with a finer line. Do I have this about right?
--Emily
Looking good, Emily!
Phil
More of me trying to get myself oriented...is this right?
--Emily
According to the output of the NASA Web :
The Phonix landing site is shown on the following image:
I think you need to move a little bit to the East Emily.
This is probably a silly question, but I've not been able to find an answer elsewhere on the web. Does the Phoenix target area have a better name than "northern polar region"? What's the equivalent of 'Gusev Crater' or 'Meridiani Planum' for Phoenix?
I believe that the name of the entire north polar plains region is Vastias Borealis.
The very broad plain around the north pole is called Vastitas Borealis (Northern Plain, or Northern Waste). This specific area has a group of low hills forming the sides of "Green Valley". They are called Scandia Colles (Scandia Hills). The actual site, "Green Valley" is an informal name. Here's a map:
http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/images/mc1_mola.pdf
The site's at the left edge, about 10 o'clock.
Phil
Huum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandia...it pleases me...
From the https://twitter.com/MarsPhoenix:
"The team is considering a maneuver to nudge my flight path toward a landing spot on Mars 18 kilometers to the NW of where I'm headed now."
I'm wondering if this maneuver is rock-hazard related, or maybe they're just aiming for a more central position in the valley. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/multimedia/6406-20080513.html shows that, as of now, even the 1-sigma ellipse crosses over from the "Lowland Bright" unit onto the ejecta from Heimdall.
First this:
Unless it means "I'm 18 km off course... they are going to push me back towards the place I need to be". The statement is ambiguous.
Phil
That makes sense, Phil. I don't think they'd be changing the intended landing zone this late into the approach.
The http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/main/ has a few sentences more information:
Tim Parker is a god.
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001431/
--Emily
Brilliant stuff - I was hoping something like the MSSS 25 and 10m/pixel MER ellipse imagery would make it out in time..
Combined with this : http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/HiBlog/?p=180 : we should be able to identify which image to look in when the time comes!
Doug
Do you know if a chart showing actual landing places as compared to the center of the targeted elipses exits for all US landing?
MPF, MERA and MERB are the only succesfull direct entry landings - attached, ellipses with X marks the spot on each. They're not to scale. The lesson is - they've all been VERY close to the centre line - but changes up and down range are quite significant.
I already pointed this out to Emily - the two maps she links to above have grids with different labels - compare the longitude labels with the locations of individual hills or craters. You will see that one has to be wrong, probably the colored map. Because the ellipses were plotted relative to grid labels they appear offset among the topographic features, but in fact they shouldn't be.
Phil
Now all we need is a few new placenames...
That prominent hill to the south of the ellipse center looks like the most likely feature - IF any - to show over the horizon.
Phil
An anaglyph from the newest landing ellipse centerline, about 9 kilometers down (ESE) from the centerpoint. The new center line cuts the frame in half, from upper left to lower right (not shown). The image is half of the normal HiRISE resolution and its width is approximately 550 m. I don't think there's significant exaggeration compared to a realistic elevation model, very little at best.
Images used:
PSP_002249_2485 (left eye)
PSP_002328_2485 (right eye)
No mountains visible, but the surface is far from featureless!
Enjoy.
This is the best I can do with one of Randy's DEM's. To be honest, I could save myself a lot of render time and not use the full resolution of the DEM itself, and just pre-displace a 100 x 100 poly plane.
Doug
who cares about the surface anyway? I'm very curious to see if the subsurface will be more interesting than the surface. I would think it is
Can I ask - on the USGS geological map, what's the meaning of that funny meandering line of dashes that cuts more or less through the centre of the landing ellipse?
Rui,
"Tunnga-sugitsi"
Sounds a bit too much like "Tunguska" for my liking and we all know what happened there........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event
Brian
Didn't think of that...
Here's a http://www.wordgumbo.com/ea/can/caninu.htm we can play with...
I like particularly "aimerpok" which stands for "visiting and expecting food"
Number A and Letter 2... an Archie Bunker fan perhaps?
"A, he's unemployed, and 2, he don't woik!"
Phil
As long as we don't have Meathead Mountain on the distant horizon...
Crop from latest HiRISE landing ellipse image... looks like frost was lingering as recently as May 2nd...
Reckless predictions corner:
1 .the montony of a mostly flat horizon will be balanced by a lot of small-scale relief, of the order of a metre or two, that will be clearly visible all around the lander.
2. the lander will come to rest with a significant tilt (more than ten degrees.)
Now I can relax until Monday morning, knowing that th e universe will have to allow a successful EDL, in order to prove me wrong
It would be cool indeed if Phoenix lands in a patch of surface frost.
Cooler still if the trench uncovers multiple layers of ice...
some of those spots seem over-exposed, hence the confusing lighting conditions perhaps? little ice mounts? cool in any case if visible from phoenix!
To me, in this image it looks like the polygonal terrain is organized at three different levels.
