Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Unmanned Spaceflight.com _ Phoenix _ Landing Site Imagery

Posted by: djellison Dec 20 2004, 02:13 PM

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 smile.gif

Actually - given MRO's huge swath width and resolution, easy biggrin.gif

Doug

Posted by: remcook Dec 20 2004, 02:34 PM

the main thing is to analyse some sub-surface ices right?
MPL was a while ago and I can't remember the details anymore...

Posted by: tedstryk Dec 20 2004, 03:14 PM

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

Posted by: YesRushGen Dec 20 2004, 03:27 PM

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. laugh.gif (One of the Lunar Surveyors did that - although only a few meters away)

Posted by: djellison Dec 20 2004, 04:10 PM

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 smile.gif

Doug

Posted by: tedstryk Dec 20 2004, 04:14 PM

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).

Posted by: YesRushGen Dec 20 2004, 04:23 PM

Yeah, that is true. It would be way neat to have many many small meteorology landers scattered about the planet.

Posted by: Sunspot Dec 20 2004, 04:24 PM

QUOTE (remcook @ Dec 20 2004, 02:34 PM)
the main thing is to analyse some sub-surface ices right?
MPL was a while ago and I can't remember the details anymore...

No ones 100% sure what went wrong as there was no data sent back during decent and landing...but the most likely reason for the failure was the premature shutdown of the decent thrusters just a few hundred feet above the surface. Software and sensors designed to detect the landing legs touching down on the surface may have been fooled by the landing legs being deployed during the decent.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?MarsPolarLander


By the way here's the website for Phoenix: http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/

Launch: August, 2007
Arrival: May 25, 2008
Science Instruments: Mars Descent Imager, Stereo Imager, Robot Arm and Camera, Thermal Evolved Gas Analyzer, Microscopy Electrochemistry & Conductivity Analyzer, Meteorology Suite

Posted by: djellison Dec 20 2004, 04:52 PM

This is the 'other' Phoenix website - to be honest, neither are any good smile.gif

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 smile.gif

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 wink.gif

doug

Posted by: OWW Dec 20 2004, 07:54 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 20 2004, 04:52 PM)
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 wink.gif

I always thought it was strange that everybody ignored the fact that BOTH Deep Space-2 probes were never heard from as well!!!
It may well be that the failures of MPL and DS2 had different causes, but everytime I read about the crash I have this nagging feeling that the mission may have been lost way sooner when MPL and DS2 were still bolted together.

I watched the landing live at the time ( sad.gif ) and I remember that just before landing the entire Cruise stage/MPL/DS2 combo had to turn away from earth to the landing orientation which caused the loss of comm. Maybe the turn was not complete, or it didn't stop turning causing a tumble...

I just don't like the idea of three different spacecraft all failing at the same time for three different reasons. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: djellison Dec 20 2004, 08:05 PM

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 sad.gif

Doug

Posted by: Pando Dec 20 2004, 08:08 PM

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...

Posted by: OWW Dec 20 2004, 08:14 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 20 2004, 08:05 PM)
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 sad.gif

But what if the entire stack was tumbling or in a wrong orientation BEFORE anything separated? Would the DS2 probes put themselves in a correct orientation once they encountered the Martian atmosphere?

The DS2 probes were quite small and designed to go underground, so I don't think it's strange MGS didn't spot them. MGS was not equiped with a temporal-camera, so imaging MSL was not an option biggrin.gif .

Posted by: YesRushGen Dec 20 2004, 08:25 PM

QUOTE (Pando @ Dec 20 2004, 08:08 PM)
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...

Absolutely. I sincerely hope that Phoenix has been updated to provide some low level comms like MER had and MPL didn't. Anyone seen any info on this?

Posted by: djellison Dec 20 2004, 08:50 PM

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 smile.gif

Doug

Posted by: OWW Dec 20 2004, 09:02 PM

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?

Posted by: djellison Dec 20 2004, 10:42 PM

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 smile.gif 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 smile.gif

Doug

Posted by: BruceMoomaw Dec 24 2004, 03:44 AM

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.)

Posted by: Phil Stooke Jun 16 2005, 07:11 PM

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

Posted by: ljk4-1 Jul 14 2005, 02:01 PM

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)

Posted by: ustrax Dec 27 2005, 04:49 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 20 2004, 02:13 PM)
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 smile.gif

Actually - given MRO's huge swath width and resolution, easy biggrin.gif

Doug
*


Updating...

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/guest/phoenix/S02_phoenix.html

Posted by: djellison Dec 27 2005, 05:07 PM

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

Posted by: ustrax Dec 27 2005, 05:21 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 27 2005, 05:07 PM)
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
*



You're right Doug, I have sympathized with this particular place...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v352/ustrax/Phoenix1.jpg

Original:
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/guest/phoenix/2005/01/S02-00184d.gif

Can we make requests?... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Toma B Dec 27 2005, 05:31 PM

Guys how about somebody makes a scaled down version of that enormous image? sad.gif
Doug?, Ustrax?

Posted by: ustrax Dec 27 2005, 05:36 PM

QUOTE (Toma B @ Dec 27 2005, 05:31 PM)
Guys how about somebody makes a scaled down version of that enormous image? sad.gif
Doug?, Ustrax?
*


I can't access Doug's link...
sad.gif

Posted by: um3k Dec 27 2005, 06:05 PM

QUOTE (Toma B @ Dec 27 2005, 12:31 PM)
Guys how about somebody makes a scaled down version of that enormous image? sad.gif
Doug?, Ustrax?
*

Here:

Posted by: mcaplinger Dec 27 2005, 06:37 PM

QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Dec 23 2004, 07:44 PM)
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. 
*


I'm not so sure they did retain the post-landing DTE capability on PHX except for EDL tones. The latest renderings of the lander on the PHX web site don't show a steerable DTE antenna, though earlier ones did. I really haven't kept track of how this ended up.

I believe that for PHX relay MRO is the prime and Odyssey is the backup. It might be possible to send data through MGS in a pinch, but as with MER, they prefer not to do that since it's lower rate and incurs some loss because of the way the MGS relay works (it doesn't have handshaking like the later designs.)

Posted by: Steve G Dec 31 2005, 09:07 PM

QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Dec 27 2005, 11:37 AM)
I'm not so sure they did retain the post-landing DTE capability on PHX except for EDL tones.  The latest renderings of the lander on the PHX web site don't show a steerable DTE antenna, though earlier ones did.  I really haven't kept track of how this ended up.

I believe that for PHX relay MRO is the prime and Odyssey is the backup.  It might be possible to send data through MGS in a pinch, but as with MER, they prefer not to do that since it's lower rate and incurs some loss because of the way the MGS relay works (it doesn't have handshaking like the later designs.)
*


I'm looking forward to see the science the mission will bring us. It will be a lot more interesting than the pictures. The MERs have spoiled us with the pretty postcards, but that's not why PHX is going to Mars. The science is going to be great.

Posted by: RNeuhaus Dec 31 2005, 09:29 PM

QUOTE (Steve G @ Dec 31 2005, 04:07 PM)
The MERs have spoiled us with the pretty postcards, but that's not why PHX is going to Mars.
*

We have not only received post cards but also graphs about the minerology content of some interesting stones, Thermal analysis of Martian atmosphere and surface. PHX have another kind of scientific instruments that will complement to MER starting with its drilling and sampling data for post-analysis.

