First HiRISE Images Coming Soon!, test images to be taken week of March 20 Options

[ljk4-1]

wow my thoughts exactly 'jk4-1 I was begining to think I was the only one...... I guess right now people are just interested in seeing the pics rather then comparing them if they can. I've been wondering how all these craters compare in size to Victoria and endurance. Are some of the craters we are seeing so well now ever been seen before ? What size would the rovers be,could they be clearly seen. I'm looking for a basis of camparison and not finding any.

No, you are not alone, BillyMER.

It kind of reminds me of a Mars Pathfinder/Sojourner press conference I saw
on CSPAN in 1997. A group of MP/S scientists and engineers were being asked
about what the probe was finding out about Mars and in particular what the
surface was made of. The responses were all aimed at university geology
student levels and higher until finally one gently confused and frustrated
reporter asked if the eminent folks before them could convey their findings
in terrestrial terms: What would the Martian ground around MP be like if
you had to compare it to ground on Earth?

One geologist answered with "Kind of like beach sand." That's when you
could hear the press folk go "Aha!" both literally and figuratively, and the
MP team started explaining things in less abstract terms, and the whole
atmosphere of the conference went so much better after that right to the end.

[mcaplinger]

Are there some images from other recent Mars orbiters we can compare
them to the ones shown by MRO?

These look pretty much like MOC images. They're about the same resolution and they show pretty much the same thing -- Mars has a lot of sand dunes and craters

[ljk4-1]

Yep - that's why I was asking to see other images from other orbiters
to know just how more detailed the MRO images are. Or do I need to
wait for the really detailed ones?

And do you know if the MRO team plans to image not just the old and
new USA landers and rovers, both intact and crashed, but also the
Beagle 2 and the three Soviet Mars landers, also both intact and crashed?

[Circum]

These look pretty much like MOC images.

mcaplinger, I'm very glad to have you here posting, and I'm glad to have MOC there imaging -- we should be so lucky as to have MRO healthy and useful as many years from now as MGS has provided (and counting!) -- and I confess I don't really know nor do I have a good feel for the exact image size comparisons, but in glancing at what the test images have shown so far, I am minded of the old saying: "Quantity has a quality all its own."

[mcaplinger]

I confess I don't really know nor do I have a good feel for the exact image size comparisons...

Doug did all the hard work on this; look back at
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...indpost&p=49703

I'm not sure if there's some overlap with one of these craters, but that'd be instructive. I'd say the MOC image is better than the HiRISE one in Doug's overlap, but MOC probably had better illumination. Clearly from the mapping orbit, HiRISE will outperform MOC.

[Circum]

Doug did all the hard work on this; look back at
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...indpost&p=49703

Ahh, yes, thanks, I had seen that composite image of Doug's but wasn't clear in my head what was overlapping what; although connecting it with his earlier message it becomes obvious from the 'MOC' in the listed URL.

Two conclusions spring to mind: 1) If one is interested in large-area coverage, it takes a *lot* of thin strips -- and no doubt a lot of work to target them -- with MOC, and, 2) Once the science orbit is achieved though, the areal coverage disparity obviously won't be as large.

[edstrick]

Mars 2 (high speed impact),
Mars 3 (landed, maybe hard), and
Mars 6 (low speed impact -- went silent at MER-like retrofire or impact)

are not located well enough to find except by accident. Landing coordinates are given to 1 degree or certainly no better than 0.1 degree accuracy, and the coordinate system used is undoubtably not well tied to the current one.

I'd love to find'm, but the area to be imaged at full HIRES resolution and the uncertainty of uniquely identifying them till we have 0.1 meter resolution rather than HIRES resolution makes it probably not worth the effort.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Phil.

[Guest_BillyMER_*]

Yep - that's why I was asking to see other images from other orbiters
to know just how more detailed the MRO images are. Or do I need to
wait for the really detailed ones?

And do you know if the MRO team plans to image not just the old and
new USA landers and rovers, both intact and crashed, but also the
Beagle 2 and the three Soviet Mars landers, also both intact and crashed?

all i can figure is that no body here has the info (photos) on how well these areas have been photographed by other orbiters in the past or they would post comparisons. The only comparison I can think of in my mind is how blurry the sand dunes appear on all the route maps for oppy and how clear the dunes appear in these new MRO photos.

[Bob Shaw]

The MRO test images were 'sold' as being significantly lower resolution than the expected final quality from the mapping orbit. The images which came down are of most interest as synoptic snapshots of a large area at good, but not highest, resolution, and as such are valuable in their own right (for once, we're not seeing small swathes but big areas at the same time, lit the same way, from the same camera and at resolutions which are still 'good'). They are not so detailed as the best MGS images - yet. And the quantity of data is immense!

Bob Shaw

[Phil Stooke]

edstrick: "Correct me if I'm wrong, Phil."

No need. You're dead right.

I assume all known sites will be imaged to help provide geological context and (for Viking 2) still try to nail down the location. Right now we have three candidate objects within about 1 km of each other. HiRISE might resolve the issue.

Phil

[ljk4-1]

I assume all known sites will be imaged to help provide geological context and (for Viking 2) still try to nail down the location. Right now we have three candidate objects within about 1 km of each other. HiRISE might resolve the issue.

Phil

According to this, Viking 2 was found, with some help by a fellow with a name
very similar to yours:

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2005/05/05/

Is there some new information out now?

And I know it will not be easy, but I do hope MRO will search for the three Soviet
landers, as we will then learn what finally happened to them. Mars 3 will probably
be the only intact one, but that is why we should search, because we don't know.

And they were the first probes on Mars, regardless of the fact that they didn't come
off nearly as well as the two Vikings - those show-offs.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

The most interesting thing I've found on those early photos was pointed out by Emily at http://planetary.org/news/2006/0407_Color_...tails_from.html , next-to-last photo -- a very, very small multiply branching channel, no more than a few hundred meters long and just a few meters wide, that absolutely MUST have been carved by flowing surface water from the rim of Argyre Crater. Now, what the hell does that signify? Something important, surely? Snowmelt off the slope of Argyre during Mars' most recent obliquity climate cycle a few tens of thousands of years ago, maybe?

[lyford]

Hope this isn't too past it's "freshness date" but Phil Plait has a good little bit comparing the resolution to a Google Earth image:
Bad Astronomy Blog

[Phil Stooke]

ljk4-1 asks about Viking 2.

Yes, I have a candidate point, Mike Malin has a candidate point, and Tim Parker (JPL) has a third candidate point. Each one is a tiny lump. Either two of them are boulders and one is Viking 2, or all three are boulders! We will need MRO to distinguish these possibilities.

I have tried using the best cPROTO MOC image to map the pattern of boulders around the candidate lander. This is at the limit of resolution. Unfortunately, Malin's lander position looks like it matches boulders better than the other two... but on the other hand, I can make Tim's point and mine match distant topography, but I can't make Malin's point match the distant topography. So it's not conclusive.

Phil

[ElkGroveDan]

ljk4-1 asks about Viking 2.

Yes, I have a candidate point, Mike Malin has a candidate point, and Tim Parker (JPL) has a third candidate point.

Well if you win, we'll have to pour a bottle of wine on me.