Here is a freely available reference:
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~meech/a740/papers/mangold_2004b.pdf
(Figure 1a shows the sorted stone polygons)
-Mike
Bingo! Found an even better freely available reference for polygonal terrain near the Mars Phoenix site (apologies if it's been linked before):
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2008/pdf/2475.pdf
The cracks are troughs bound by two shoulder-like ridges. As the terrain "sets up" the troughs widen and the ridges get bigger.
And another freely-available abstract describes Devon Island as an Earth analog for the Phoenix site, (with a caution that some of the polygonal terrain studied on Devon Island could be quite blocky with relief up to 1.5 m)
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2007/pdf/2341.pdf
[OK, now I'm getting a little more worried...]
-Mike
Okay, these features are definitely trenches or ditches of some kind...
... and a second candidate for the "Places Best Avoided" list...
Definitely, Stu!
However, I sure wouldn't mind if we came down within a few meters of one of these. Shooting from the hip, here, those look one hell of a lot like fresh fractures that have permitted sublimation & recrystallization of H2O...perhaps evidence of VERY extensive subsurface ice?
This is one of my favourite crops so far, and I think it shows that Doug's winning entry in Rui's art competition is probably very prescient... A few rocks, here and there, some vertical relief, here and there... maybe some low ridges, shallow trenches...
I can't avoid to think, looking at that image, that this is a tricky ground...tricky tricky...
What's so tricky about it? Doesn't look like anything Phoenix wouldn't handle to me. It's definitely going to wind up with some small tilt when it lands, with some luck it just might be tilted towards the south.
Yep, I agree... I'd much rather our bird touches down here than in one of those Death Star trenches...!
Resolution: the usual 1:1 on IAS Viewer which I think corresponds to 30cm pixel...
If it's the map projected imagery, it's normally 25cm/pixel.
Doug
I've been taking a second look at the HiRISE image of the Phoenix landing, in particular the large scale light and dark patterns.
The large scale darker areas such as the area where Phoenix landed appears to be darker because of the prominent dark polygons. The large scale lighter area in contrast lack the prominent dark polygons, a second difference is the rougher appearance with more relief at scales larger than the polygons.
The difference between the light and dark areas near Phoenix is apparent in the HiRISE image of the area around Phoenix, I've included a couple of closeups the show the polygons in the dark areas.
I was thinking that "THE" HiRISE landing site image was PSP_0022490_2485 and the location was +68.2, 234.3 deg. I've been trying to match to the orbital views with Phil Stooke's Polar Pans but have had -zip- success. The landscape has a truly fractal appearance and I've not seen many landmarks. Did I take a preliminary locations as gospel?
Anyway, I don't think we're seeing frozen ponds of water, nor a frozen shallow groundwater table. Remember, Mars has significant polar drift, and what is now polar was once equatorial a brief few hundred million years ago. Relative recent surface conditions do not allow for standing bodies of water, and whatever liquid could form quickly evaporated. I believe that the source of the ice we are finding will be hoarfrost with interbedded regolith.
I may be completely off base here, but we'll see what the chemistry of the site is and what further digging shows.
--Bill
When I was looking at the Hi-Rise of the Phoenix Lander on the surface I can see channels that look like small river channels. Did anyone else notice this ?
http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/images/gallery/lg_647.jpg
I believe these are channels in question. I only bracketed a few, there are a lot more visible if you look carefully.
Interesting to revisit the images shown earlier in this thread (e.g. post 186 - upper image) that appear to show (as suggested) isolated areas of exposed ice, perhaps in natural trenches of some sort. They appear quite consistent with widespread subsurface ice and it's neat to see the ice showing itself occasionally like this.
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=557&view=findpost&p=114268
Also in post 195:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=557&view=findpost&p=114413
Steve
Found a neat video on the Photomodeler web site where they use the software to make 3D models from Phoenix stereo pairs. They do one of the lander legs and also a trench:
http://www.photomodeler.com/products/scanner/videos/marsswf/marsswf.html
Might want to be careful with that Photomodeler. It brought my PC (a middle of the road model) to its knees. But the little I was able to see of it was impressive.
Thanks for posting that, Joe. That is some very nifty software. Too bad it is so expensive. I'd like to get it, but I can't justify the expense.
Deliberate "self portrait" shadow shot or just coincidence? A simplistic color composite based on http://www.met.tamu.edu/mars/030.html:
Nice.
Now try viewing that with 3D specs (reversed, with left eye blue) to see that shadow floating ABOVE the ground!
This is a trick I have used in our physics lab to make 3D shadow shows - illuminate objects with two colour spotlights side by side and view the cast shadows with 3D specs.
What are these for?
Looks like the lowest resolution possible of the horizon and the sky???
any guesses?
<sol 29, 30>
Look at Marks page - they are described as sky water observations. Solar filtered ( thus long exposure and noisy ) horizon obs.