It is still a long time to learn news from PHX since it will land on Mars by the first months of the year 2008...it is 2 years from now.

Rodolfo

Posted by: gndonald Jan 16 2006, 04:06 AM

QUOTE (Steve G @ Jan 1 2006, 05:07 AM)
I'm looking forward to see the science the mission will bring us.  It will be a lot more interesting than the pictures. The MERs have spoiled us with the pretty postcards, but that's not why PHX is going to Mars.  The science is going to be great.
*


Quite right, the science definitely be worth it, all of the previous surface level weather measurement has been done at the lower latitudes (47 deg N for Viking 1/2, 19 deg N for Pathfinder), thus a look at the high altitude weather patterns should hopefully provide a contrast to them.

I just find it a pity that NASA can't get funding to send a second lander to the South Polar region in the same year (even of the Pathfinder variety).

Posted by: ljk4-1 Jan 16 2006, 04:02 PM

QUOTE (gndonald @ Jan 15 2006, 11:06 PM)
Quite right, the science definitely be worth it, all of the previous surface level weather measurement has been done at the lower latitudes (47 deg N for Viking 1/2, 19 deg N for Pathfinder), thus a look at the high altitude weather patterns should hopefully provide a contrast to them.

I just find it a pity that NASA can't get funding to send a second lander to the South Polar region in the same year (even of the Pathfinder variety).
*


This is why NASA should be working on smaller probes that can be sent in bunches to numerous places all over a target world. With this kind of probe,
losing a few would not be the end of the entire mission.

Posted by: gndonald Jan 17 2006, 01:47 AM

QUOTE (ljk4-1 @ Jan 17 2006, 12:02 AM)
This is why NASA should be working on smaller probes that can be sent in bunches to numerous places all over a target world.  With this kind of probe,
losing a few would not be the end of the entire mission.
*


The sad thing, is that this is what NASA had with the basic 'Pathfinder' lander, something that could carry out a fair amount of science, which would have been easier to 'mass produce' than the rovers or the upcoming Phoenix lander.

A good strategy would have been to do a 'High/Low' launch with each launch window, say one MRO/Phoenix style 'high complexity' mission and one or more Pathfinder 'low complexity' mission(s).

The actual http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/fact_sheet.html mission lasted for 83 sols, which would nicely complement the 'main missions' reading during the initial phases.

The best instrument set would probably be a basic http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/sci_desc.html#IMP, http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/MPF/mpf/sci_desc.html#ATMO and either a seismonitor or radiation detector.

Apologies for going a little off topic, but this is something I feel strongly about.

Posted by: ustrax Jun 8 2006, 10:08 AM

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?

Posted by: climber Jun 8 2006, 10:18 AM

[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.

Posted by: ustrax Jun 8 2006, 10:33 AM

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

smile.gif

Posted by: climber Jun 8 2006, 11:10 AM

[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

Posted by: ustrax Jun 8 2006, 11:15 AM

'Can we already put an elipse ?'

I don't think so... It is the current proposed landing site, not the definitive one...

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 9 2006, 02:09 AM

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

Posted by: climber Jun 9 2006, 05:37 AM

[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 ?

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 9 2006, 03:20 PM

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! smile.gif

Rodolfo

Posted by: ustrax Jun 9 2006, 03:52 PM

QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Jun 9 2006, 04:20 PM) *
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! smile.gif

Rodolfo


I'm working on it... smile.gif

Posted by: Phil Stooke Jun 10 2006, 06:11 PM

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

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 11 2006, 02:12 AM

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).



That zone is not so flat like Meridiani Planum and Gusev Crater...then there is some risk during the EDL.

Rodolfo

Posted by: aldo12xu Jun 13 2006, 04:25 PM

Has anybody mentioned this MOC April 2006 imaging update?

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/guest/phoenix/S17_phoenix.html

Posted by: ustrax Jun 13 2006, 04:43 PM

QUOTE (aldo12xu @ Jun 13 2006, 05:25 PM) *
Has anybody mentioned this MOC April 2006 imaging update?

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/guest/phoenix/S17_phoenix.html


Thank you aldo! biggrin.gif
Where can we see the coordinates for those captions?

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 13 2006, 04:55 PM

Thanks Aldo, for a very good reference URL!

Rodolfo

Posted by: Phil Stooke Jun 13 2006, 05:20 PM

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

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 14 2006, 04:09 AM

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:

<-- It would be terrific if Phonix lands inside the crater
66º to 68º N 225º to 234º.

Area B, Box 2:
<-- It is a rough land
66º to 68º N 224º to 227º

Area B, Box 3:
<-- It looks like safer landing
70º to 71º N 220º to 227º

Rodolfo

Posted by: ustrax Jun 14 2006, 03:44 PM

QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Jun 13 2006, 06:20 PM) *
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


Phil, where do that coordinates come from?
I got http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=557&view=findpost&p=57527 from Doug Lombardi, who, in his latest e-mail talked about the question issued here about the size of the landing ellipse for the PML:

'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. The exact dimension won't be know until we finalize our location.'

Edited: Oops!...Forgot this part:

The landing site will be free of major craters...there are areas in the current region that fit this criteria. Also, as MRO comes on line...we will look for much smaller craters that could also be hazards.

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 14 2006, 04:50 PM

QUOTE (ustrax @ Jun 14 2006, 10:44 AM) *
Phil, where do that coordinates come from?
I got http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=557&view=findpost&p=57527 from Doug Lombardi, who, in his latest e-mail talked about the question issued here about the size of the landing ellipse for the PML:

Usatrax,

The above maps are covering the area what Dr. Doug Lombardi has mentioned: 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...

Rodolfo

Posted by: Phil Stooke Jun 14 2006, 05:03 PM

My coordinates come from the Malin Space Science Systems website, where new MOC images of the three
'boxes' are being released each month.

Phil

Posted by: climber Jun 16 2006, 12:38 PM

'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.

Posted by: djellison Jun 16 2006, 01:12 PM

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

 

Posted by: ustrax Jun 28 2006, 10:49 AM

Found out this:

http://planetary.chem.tufts.edu/Phoenix/landing_site_selection.htm

There are also some cool Death Valley pictures in the site... smile.gif

Posted by: aldo12xu Jun 28 2006, 02:45 PM

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?

Posted by: ustrax Jun 28 2006, 04:19 PM

QUOTE (aldo12xu @ Jun 28 2006, 03:45 PM) *
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?


I believe it is just an example...
The other candidates you indicate, the one referred by Doug Lombardi are all still under discussion...
Soon we'll know... smile.gif

Posted by: Phil Stooke Jun 29 2006, 09:56 AM

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

Posted by: RNeuhaus Jun 29 2006, 07:39 PM

QUOTE (ustrax @ Jun 28 2006, 05:49 AM) *
Found out this:

http://planetary.chem.tufts.edu/Phoenix/landing_site_selection.htm

There are also some cool Death Valley pictures in the site... smile.gif

Good reference. The resume of that article is that the selected landing site presents the following characteristics:
  1. Low roghness values - approximately 1±0.6 m.
  2. They found textures interpreted to be due to periglacial processes, including terrain they describe as having basketball-like, wrinkled-looking, and polygonally shaped features.
  3. The slopes are gentle and easily within the slope constraint listed above.
  4. The most likely obstacles to be encountered are rocks.
  5. Thermal inertias computed from TES data show values of 230±48 J/(m2Kvs)— a range that indicates slightly indurated soillike material covers the surface, at least to depths of the diurnal skin depth of approximately several centimeters. Given the site average thermal inertia, the likelihood of landing on a high rock is very small.
However, it is not yet the final site landing but the decision on the final landing site will be through the NASA Associate Administrator for Space Sciences. They look for more community scientific input and suggestions.

