IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
HiRise Imagery of Opportunity's trek, ...or, a blast from the past
atomoid
post Dec 5 2006, 08:52 PM
Post #31


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 866
Joined: 15-March 05
From: Santa Cruz, CA
Member No.: 196



QUOTE (Oersted @ Dec 5 2006, 01:40 PM) *
...The general bright splotch in the MOC image that encompasses both parachute and backshell fits well with a spray of sand ejected in the first impact of the backshell. Notice how the light-coloured area begins at impact point and then radiates leftward from that point. Now, years later, the colour of the general area is back to the uniform surface colour due to the wind. As with the airbag bounce marks, a light colour indicates a disturbance in the top layer, exposing lower material. At least, that's how I see it. Other opinions?

I'd assumed that too, then from looking at the airbag bounces, it would be expected that they too would become dimmed substantially, yet they appear pretty fresh as in the picture in post #28, unless they too are substantially dimmed. Although its hard to see any rover tracks in the latest MRO image, i cant even see where Oppy left the crater, i remember being even able to see the rocket firing traces on the sand in the old MOC image, they seem gon enow, perhaps you're right, they really are blown into obscurity now..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Dec 5 2006, 08:57 PM
Post #32


Founder
****

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



Not THAT much - you can still see the three airbag lobes at the point where it dropped into eagle

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CosmicRocker
post Dec 6 2006, 06:28 AM
Post #33


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2228
Joined: 1-December 04
From: Marble Falls, Texas, USA
Member No.: 116



QUOTE (ElkGroveDan @ Dec 5 2006, 10:32 AM) *
Look at the third bounce in that image. It catches the edge of a very small crater which then deflects the direction of motion off to the left a bit..just enough to put her down in Eagle. In makes me think that if that first bounce had been just a half meter farther south, it would have missed that little crater and bounced on up to the northeast of Eagle Crater, missing it entirely.
Great catch. I think you are right. In the CEPSAR lecture, right after he says "bounce, bounce, bounce, bounce, bounce," SS says, "reading the green perfectly, the trajectory bends to the left, and goes right into this little 20 meter impact crater." biggrin.gif What luck.

I find myself replaying that presentation as I frantically load MRO and MOC imagery, and MMB panoramas. This is an amazing time in the Exploration of Mars.


--------------------
...Tom

I'm not a Space Fan, I'm a Space Exploration Enthusiast.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_jumpjack_*
post Jan 12 2007, 09:31 PM
Post #34





Guests






QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 4 2006, 11:47 PM) *
The backshell is really getting my attention. The immediate thought from MOC was that the backshell was on the left with the parachute to the right. What appeared to be the parachute it now seems was just the surface disturbance from a very high speed impact of the backshell.....let the gif load for a while, it shows both.

It's like dressing up glasses! blink.gif
I'd like to see more gifs like this! Or, at least, image couples which show both MOC and HIRISE images. Is it possible? Where coudl I find MOC and HIRISE images for knwon landing sites? I'll do animated gifs or image couples by myself, if somebody can address me to the proper resources! smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_jumpjack_*
post Jan 12 2007, 09:36 PM
Post #35





Guests






QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 5 2006, 12:56 AM) *
Bouncey bouncey....

Ties in well with
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA05225.jpg
Doug

funny image.
it looks like... well, lander was not the only "bouncing & rolling" thing outh there!!! blink.gif

Anyway, apart from this, any clue about scale of this image? huh.gif How much are the bounce prints away one from the other?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_jumpjack_*
post Jan 12 2007, 09:40 PM
Post #36





Guests






QUOTE (CosmicRocker @ Dec 5 2006, 07:32 AM) *
[attachment=8587:attachment]

could you kindly post an excel95-compatible file? rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Jan 12 2007, 10:28 PM
Post #37


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 4 2006, 11:56 PM) *
Bouncey bouncey....

Doug



Doug:

You want to go upstairs?


Bob Shaw


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Jan 13 2007, 04:10 AM
Post #38


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3419
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



QUOTE (Bob Shaw @ Jan 12 2007, 04:28 PM) *
Doug:

You want to go upstairs?
Bob Shaw

Pardon me -- I came here to arrange a holiday!

wink.gif wink.gif

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CosmicRocker
post Jan 13 2007, 05:38 AM
Post #39


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2228
Joined: 1-December 04
From: Marble Falls, Texas, USA
Member No.: 116



QUOTE (jumpjack @ Jan 12 2007, 03:40 PM) *
could you kindly post an excel95-compatible file?
That's easy to do. Attached File  Vertical_Exaggeration_from_aerial_imagery_Excel95_version.xls ( 377K ) Number of downloads: 729
edit: Well, I guess it will not be that easy. Apparently the conversion to Excel95 screwed up some of the formatting. But you can correct that by changing the size of some of the cells and the dimensions of the image.


--------------------
...Tom

I'm not a Space Fan, I'm a Space Exploration Enthusiast.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_jumpjack_*
post Jan 13 2007, 12:56 PM
Post #40





Guests






QUOTE (CosmicRocker @ Jan 13 2007, 06:38 AM) *
That's easy to do. Attached File  Vertical_Exaggeration_from_aerial_imagery_Excel95_version.xls ( 377K ) Number of downloads: 729
edit: Well, I guess it will not be that easy. Apparently the conversion to Excel95 screwed up some of the formatting.

who cares? tongue.gif I need formulas, not formatting! wink.gif
Thanks for uploading the new version.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_jumpjack_*
post Jan 14 2007, 04:33 PM
Post #41





Guests






QUOTE (CosmicRocker @ Jan 13 2007, 06:38 AM) *
That's easy to do. Attached File  Vertical_Exaggeration_from_aerial_imagery_Excel95_version.xls ( 377K ) Number of downloads: 729
edit: Well, I guess it will not be that easy. Apparently the conversion to Excel95 screwed up some of the formatting. But you can correct that by changing the size of some of the cells and the dimensions of the image.

I created this page attempting to explain what vertical exaggeration depends on, but I have some problems:
- can't know if page actually works on your PC unsure.gif Sometimes on mine itself I get "invalid bytecode" or a not-working applet; anyway it's a 1.5 MB applet, please wait till download completes
- can't understand how V.E. formula can be obtained by my images/applets.
- looks like V.E. can be calculated from a single point of view (first applet), and it's quite confusing! unsure.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Jan 14 2007, 06:09 PM
Post #42


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4404
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



Put simply, if the stereo pair are taken from farther apart than human eyes, the 3-d effect is exaggerated. This is an issue with the Viking landers, and some of the foreground pairs are unviewable without processing. Fortunately, as far as calculating distnaces, one simply needs to know the distance between the two "eyes" and the angle of the line between them relative to the object in question.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_jumpjack_*
post Jan 14 2007, 08:17 PM
Post #43





Guests






QUOTE (tedstryk @ Jan 14 2007, 07:09 PM) *
Put simply, if the stereo pair are taken from farther apart than human eyes, the 3-d effect is exaggerated. This is an issue with the Viking landers, and some of the foreground pairs are unviewable without processing. Fortunately, as far as calculating distnaces, one simply needs to know the distance between the two "eyes" and the angle of the line between them relative to the object in question.

I understood the "easy version". I was trying to understand the "hard version" huh.gif , i.e. the geometric deomonstration.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 10:17 AM
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.