Doug
Hello everyone, I'm a newbie again (felt scared off last time). I have been lurking for some considerable time since my first registration. Now I feel, that I can contribute in a more meaningful manner.
A couple of images from Phoenix below & some confirmation & to share a thought / idea.
If my maths is correct, Phoenix lies approx 1,303 KM / 809 miles away from the North Pole?
Below, I had a go at working on the central portion of the colour pan looking north. I have cropped out the section from Azm 350 deg, to 10 degrees, therefore due north is dead centre.
There are three low rises visible on the horizon? Pingos perhaps? Any thoughts.
Andrew, interesting image that, looking due north . . .
( Edit - remove foolish attempt at stretching the wrong bit of Andrew's image... !!)
It looks suggestive to me, but I haven't the time or especially the skills to search in that direction for candidate features on an orbital view.
PS No need to feel intimidated, we don't bite! I, at least, have a lot less skill with imagery than you've already demonstrated
EDIT: ...and to prove it, I completely misinterpreted your post and did an excited stetch of the horizon, convinced I could see a typical crater...
This is a big part of what I like about UMSF -- the international aspect. "Carry on straight up the middle, and eventually you will come to the pole" -- the essence of British matter of fact mode. Of course, we will never be able to top the romance language mystique of the "Ultreya Abyss"!
I need some help. The HiRISE team has released http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/PSP_008855_2485, taken on June 16 (sol 21). The dynamic range in this image is big enough that detail in the parachute is lost to saturation in the version that I can view with IAS viewer, and I'm traveling and not on a connection reliable enough to download any of the big images. Is there someone out here who can get me a segment of the RED image maybe in a 16-bit format that preserves the detail in the parachute?
--Emily
I'm impressed you can see the coloured stripes on the parachute! HiRise just keeps amazing me.
Agreed. The latest shot is about the sharpest I've seen of all the landers, especially impressive is the red backshell and parachute with the lines clearly visible. You can clearly relate it to the ground view of the backshell. The lighting angle is excellent as well. Great stuff.
Thanks to slinted for sending me TIFF versions, much obliged.
Yeah, seeing the colored stripes is amazing. Also, you can see the lighter color at the center of the solar panels where there is more light-colored metal than dark-colored solar cells.
There is at least one more image of the landing site, taken 5 sols post-landing, but they don't have it on the release manifest, according to what I've been told. Fortunately the wait for PDS release is very short for HiRISE
--Emily
Will we be able to stack these images? Or are they taken from diffrent angles?
Yes, I'll do that in a bit. --Emily
Looks like as far as the chute stripes go, the most detail is in the blue-green image:
PSP_008855_2485_BG13_1.jpg:
PSP_008855_2485_RED5_1.jpg:
PSP_008855_2485_IR11_1.jpg:
I guess that makes sense, as the stripes are red.
The above are crops from the EDR images (IMG), converted to JPG.
Speaking of different viewing angles, that's exactly what I am hoping for any pair of HiRISE images of the same target. Below is what results from making an anaglyph with the pre-landing image of the landingsite and the latest image with the hardware. North is up. The resolution is half of the normal HiRISE image. Added brightness and contrast.
Here you go. Thanks again to Dan.
http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/phoenix/8855_2485_RED.tif
http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/phoenix/8855_2485_RGB_BLUE.tif
http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/phoenix/8855_2485_RGB_GREEN.tif
http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/phoenix/8855_2485_RGB_RED.tif
--Emily
Emily,
Looking at your blog, I found something very funny.
I first looked at the parachutte image and then sckroled down to "Buzzed by a binary" ...where the picture shown looks very much like the parachutte one with a poorest definition
I noticed that too It's especially funny because neither the subject nor the method of generating the images have anything whatsoever to do with each other.
--Emily
Emily, thanks for posting/hosting them. I would have been happy to share them widely, but it might have melted lyle.org
While we are all waiting for the TEGA team to catch a long deserved break, I thought I would post some of the work I have been doing. I have been playing around with a non linear focus/sharpen program. It goes in to recover high frequency information.
I used the Phoenix landing shot (22hours post EDL). The first image shows the top half processed and the bottom half in the original state. The sharpener/focuser separates the color image into 3 images (RGB) and processes them in isolation. Then I reconvert them back to a single 24bit color RGB.
here is the zoomed lander from the original image but using the same zoom program.
(now you can actually compare them!)
I attempted to line up the HiRISE image with a vertically projected version of James Canvin's Peter Pan. I used the lander body as a reference, which was a bad idea, as the lander body is larger relative to the terrain than an orbital view would show since the camera has a perspective that cannot see terrain behind a solar panel or lander body. Still, some features are remarkably accurate. I attempted to match color and contrast as well. Anyone else who wants to try and make a better version can use the full vertical pan in the Peter Pan thread. Click to animate between the HiRISE and combined views. There are GIF posterization artifacts on the HiRISE view of the lander.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)