Rodolfo

Posted by: tuvas Oct 19 2006, 04:44 AM

QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Jun 29 2006, 12:39 PM) *
However, it is not yet the final site landing but the decision on the final landing site will be through the NASA Associate Administrator for Space Sciences. They look for more community scientific input and suggestions.

Rodolfo


Not to mention HiRISE pictures of potential sites.

Posted by: Sunspot Nov 24 2006, 01:22 PM

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.

Posted by: edstrick Nov 25 2006, 08:59 AM

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.

Posted by: Phil Stooke Nov 25 2006, 11:48 PM

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

Posted by: edstrick Nov 26 2006, 09:41 AM

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.

Posted by: Phil Stooke Nov 26 2006, 02:36 PM

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

Posted by: edstrick Nov 27 2006, 07:32 AM

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!

Posted by: Stephen Nov 28 2006, 04:31 AM

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

Posted by: edstrick Nov 28 2006, 01:03 PM

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.

Posted by: ngunn Nov 28 2006, 05:31 PM

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.

Posted by: helvick Nov 28 2006, 10:45 PM

Frost heave? Seems like a perfectly plausible explanation especially given the latitude and expected presence of water ice.

Posted by: ngunn Nov 29 2006, 12:19 PM

Just noticed this is also being discussed in 'November 22 MRO' thread.

Posted by: AlexBlackwell Jan 10 2007, 05:12 PM

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

Posted by: elakdawalla Jan 24 2007, 08:34 PM

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

Posted by: Phil Stooke Jan 24 2007, 08:49 PM

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

Posted by: AlexBlackwell Jan 24 2007, 08:50 PM

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!"

Posted by: djellison Jan 24 2007, 08:53 PM

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.

Posted by: elakdawalla Jan 24 2007, 08:57 PM

QUOTE (AlexBlackwell @ Jan 24 2007, 12:50 PM) *
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!"

Guilty rolleyes.gif I'm sure it's pretty obvious to everybody how much I depend upon the loyal denizens of UMSF as a resource! I do try to ask people to do work for me only if I think they'll actually enjoy it and if their answer will be of interest to everyone in the forum anyway. Most of the time I can't use everything that gets generated here as a result of a question I have -- but I think UMSFers enjoy the "extended data" being available here.

--Emily

Posted by: tuvas Jan 24 2007, 08:59 PM

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!

Posted by: AlexBlackwell Jan 24 2007, 09:00 PM

QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Jan 24 2007, 10:57 AM) *
Guilty rolleyes.gif I do try to ask people to do work for me only if I think they'll actually enjoy it and if their answer will be of interest to everyone in the forum anyway. I'm sure it's pretty obvious to everybody how much I depend upon the loyal denizens of UMSF as a resource!

Wow, I was busy whitewashing away with my little toothbrush (i.e., looking up each image individually), then I see that Doug got the job done because he was using a spray gun!

Posted by: AlexBlackwell Jan 26 2007, 12:50 AM

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. biggrin.gif

Posted by: babakm Jan 26 2007, 03:15 PM

Minor correction to the blog entry: The Robotic Arm's reach is eight feet, not eight meters!

Posted by: nprev Jan 26 2007, 04:16 PM

Go, MRO!!! biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif 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.

Posted by: Phil Stooke Jan 26 2007, 04:18 PM

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

Posted by: djellison Jan 26 2007, 04:34 PM

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 smile.gif

Doug


 

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Jan 26 2007, 04:41 PM

The one that landed in the 3:00 position looks like it might have some "issues" with a small boulder.

Posted by: ustrax Jan 26 2007, 04:45 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Jan 26 2007, 04:34 PM) *
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 smile.gif


In that cold and without TV Phoenix could only multiply herself... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: djellison Jan 26 2007, 04:47 PM

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

Posted by: nprev Jan 26 2007, 05:24 PM

I can see her building a CO2 snow fort during the winter in order to stave off further encroachment... smile.gif

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.

Posted by: elakdawalla Jan 26 2007, 05:54 PM

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

Posted by: punkboi Jan 26 2007, 06:19 PM

Great update, Emily! Hopefully there'll be nothing to downgrade Green Valley as Phoenix approaches next next May smile.gif

Posted by: tuvas Jan 26 2007, 08:56 PM

Emily, just curious, which HiRISE image did you end up using for your report? Thanks!

Posted by: elakdawalla Jan 26 2007, 09:03 PM

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:

QUOTE
I saw your landing site blog entry from yesterday. 8 *meters* is a bit out of our reach ;^). I wanted to note something more subtle. Phoenix will have a controlled landing (we hope), which will align the solar panels roughly E-W. The RA will dig roughly to the north. So, you (or Doug E) shouldn't really randomize the orientation.
I asked for more from him on why that orientation -- I'll post Monday.

And I did fix that 8-meter mistake (stupid Imperial units...)

--Emily

Posted by: climber Jan 26 2007, 09:41 PM

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"

Posted by: djellison Jan 26 2007, 10:04 PM

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 smile.gif

Doug

 

Posted by: climber Jan 26 2007, 10:09 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Jan 26 2007, 11:04 PM) *
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.
Doug

You'd have had real fun on the flight from LA to Dulles with all the JPL's EDL guys playing around altogether to get Phoenix OK on the ground biggrin.gif

Posted by: Phil Stooke Mar 14 2007, 02:41 AM

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

Posted by: punkboi Mar 14 2007, 05:32 AM

Cool. Nice to know Phoenix's future home on the Red Planet has been selected biggrin.gif

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070312/full/070312-5.html

Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 6 2007, 02:10 PM

Update from LPSC on the Phoenix site.

This is the region of the landing site:



and this is the site itself with three landing ellipses oriented according to different arrival dates. The intersection of the ellipses is the preferred location.



Phil

Posted by: stewjack Apr 6 2007, 05:04 PM

QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Apr 6 2007, 10:10 AM) *
Update from LPSC on the Phoenix site.

This is the region of the landing site:


I am on dial-up. I will not be downloading any Hirise size files, so I saved your graphics to a newly created Phoenix directory. Good basic material for following the future mission. However I have one question -

Edit
Forget the question. It can be answered by comparing both images.
blink.gif

Original question
Is the geometry of that image accurate? All the craters are extremely squashed ovals - wildly stretched east and west. Is it caused by projecting parallel longitude lines?

.

Posted by: elakdawalla Apr 6 2007, 05:27 PM

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

Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 6 2007, 05:28 PM

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

Posted by: tuvas Apr 24 2007, 09:14 PM

An interesting article on undergraduate labor. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.nl.html?pid=22456

Posted by: Holder of the Two Leashes Jul 30 2007, 11:41 PM

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 ...

