IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Beagle 2 in HiRISE, Possible Targets
elakdawalla
post Feb 15 2007, 06:45 PM
Post #46


Administrator
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 5172
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth
Member No.: 454



As it turns out, the atmospheric aberrations caused both MERs to land downrange of the centers of their ellipses, so Beagle 2 probably would have done the same (which is why the MOC imaging campaign focused on the eastern half of the ellipse). I don't have any idea what effect EDL malfunctions might have had -- I'm guessing they would also have resulted in a downrange bias but I don't have a clue what the magnitude of that would be, whether 1 or 10 kilometers or more.

--Emily


--------------------
My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ElkGroveDan
post Feb 15 2007, 06:52 PM
Post #47


Senior Member
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4763
Joined: 15-March 05
From: Glendale, AZ
Member No.: 197



Then I guess I'll only throw down a few small chips on that up-range bet biggrin.gif


--------------------
If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Littlebit
post Feb 15 2007, 07:48 PM
Post #48


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 153
Joined: 14-August 06
Member No.: 1041



QUOTE (ustrax @ Feb 15 2007, 08:04 AM) *
I know that I promised to stand still and I also know that you guys are not great fans of this kind of pseudo-perspective but I couldn't avoid it... rolleyes.gif

But it might help one way or the other.

It looks to me that the spot I indicated is not an artifact, if you look to this image it looks like there is a crater under it and some shadowing.
This also helps me imagine how painful might have been Beagle's end...
Who knows if it might just crumbled down the hill on it's back, does anyone see a parachute there? blink.gif

This is certainly a good candidate - If I understand Doug's scaling, the crater is about the right size for a Beagle splat. Spirt's parachute just barely deployed in time to save a similar fate, so splat it could be.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ustrax
post Feb 16 2007, 02:56 PM
Post #49


Special Cookie
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2168
Joined: 6-April 05
From: Sintra | Portugal
Member No.: 228



Here I am again... rolleyes.gif

I grabbed Beagle's last known image and used it in a personal simulation.
It has some similarities with Doug's original image but quite different from his simulated view.
I also added Beagle 2 dimensions, can anyone tell me if the spot's pixels match those?


--------------------
"Ride, boldly ride," The shade replied, "If you seek for Eldorado!"
Edgar Alan Poe
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Feb 16 2007, 03:07 PM
Post #50


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



I have to say, that bright object seems to be too bright to be an ordinary rock. It's also slightly blurry which a cosmic ray artifact wouldn't be. I think it's not too far-fetched to suggest that might really be a manmade object. Whether it's the lander itself or a piece of it, who knows?

Then again, maybe it's just one of them iron meteorites...


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Feb 16 2007, 03:58 PM
Post #51


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Remember - a cosmic ray hit might be a single pixel in the collected data - but it will 'grow' over multiple pixels during map projection.

Also...

http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/2007/d..._1920_cut_b.jpg

There's nothing about the Ustrax target that elimiantes it from being an imaging artifact.

Attached - applying perspective distortion in photoshop on a single white pixel - first just in one direction, then in two directions. See how the dot 'grows'. I don't know how the map projection for HiRISE works - but I imagine it would introduce similar artifacts.

Doug
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Feb 16 2007, 04:06 PM
Post #52


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



The point about map projection certainly holds. My opinion is still that it's a real feature, not an artifact.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ustrax
post Feb 16 2007, 04:10 PM
Post #53


Special Cookie
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2168
Joined: 6-April 05
From: Sintra | Portugal
Member No.: 228



My oppinion too ugordan, mostly due to the fact that the feature looks like is casting shadow.
But, of course...Doug (from the Cosmic Ray Preservation Fund...) can be right... tongue.gif

EDITED: Doug, as I asked before, do the feature dimensions match the Beagle 2 ones?
"There's nothing about the Ustrax target that elimiantes it from being an imaging artifact."
And the opposite? wink.gif