Posted by: Phil Stooke Aug 4 2007, 08:31 PM

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

Posted by: ustrax Aug 4 2007, 08:44 PM

BAD QUOTING - STOP IT

That will feed our eager minds untill May... smile.gif
Advanced discovery planning, we're into it... tongue.gif

Posted by: Steve G Aug 6 2007, 02:11 AM

QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Aug 4 2007, 01:31 PM) *
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



FYI, Phil, There is a bakery there that has the best Pizza I've ever tasted, that and it's the hotbed of Sasquatch sightings.

Posted by: algorimancer Sep 5 2007, 01:03 PM

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? ohmy.gif

Posted by: Phil Stooke Sep 5 2007, 01:31 PM

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

Posted by: algorimancer Sep 5 2007, 04:24 PM

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 smile.gif

Posted by: Phil Stooke Sep 5 2007, 07:42 PM

"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

Posted by: Gsnorgathon Sep 6 2007, 05:52 AM

I'll be bitterly disappointed if there's any interesting topography. I've been looking forward to a landscape of surreal, mind-altering featurelessness.

Posted by: djellison Sep 6 2007, 07:20 AM

Well - if the Martian Arctic doesn't deliver - you can just refer back to the Purgatory pan from Meridiani smile.gif

Doug

Posted by: ustrax Sep 6 2007, 11:32 AM

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... tongue.gif
Found out http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/martianterrain/PHX_20070801a.html.

EDITED: I'm tired of working so hard... wink.gif
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

Posted by: Phil Stooke Sep 9 2007, 04:58 PM

A bit more info:

http://themis.asu.edu/discoveries-phoenix

Phil

Posted by: slinted Apr 4 2008, 05:32 AM

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

Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 4 2008, 08:12 PM

That is very nice... I look forward to seeing the rest of the ellipse added in when it becomes possible.

Phil

Posted by: ustrax Apr 4 2008, 08:40 PM

QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Apr 4 2008, 09:12 PM) *
That is very nice...


Indeed Phil! :-)
There are some quite scary places there for a lander...guess we'll have to cross our fingers on the 25th...I wouldn't like to see Phoenix tumbling down a mound... huh.gif
2 hours, 36 min, 00 sec to 50 days from landing! biggrin.gif

EDITED: 50 days, 23 hours to Mars!!! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 6 2008, 01:14 AM

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


Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 8 2008, 02:26 AM

This is an expanded HiRISE mosaic of the southeastern part of the ellipse, at greatly reduced resolution of course.

Phil


Posted by: ustrax Apr 11 2008, 09:26 AM

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? smile.gif

Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 11 2008, 11:37 AM

It's moving more into my area. I'll post a higher resolution image of the central part of the ellipse soon.

Phil

Posted by: slinted Apr 13 2008, 04:46 PM

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).

Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 13 2008, 10:44 PM

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


Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 13 2008, 10:50 PM



And this is the central part of the ellipse - not nearly as bland as the low res images appear! - this is still far from the full HiRISE resolution, and very heavily compressed to get it to postable size.

Phil

Posted by: Shaka Apr 14 2008, 12:37 AM

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. smile.gif

Posted by: slinted Apr 14 2008, 01:19 AM

Great stuff Phil! Which HiRISE image shows the area from your closeup?

Posted by: ustrax Apr 14 2008, 08:24 AM

Great GREAT stuff! smile.gif
I'm with Shaka here...We want more! blink.gif

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... smile.gif

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...

Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 14 2008, 12:09 PM

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

Posted by: antipode Apr 14 2008, 12:37 PM

Wow! Are they relaxed impact craters or collapsed Martian pingos?


p

Posted by: Stu Apr 14 2008, 12:44 PM

I'll have a go...

Here's a close-up of one of those intriguing "rings"...



And some full-resolution crops just taken at random from the HiRISE image...








Posted by: Stu Apr 14 2008, 12:46 PM

... and a couple more...





Posted by: imipak Apr 14 2008, 06:36 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ Apr 14 2008, 12:46 PM) *
... and a couple more...


Paging http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Team... looks like a archeological geophysical survey showing medieval field boundaries. Or cells in a leaf?

My brain's interpreting the light coloured branching pattern material as topologically higher, is that purely a trick of the eye?

Posted by: Stu Apr 14 2008, 06:39 PM

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..?

Posted by: maycm Apr 14 2008, 07:17 PM

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!

Posted by: Stu Apr 14 2008, 07:19 PM

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... smile.gif

Posted by: Shaka Apr 14 2008, 07:20 PM

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. blink.gif
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?

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Apr 14 2008, 09:05 PM

QUOTE (Shaka @ Apr 14 2008, 11:20 AM) *
I seem to see 'boulders' with 'shadows' below. What is the minimum size of boulders we can resolve? Basketballs? Beachballs?


Based on the images of the MERs I think we are looking at Armchairs and Volkswagons (if I may coin a few new units of measure).

Posted by: Shaka Apr 15 2008, 12:49 AM

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... huh.gif

Posted by: Stu Apr 15 2008, 05:48 AM

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! smile.gif 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...



... and if you magnify Spirit x4 by clicking the "+" magnifying option you get this...



Now, here's a 1:1 view of a section of the HiRISE Phoenix image covering part of the landing elipse, which should be to the same scale as that Homeplate image...



... and zooming in on a part of that at x4 this is what we see...



So... judge for yourself... how big will Phoenix be on HiRISE images? Well, it's certainly quite a bit bigger than SPirit, so it should be easy to see I reckon... and it looks like that light-coloured "mound" in the centre of the circle in the x4 Phoenix lz image is roughly 3x as big as Spirit, perhaps a little larger...

Like I said, might be wrong here, but it's the best I can do with ten minutes to go before I have to be out the door and on my way to work.

Posted by: djellison Apr 15 2008, 07:31 AM

QUOTE (Stu @ Apr 15 2008, 06:48 AM) *
how big will Phoenix be on HiRISE images?


http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=557&view=findpost&p=81794

smile.gif

My sims are unarguably too sharp - but they do represent the right sort of size object. For those easily confused - they're only sending one...not six to land in a circle (I had to say that about the mock version of the MPF presidential pan that has about a dozen sojourners on it once )

D

Posted by: centsworth_II Apr 15 2008, 08:29 AM

QUOTE (djellison @ Apr 15 2008, 02:31 AM) *
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=557&view=findpost&p=81794

Later in that same thread you posted an http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=557&view=findpost&p=81868 reflecting the programed East-West landing orientation:

Posted by: Stu Apr 15 2008, 01:42 PM

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. smile.gif

Posted by: elakdawalla Apr 22 2008, 11:06 PM

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


Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 22 2008, 11:18 PM

Looking good, Emily!

Phil

Posted by: elakdawalla Apr 23 2008, 08:58 PM

More of me trying to get myself oriented...is this right?

--Emily


Posted by: SpaceListener Apr 23 2008, 09:45 PM

According to the output of the NASA Web :
The Phonix landing site is shown on the following image:

It is about close to Emily's one.

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Apr 23 2008, 10:37 PM

I think you need to move a little bit to the East Emily.

Posted by: imipak Apr 24 2008, 10:24 AM

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?

Posted by: nprev Apr 24 2008, 10:46 AM

I believe that the name of the entire north polar plains region is Vastias Borealis.

Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 24 2008, 10:51 AM

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

Posted by: ustrax Apr 24 2008, 11:02 AM

Huum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandia...it pleases me... smile.gif

Posted by: jamescanvin Apr 24 2008, 11:48 AM

QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Apr 24 2008, 11:51 AM) *
http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/images/mc1_mola.pdf

The site's at the left edge, about 10 o'clock.


Interesting. Thanks Phil.

Am I right in thinking that the crater just north of the D in Scandia is the big one on the map Emily posted above?

btw, does that crater have a name?

James

Posted by: slinted Apr 24 2008, 12:13 PM

QUOTE (jamescanvin @ Apr 24 2008, 03:48 AM) *
Am I right in thinking that the crater just north of the D in Scandia is the big one on the map Emily posted above?
btw, does that crater have a name?

Yes to the first, and Heimdall Crater to the second (see the http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/figures/PIA09946_fig1.jpg of http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA09946)

Posted by: slinted May 16 2008, 11:31 PM

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.

Posted by: centsworth_II May 17 2008, 01:18 AM

First this:

QUOTE (ustrax @ Apr 11 2008, 05:26 AM) *
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? smile.gif

And then this:
QUOTE (slinted @ May 16 2008, 07:31 PM) *
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."

So there is a net shift 5 kilometers to the NW from the original position? I guess
they had second thoughts about the "increased safety" of the initial move.

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 17 2008, 07:34 PM

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

Posted by: ugordan May 17 2008, 07:48 PM

That makes sense, Phil. I don't think they'd be changing the intended landing zone this late into the approach.

Posted by: akuo May 17 2008, 09:22 PM

The http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/main/ has a few sentences more information:

QUOTE
Closing in on Mars
05.16.08 -- Engineers are considering a maneuver that would nudge the flight path of Phoenix toward a targeted landing spot 18 kilometers to the northwest, with the goal of hitting the center of the certified landing zone. A final decision on the trajectory maneuver will be made Saturday afternoon, with execution at 9:00 pm PDT.


I think this confirms that the landing trajectory is nudged back towards the intended x marks the spot.

Posted by: elakdawalla May 20 2008, 06:33 PM

Tim Parker is a god.
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001431/

--Emily

Posted by: djellison May 20 2008, 07:13 PM

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

Posted by: climber May 20 2008, 07:54 PM

Do you know if a chart showing actual landing places as compared to the center of the targeted elipses exits for all US landing?

Posted by: djellison May 20 2008, 08:10 PM

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.

 

Posted by: Oersted May 20 2008, 09:44 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ May 20 2008, 10:10 PM) *
The lesson is - they've all been VERY close to the centre line - but changes up and down range are quite significant.


...And then MERB just rolled out of its landing ellipse, far away from the center line. Amazing really smile.gif

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 21 2008, 12:52 AM

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

Posted by: tim53 May 21 2008, 01:28 AM

QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ May 20 2008, 04:52 PM) *
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


Hi Phil:

I made the MPF map that's shown. Back in the old days with Canvas 5.0, I believe. One version of that map had a glaring error - I think the 20 degree lat line was labeled at the 19.5 degree line.

Also, that map was made pre landing, with the nav update ellipses and the X added within a day or two of landing - before we realized that the control net was off by about 6 kilometers (0.1 degrees or more).

Sadly, the multi-layer version of that file was on a hard drive that crashed a few years ago. I thought I had a backup copy, but I've never found it.

-Tim.

Posted by: elakdawalla May 21 2008, 01:54 AM

QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ May 20 2008, 04:52 PM) *
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.

I'll fix the colored map tomorrow (will move the longitude labels to match). I wonder why it's off by that half-degree. Can't believe I didn't notice the offset in the surface features.

--Emily

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 21 2008, 02:16 AM

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

Posted by: marswiggle May 21 2008, 04:34 AM

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.



 

Posted by: djellison May 21 2008, 07:05 AM

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

 

Posted by: remcook May 21 2008, 08:03 AM

who cares about the surface anyway? wink.gif I'm very curious to see if the subsurface will be more interesting than the surface. I would think it is smile.gif

Posted by: ustrax May 21 2008, 08:35 AM

QUOTE (marswiggle @ May 21 2008, 05:34 AM) *
An anaglyph from the newest landing ellipse centerline


I like that! biggrin.gif

Posted by: Astrophil May 21 2008, 09:02 AM

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?


Posted by: ustrax May 21 2008, 09:28 AM

QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ May 21 2008, 03:16 AM) *
Now all we need is a few new placenames...


I agree... smile.gif

If I think that ACC Memorial Station would be a fitting name for Phoenix's landing site, as we're going to the North Pole I would, somehow, like to see a reference to:

EDITED: forget what was written here before... tongue.gif

-Peary, Henson and the Inuits (does anybody know Inuit words?)

Edited again: Got one!:

Tunnga-sugitsi

It stands for "you are welcome here"
A nice way of making Phoenix feel at home... smile.gif

Posted by: SkyeLab May 21 2008, 12:32 PM

Rui,

"Tunnga-sugitsi"

Sounds a bit too much like "Tunguska" for my liking and we all know what happened there........ wink.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event


Brian

Posted by: ustrax May 21 2008, 12:42 PM

Didn't think of that... blink.gif

Here's a http://www.wordgumbo.com/ea/can/caninu.htm we can play with... smile.gif

I like particularly "aimerpok" which stands for "visiting and expecting food" tongue.gif

Posted by: tim53 May 21 2008, 01:45 PM

QUOTE (elakdawalla @ May 20 2008, 10:33 AM) *
Tim Parker is a god.
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001431/

--Emily


You'd think I'd get paid better if that were the case! Well, I do get to do fun stuff, I suppose...


I didn't complete my update of the map until late evening last night, and the frustrating thing about going from a graphics program like Canvas to some raster image format for the plotter is that I had to reduce the resolution of the HiRISE images tremendously to keep the file size down (and get home before too late!). I built the Canvas map with 4 meter/pixel versions of the HiRISE images, but by the time I rastered the file, the result was more like 8 meters/pixel. That's still probably sufficient for triangulation to horizon features. And once we know which HiRISE image(s) the lander resides in, matching to local rocks and bumps (hah!) at full resolution will be possible (and immediately "obsolete" the map!).

-Tim.

Posted by: tim53 May 21 2008, 01:50 PM

QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ May 20 2008, 06:16 PM) *
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


Phil:

I'm optimistic for two reasons:

Number A: Some of the massifs to either side of the trajectory are over 100 meters tall. If Phoenix lands within 20 or 30 kilometers of these, I think they should be visible (remember that Far Knob in MPF was over 35 kilometers away, though it was something like 450 meters tall, IIRC).

Letter 2: Phoenix's camera has on order 4 times the resolution of the IMP, making Number A easier.

But we'll see!

-Tim.

Posted by: tuvas May 21 2008, 06:42 PM

QUOTE (tim53 @ May 21 2008, 06:45 AM) *
You'd think I'd get paid better if that were the case! Well, I do get to do fun stuff, I suppose...

-Tim.


I had long suspected that you were Tim Parker, it's nice to finally have evidence in that direction.

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 21 2008, 07:41 PM

Number A and Letter 2... an Archie Bunker fan perhaps?

"A, he's unemployed, and 2, he don't woik!"