--------------------
"Ride, boldly ride," The shade replied, "If you seek for Eldorado!"
Edgar Alan Poe
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Feb 16 2007, 04:13 PM
Post #54


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



As the simulation shows - it would be the right sort of size for the heatshield or backshell or unopened lander - but a deployed lander I would expect to look different. If you were to say "this IS a bit of Beagle 2 - which bit?" - I would say the heatshield. But - if you ask which is more likely - 800 megapixels having the odd imaging artifact or a piece of B2 indicative of the spacecraft making it through entry and deploying it's heatshield but later failing, and that heatshield being visible in the first HiRISE image of the landing ellipse....I'd say cosmic ray hit. I'm not saying it isn't a chunk of spacecraft - and it really does look like a chunk of B2. What I'd like is a HiRISE image targetted directly west of this one - a tiny bit of overlap - but I would expect the 'chute to be back up the trajectory and thus west of the heatshield (same was true of Spirit and Opportunity if you think about it.)

Until we see either a fresh crater or a main chute - I don't think it's wise to say we've found any Beagle hardware - we've simply found interesting targets.

Just thinking out-loud again - the TDI CCD's on HiRISE, there's plenty of scope for a single cosmic ray hit to actually take out a few pixels in one go - 128 lines to have a stab at for each 'finished' pixel if you think about it.

Attached - an extract from the mission report which you can find at http://www.src.le.ac.uk/projects/beagle2/reports.html

Suggestive that the heatshield might be somewhere around 150m downrange from the rest of the vehicle...of course drift under the chute and bouncing around could obviously change that significantly.



Doug
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Feb 16 2007, 04:14 PM
Post #55


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



If only someone could sneak us the raw, non map-projected image...


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hendric
post Feb 16 2007, 04:37 PM
Post #56


Director of Galilean Photography
***

Group: Members
Posts: 896
Joined: 15-July 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 93



Doug,
Have you tried map-projecting your simulations?


--------------------
Space Enthusiast Richard Hendricks
--
"The engineers, as usual, made a tremendous fuss. Again as usual, they did the job in half the time they had dismissed as being absolutely impossible." --Rescue Party, Arthur C Clarke
Mother Nature is the final inspector of all quality.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Feb 16 2007, 04:43 PM
Post #57


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



There wouldn't be much point - I don't know enough about the map projection parameters to even make a sensible guess. rendering at 33cm/pixel and then resizing to 25cm is going to introduce some of the 'softness' that reprojecting might induce.



Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tuvas
post Feb 16 2007, 05:03 PM
Post #58


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 428
Joined: 21-August 06
From: Northern Virginia
Member No.: 1062



QUOTE (ugordan @ Feb 16 2007, 09:14 AM) *
If only someone could sneak us the raw, non map-projected image...


You wouldn't want a raw image, those a pre-cal;-) But I might be able to sneak a small part of one of the artifacts in one of the images, if you give me some pretty good ideas as to where to find it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Feb 16 2007, 05:07 PM
Post #59


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3648
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



Well, having a sample of the artifacts wouldn't do much good as we already have that in the latest release. Ideally, the same region we're looking at here is the one we're interested. That must be a pain to locate in the calibrated, non-projected images though...


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ustrax
post Feb 16 2007, 05:29 PM
Post #60


Special Cookie
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2168
Joined: 6-April 05
From: Sintra | Portugal
Member No.: 228



QUOTE (djellison @ Feb 16 2007, 04:13 PM) *
Until we see either a fresh crater or a main chute - I don't think it's wise to say we've found any Beagle hardware - we've simply found interesting targets.


Who's saying that? rolleyes.gif
I, like you, would like to see full confirmation about the nature of the feature, to, in the case of being a cosmic ray, just move to other locations.


--------------------
"Ride, boldly ride," The shade replied, "If you seek for Eldorado!"
Edgar Alan Poe
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 11:39 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.