Phil

Posted by: nprev May 22 2008, 01:02 AM

As long as we don't have Meathead Mountain on the distant horizon... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: mchan May 22 2008, 04:17 AM

QUOTE (tuvas @ May 21 2008, 11:42 AM) *
I had long suspected that you were Tim Parker, it's nice to finally have evidence in that direction.

He's a Junior Member by post count, but Doug made a Senior Member group just for him and of which he is the only member.

Posted by: Stu May 22 2008, 05:46 AM

Crop from latest HiRISE landing ellipse image... looks like frost was lingering as recently as May 2nd...


Posted by: Stu May 22 2008, 05:47 AM

.. and here, too...


Posted by: imipak May 22 2008, 11:20 AM

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 laugh.gif

Posted by: MahFL May 22 2008, 12:20 PM

It would be cool indeed if Phoenix lands in a patch of surface frost.

Posted by: nprev May 22 2008, 12:25 PM

Cooler still if the trench uncovers multiple layers of ice... smile.gif

Posted by: Stu May 22 2008, 02:47 PM

QUOTE (imipak @ May 22 2008, 12:20 PM) *
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.


Well, I've been wandering around the latest HiRISE Phoenix landing site image, and I've found some very interesting (well, I think they are anyway!) features that suggest it's at least possible we might see some decent surface relief... A couple of these images have me really puzzled, to be honest, because the lighting conditions are very confusing. So I'm not sure if they're real features, casting shadows, or some strange kind of lens flare effect. Anyway, take a look experts, and see what you make of these...




What's that then? huh.gif




... and that? A quite high ridge with frost on the top?

But this is making me scratch my head in a not-too-good way...




That looks like either a steep-sided trench, or a very narrow, steep ridge, depending on how I look at it. What do you think? Either way, landing on that would give Phoenix's pix a tilting horizon, wouldn't it..?

Feel free to ignore, I'm just killing time before making tea... smile.gif

Posted by: remcook May 22 2008, 03:00 PM

some of those spots seem over-exposed, hence the confusing lighting conditions perhaps? little ice mounts? cool in any case if visible from phoenix!

Posted by: Stu May 22 2008, 03:06 PM

QUOTE (remcook @ May 22 2008, 04:00 PM) *
some of those spots seem over-exposed, hence the confusing lighting conditions perhaps? little ice mounts? cool in any case if visible from phoenix!

Yeah, I thought "over-exposed" too when I saw them, but that raises the question of WHAT is being over-exposed... what is so much brighter there that it made HiRISE squint? The more I look at it the more I think the feature in that 3rd image is the side of a trench rather than a ridge... what happened there? A collapse of some kind?

I've also noticed LOTS of small dark spots dotted over the image, like little drops of ink. They're puzzling, too...

Edit: just been looking at #3 again... now I'm seeing a ridge... I give up! Anyone got any ideas?

Posted by: Juramike May 22 2008, 03:17 PM

To me, in this image it looks like the polygonal terrain is organized at three different levels.



The really big "cracks" in the image above would be the borders between the meta-polygon clusters. But they shouldn't be cracks, they are little cute rock walls (a garden gnome would look right at home here).

The borders should be little walls of rock that has been shoved to the edges of the frozen soil due to mutliple freeze-thaw cycles. They should have uniform relief and thickness along the border that might be dependent on the pattern scale.

Regular polygon border should be X high and wide,
Meso-cluster borders should be higher and much wider
Meta-cluster borders should be even higher and even much more wider.


It would be just so beyond cool if all three types of pattern borders were visible from the Phoenix landing site.

-Mike

Posted by: Juramike May 22 2008, 03:38 PM

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

Posted by: climber May 22 2008, 04:06 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ May 22 2008, 04:47 PM) *
What's that then? huh.gif

Picture one : Backshell and parachute
Picture two : heatshield
Picture three : Phoenix landing site
Where have you been since Phoenix landing?

Posted by: Juramike May 22 2008, 09:47 PM

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







Posted by: imipak May 23 2008, 11:23 AM

QUOTE (Juramike @ May 22 2008, 10:47 PM) *
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)
[...] [OK, now I'm getting a little more worried...]


I hadn't seen that specific paper before, but had found some other papers talking about horizontal and vertical relief on Devon Island - it must be a poster-child for polygonal frost heave. So, as someone else said, even if EDL goes perfectly, disaster could strike at the very last moment. Ah well, it'll keep things interesting on Sunday. Reminds me of a nice bit in http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/blogs/20080522.html:

QUOTE
While most of us are not involved in the flying of the spacecraft or the landing events, we are all very interested in news from JPL of how it's going.
(emphasis mine). Understatement or what? The intestinal fortitude required to watch 5-10 years' worth on one's career possibly going "foom!" is more than I can imagine...

** Phoenix lands in: 2 days, 12:37:02 **

Posted by: Stu May 23 2008, 03:15 PM

Okay, these features are definitely trenches or ditches of some kind...



Really don't want a leg coming down in something like that now, do we..?

Posted by: Stu May 23 2008, 03:16 PM

... and a second candidate for the "Places Best Avoided" list...


Posted by: nprev May 23 2008, 03:24 PM

unsure.gif 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?

Posted by: centsworth_II May 23 2008, 03:47 PM

QUOTE (Stu @ May 23 2008, 11:16 AM) *
... and a second candidate for the "Places Best Avoided" list...

Quit showing those interesting features! You'll get the "Phoenix should have wheels" people started up all over again! laugh.gif

Posted by: climber May 23 2008, 04:13 PM

QUOTE (centsworth_II @ May 23 2008, 05:47 PM) *
Quit showing those interesting features! You'll get the "Phoenix should have wheels" people started up all over again! laugh.gif

As far as "Phoenix has wings" occurs, I don't mind too much !

Posted by: Stu May 23 2008, 06:46 PM

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...



Can't help thinking the HiRISE team is cheating and actually photographing rhino hide with a close-up lens... wink.gif

Posted by: ustrax May 23 2008, 06:52 PM

I can't avoid to think, looking at that image, that this is a tricky ground...tricky tricky...


Posted by: ugordan May 23 2008, 06:54 PM

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. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Stu May 23 2008, 07:00 PM

Yep, I agree... I'd much rather our bird touches down here than in one of those Death Star trenches...! unsure.gif

Posted by: imipak May 23 2008, 09:20 PM

QUOTE (ugordan @ May 23 2008, 07:54 PM) *
What's so tricky about it?


Isn't there a scale law somewhere that says a surface that looks smooth at one scale will be rough at the next scale down? It looks very smooth on scales of tens of metres, but a successful landing needs (some value of) smoothness at a scale of 0-9m.

Lawks! now I'm worrying myself unsure.gif

What I'd really love to see would be http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=557&view=findpost&p=81794 reprojected on these images... I can't quite visualise the scale of the vehicle in these landscapes.

Posted by: climber May 24 2008, 12:51 AM

QUOTE (imipak @ May 23 2008, 11:20 PM) *
I can't quite visualise the scale of the vehicle in these landscapes.

Yep! it's what I was to ask too! Stu, can you add a scale bar?
I would say that Doug entry in the competition will be close but I think the terrain will be a little bit not thta flat. Only 47 hours to go!

Posted by: nprev May 24 2008, 02:56 AM

QUOTE (ustrax @ May 23 2008, 10:52 AM) *
I can't avoid to think, looking at that image, that this is a tricky ground...tricky tricky...


Yeah...reluctantly, I have to agree. Assuming that this is a max resolution image, it sure looks like we have numerous 'rilles' of at least 0.5m in elevation (or depression!) spaced rather closely together. Gordan mentioned earlier that we might think about getting ready for some slanted landscape views...think he's right.

She's gonna make it, though, and in fact make it look easy after the fact. GO PHOENIX!!!!

Posted by: pioneer May 24 2008, 03:03 AM

QUOTE (Stu @ May 22 2008, 03:47 PM) *
Well, I've been wandering around the latest HiRISE Phoenix landing site image, and I've found some very interesting (well, I think they are anyway!) features that suggest it's at least possible we might see some decent surface relief... A couple of these images have me really puzzled, to be honest, because the lighting conditions are very confusing. So I'm not sure if they're real features, casting shadows, or some strange kind of lens flare effect. Anyway, take a look experts, and see what you make of these...




What's that then? huh.gif




... and that? A quite high ridge with frost on the top?

But this is making me scratch my head in a not-too-good way...




That looks like either a steep-sided trench, or a very narrow, steep ridge, depending on how I look at it. What do you think? Either way, landing on that would give Phoenix's pix a tilting horizon, wouldn't it..?

Feel free to ignore, I'm just killing time before making tea... smile.gif


What is the resolution of these images?

Posted by: Stu May 24 2008, 05:51 AM

Resolution: the usual 1:1 on IAS Viewer which I think corresponds to 30cm pixel...

Posted by: djellison May 24 2008, 07:43 AM

If it's the map projected imagery, it's normally 25cm/pixel.

Doug

Posted by: alan Jun 23 2008, 08:08 AM

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.



Looking at an area somewhat farther north in the same HiRISE image the dark areas look somewhat like ponds in the image, appearing to fill a low lying area.


Obviously a pond of water cannot form on the surface of Mars. Water is not stable at at the low atmospheric pressure and would vaporize quite quickly.

Perhaps instead the dark areas may be areas where a water table exists temporarily below the surface. The polygonal patterns imply that a freeze thaw cycle occurs in the area. When the ice melts below the surface water may travel from the higher rough terrain down into lower areas forming pools just below the surface.

This could explain the correlation between the dark polygons and the areas with the lowest relief and would imply that Phoenix landed over an area where water may collect below the surface or at least may have collected below the surface at some time in the past however long ago that may have been.

Posted by: Bill Harris Jun 23 2008, 12:18 PM

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

Posted by: MahFL Jun 23 2008, 04:15 PM

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

Posted by: centsworth_II Jun 23 2008, 04:33 PM

QUOTE (MahFL @ Jun 23 2008, 12:15 PM) *
Channels?

Maybe very large sub-surface cracks -- part of a fractal landscape with cracks and polygons of multiple size scales.

Posted by: Keatah Jun 23 2008, 04:38 PM

I believe these are channels in question. I only bracketed a few, there are a lot more visible if you look carefully.



Posted by: centsworth_II Jun 23 2008, 04:41 PM

QUOTE (Keatah @ Jun 23 2008, 12:38 PM) *
I believe these are channels in question.

It looks to me like you have diagrammed very large cracks bordering a very large polygon!

Posted by: scalbers Jun 23 2008, 05:16 PM

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

Posted by: jmknapp Jun 24 2008, 12:00 AM

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

Posted by: glennwsmith Jun 24 2008, 04:57 AM

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.

Posted by: CosmicRocker Jun 24 2008, 05:01 AM

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. unsure.gif

Posted by: Airbag Jun 26 2008, 02:23 PM

Deliberate "self portrait" shadow shot or just coincidence? A simplistic color composite based on http://www.met.tamu.edu/mars/030.html:



A lower Sun angle with longer shadows would be more spectacular, but without a wide-angle NAVCAM type lens the full shadow might even get too big to fit in a ISS field of view - at least for the entire spacecraft. Then with the need to take multiple images you get more of that color banding due to the shadows moving of course...

Airbag

[Edit: Titles have now been added to the sol 30 page, and this one is from a sequence called "1378-8: SSI Solstice Image", so no coincidence! This shadow is thus the shortest noon one.]

Posted by: ngunn Jun 26 2008, 02:39 PM

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.

Posted by: Airbag Jun 26 2008, 02:46 PM

QUOTE (ngunn @ Jun 26 2008, 10:39 AM) *
Now try viewing that with 3D specs (reversed, with left eye blue) to see that shadow floating ABOVE the ground!


Cool! Even more bizarre is to use the glasses the "right way" around, then the shadow looks like it is at a the bottom of a shallow lake that has a "rocky" water surface.

Airbag

Posted by: ahecht Jun 26 2008, 09:54 PM

QUOTE (MahFL @ Jun 23 2008, 12:15 PM) *
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 ?


I think Percival Lowell did.

Posted by: PDP8E Jun 26 2008, 11:42 PM


What are these for?
Looks like the lowest resolution possible of the horizon and the sky???
any guesses?


<sol 29, 30>



Posted by: djellison Jun 27 2008, 07:28 AM

Look at Marks page - they are described as sky water observations. Solar filtered ( thus long exposure and noisy ) horizon obs.

Doug

Posted by: Oersted Jun 27 2008, 05:16 PM

QUOTE (ahecht @ Jun 26 2008, 11:54 PM) *
I think Percival Lowell did.


BROTM (= Best Reply Of The Month)!

Posted by: jmknapp Jun 27 2008, 05:28 PM

QUOTE (ahecht @ Jun 26 2008, 04:54 PM) *
I think Percival Lowell did.


Although Lowell thought he saw "man"-made canals. As for seeing evidence of water channels generally on this very dry world, Lowell has plenty of modern company. In fact, the word "water" almost seems to inhabit every other sentence in the history of Mars scientific inquiry and ruminations, relative lack of said substance notwithstanding.

Posted by: fredk Jun 27 2008, 05:56 PM

QUOTE (Airbag @ Jun 26 2008, 02:23 PM) *
[Edit: Titles have now been added to the sol 30 page, and this one is from a sequence called "1378-8: SSI Solstice Image", so no coincidence! This shadow is thus the shortest noon one.]

Except that this image was taken at almost 7pm...

Posted by: MahFL Jun 27 2008, 06:24 PM

QUOTE (jmknapp @ Jun 27 2008, 06:28 PM) *
Although Lowell thought he saw "man"-made canals. As for seeing evidence of water channels generally on this very dry world, Lowell has plenty of modern company. In fact, the word "water" almost seems to inhabit every other sentence in the history of Mars scientific inquiry and ruminations, relative lack of said substance notwithstanding.


There are billions of tonnes of water on Mars. It's mostly frozen though..........

Posted by: Airbag Jun 27 2008, 06:43 PM

QUOTE (fredk @ Jun 27 2008, 01:56 PM) *
Except that this image was taken at almost 7pm...


I sit entirely corrected; the azimuth of 110 degrees is also a giveaway that this image was taken looking almost due East, i.e. it is an early evening shot. So, this is the shortest shadow for around 7pm smile.gif

Next time I will be more careful...

Airbag

Posted by: ahecht Jun 27 2008, 07:37 PM

QUOTE (jmknapp @ Jun 27 2008, 12:28 PM) *
Although Lowell thought he saw "man"-made canals. As for seeing evidence of water channels generally on this very dry world, Lowell has plenty of modern company. In fact, the word "water" almost seems to inhabit every other sentence in the history of Mars scientific inquiry and ruminations, relative lack of said substance notwithstanding.


The point I was trying to make is that the human brain is very good at connecting the dots, especially in low contrast images, and see lines where there are none.

Posted by: dburt Jun 27 2008, 09:33 PM

QUOTE (ahecht @ Jun 27 2008, 12:37 PM) *
The point I was trying to make is that the human brain is very good at connecting the dots, especially in low contrast images, and see lines where there are none.

Absolutely right. Especially given that in Lowell's time, it was generally assumed that the Moon and other planets (especially Mars, given its telescopically visible polar ice cap and seasons) had intelligent beings living on them. Even when I grew up, about 75 years later, it was still assumed that Venus was a habitable jungle world. In a very real sense, then, Lowell was just seeing what he assumed he might see. At the time, few had reason to doubt his vision.

-- HDP Don

Posted by: scalbers Jun 27 2008, 10:52 PM

QUOTE (Airbag @ Jun 26 2008, 03:23 PM) *
Deliberate "self portrait" shadow shot or just coincidence? A simplistic color composite based on http://www.met.tamu.edu/mars/030.html:

[attachment=14835]

[Edit: Titles have now been added to the sol 30 page, and this one is from a sequence called "1378-8: SSI Solstice Image", so no coincidence! This shadow is thus the shortest noon one.]


Looks like a bit of "opposition effect" here, and would be interesting to examine this at the highest possible solar elevation.

Steve

P.S. I'm unsure how to show the attachment in my quote, but you can see it in post #219.

Posted by: 3488 Jul 1 2008, 12:40 PM

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.



Below is the view centred on Azm 151.58 degrees, showing two large boulders. The nearer one, I wonder, could that be examined in high resolution through all filters on the SSI & that data be matched by HiRISE of Heimdall Crater, to see if that boulder is a match? I suspect the one right on the horizon is too far away? That large boulder to the north of the backshell is very interesting. I could not find it on the HiRISE image of the landing site of Phoenix & components.

My guess is that this boulder would have been large enough to have been seen, or is it deceptive, smaller & closer to Phoenix than I'm imagining?


Also I thought this knarled up piece of rock looked very interesting. I have cropped & enlarged it.


Does anyone know if any Midnight Sun observations are going to be made? Perhaps a time lapse movie of the Sun swooping low over the northern horizon? Also this would be a good time for Azm 90 & 270 degree views & for glows / high cloud studies/ Martian Parhelia. Any thoughts?

Hopefully I will be feeling more confident once I've been back a while.

{Edited: Added some text}.

Andrew Brown.

Posted by: fredk Jul 1 2008, 03:51 PM

QUOTE (3488 @ Jul 1 2008, 12:40 PM) *
The nearer one, I wonder, could that be examined in high resolution through all filters on the SSI & that data be matched by HiRISE of Heimdall Crater, to see if that boulder is a match?

I assume you mean the one I've arrowed in the inset:


I think I've identified it on the hirise view (arrow). The azimuth looks right (a bit "left" of the backshell) and the distance too (comparable distance to the heatshield). Obviously its colour is a close match to the surroundings, but you can see a shadow in the hirise shot which looks right.

Posted by: glennwsmith Jul 1 2008, 05:30 PM

Andrew, interesting image that, looking due north . . .

Posted by: 3488 Jul 1 2008, 06:27 PM

QUOTE (fredk @ Jul 1 2008, 04:51 PM) *
I assume you mean the one I've arrowed in the inset:


I think I've identified it on the hirise view (arrow). The azimuth looks right (a bit "left" of the backshell) and the distance too (comparable distance to the heatshield). Obviously its colour is a close match to the surroundings, but you can see a shadow in the hirise shot which looks right.


Thank you so very much, that's it. The positioning on the HiRISE image is perfect, 151.5 degrees Azm from Phoenix. That is definitely it. I really hope that the boulder will be a target of interest, when the SSI is used to cherry pick interesting features.

Below, near the WNW horizon, I think I may have spotted a small impact crater, at the bottom of this frame, I've cropped & enlarged. I know, it's rubbish compared to the professionals here on UMSF, but I thought this would be of interest. Also blocks & boulders on the hills?


QUOTE (glennwsmith @ Jul 1 2008, 06:30 PM) *
Andrew, interesting image that, looking due north . . .


Thank You. Yes I like that image very much. It is a crop from the colour swathe released a while back, but I altered the contrast & brightness a little bit & the result is what you see. Carry on straight up the middle, & eventually you will come to the pole.

The image I cropped it from is below. Also the due north point is in the very centre.


Andrew Brown.

Posted by: imipak Jul 1 2008, 07:14 PM

( 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 smile.gif

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... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: glennwsmith Jul 2 2008, 02:51 AM

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"!

Posted by: elakdawalla Jul 15 2008, 09:23 PM

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

Posted by: jmknapp Jul 16 2008, 11:06 AM

QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Jul 15 2008, 05:23 PM) *
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?


I looked at the JP2 images--not sure if the following have more detail than the largest wallpaper on the HIRISE site, but they're different anyway:







Those are just JPG crops, with a little processing--not sure how to get a 16-bit format.

Posted by: remcook Jul 16 2008, 11:39 AM

I'm impressed you can see the coloured stripes on the parachute! HiRise just keeps amazing me.

Posted by: ugordan Jul 16 2008, 11:55 AM

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.

Posted by: elakdawalla Jul 16 2008, 01:01 PM

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 smile.gif

--Emily

Posted by: Decepticon Jul 16 2008, 01:11 PM

Will we be able to stack these images? Or are they taken from diffrent angles?

Posted by: fredk Jul 16 2008, 03:48 PM

QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Jul 16 2008, 01:01 PM) *
Thanks to slinted for sending me TIFF versions...

Could one of you post the (16 bit?) tiff crops somewhere?

Posted by: elakdawalla Jul 16 2008, 04:08 PM

Yes, I'll do that in a bit. --Emily

Posted by: jmknapp Jul 16 2008, 04:33 PM

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.

Posted by: marswiggle Jul 16 2008, 05:32 PM

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.

 

Posted by: elakdawalla Jul 16 2008, 05:41 PM

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

Posted by: climber Jul 16 2008, 09:27 PM

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 blink.gif

Posted by: elakdawalla Jul 16 2008, 09:33 PM

I noticed that too smile.gif It's especially funny because neither the subject nor the method of generating the images have anything whatsoever to do with each other.

--Emily

Posted by: slinted Jul 16 2008, 09:38 PM

Emily, thanks for posting/hosting them. I would have been happy to share them widely, but it might have melted lyle.org smile.gif

Posted by: PDP8E Jul 27 2008, 11:34 PM

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.



I also zoom (3X) the lander. In the processed image you see that the shadow gap of the right hand solar collector has a better defined notch than in the original. I guess the next step would be to do identify real objects on the ground (from the SSI) to see if the resolution has been improved.



cheers

Posted by: PDP8E Jul 27 2008, 11:37 PM

here is the zoomed lander from the original image but using the same zoom program.
(now you can actually compare them!)



cheers

Posted by: jekbradbury Jul 28 2008, 01:58 AM

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)