Journey to Mt Sharp - Part 4: Beyond the Kimberley, Sol 634 [May 19, '14] to 706 [Jul 31, '14] |
Journey to Mt Sharp - Part 4: Beyond the Kimberley, Sol 634 [May 19, '14] to 706 [Jul 31, '14] |
May 23 2014, 06:01 PM
Post
#31
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 4246 Joined: 17-January 05 Member No.: 152 |
|
|
|
May 23 2014, 06:06 PM
Post
#32
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1465 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Columbus OH USA Member No.: 13 |
Floyd: roughly I get that the rock is 14.5 meters away and covers an angle of about 8.1 degrees in the NAVCAM frame. That would make it about 2 meters across at the base.
EDIT: I got the distance estimate using 38 pixels of shift in position between NAVCAM L and R, baseline of .414m: d=(.414/2)/tan(45.33/1024*38/2) -- Fred's estimate using the map could be closer, who knows. -------------------- |
|
|
May 23 2014, 06:25 PM
Post
#33
|
||
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10128 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
At this stage my position is only accurate to within a few meters, I don't make any claims beyond that.
Here's a circular pan from jvandriel's postings. Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
|
|
||
May 23 2014, 07:18 PM
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 909 Joined: 4-September 06 From: Boston Member No.: 1102 |
Thank you Fred and Joe! Like Phil, I certainly hope we head south for a scientific diversion to examine these rocks.
-------------------- |
|
|
May 23 2014, 10:13 PM
Post
#35
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1074 Joined: 21-September 07 From: Québec, Canada Member No.: 3908 |
ChemCam had a look at the "big rock" (lower part of the image).
Looks more and more like a meteorite to me. |
|
|
May 23 2014, 10:27 PM
Post
#36
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 94 Joined: 22-March 06 Member No.: 722 |
Looks like another iron, but I'm hoping it's a chondrite. It must weigh several tons, even on Mars.
-------------------- Mayor: Er, Master Betty, what is the Evil Council's plan?
Master Betty: Nyah. Haha. It is EVIL, it is so EVIL. It is a bad, bad plan, which will hurt many... people... who are good. I think it's great that it's so bad. -Kung Pow: Enter the Fist |
|
|
May 23 2014, 11:18 PM
Post
#37
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2425 Joined: 30-January 13 From: Penang, Malaysia. Member No.: 6853 |
|
|
|
May 24 2014, 12:02 AM
Post
#38
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 4246 Joined: 17-January 05 Member No.: 152 |
ChemCam had a look at the "big rock" (lower part of the image). That's the farther of the two rocks I put men beside in my post above. There was also chemcam imagery of the closer rock: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/pr...CCAM01637M_.JPG Both of these were taken pre-drive on 637, so they should match this navcam view: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/pr...NCAM00285M_.JPG |
|
|
May 24 2014, 05:41 AM
Post
#39
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 4246 Joined: 17-January 05 Member No.: 152 |
Floyd: roughly I get that the rock is 14.5 meters away and covers an angle of about 8.1 degrees in the NAVCAM frame. That would make it about 2 meters across at the base. EDIT: I got the distance estimate using 38 pixels of shift in position between NAVCAM L and R, baseline of .414m: d=(.414/2)/tan(45.33/1024*38/2) -- Fred's estimate using the map could be closer, who knows. OK, I checked and got similar numbers using parallax: 13.8 +/- 0.5 metres, and 39.5 +/- 3 metres for the farther rock. I used a navcam separation of 42.4 cm from "The Mars Science Laboratory Engineering Cameras", Maki etal. If these numbers are correct, you should shrink the men by around 10-15% in my image. Either way these are big rocks. |
|
|
May 24 2014, 09:50 AM
Post
#40
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 808 Joined: 3-June 04 From: Brittany, France Member No.: 79 |
-------------------- |
|
|
May 24 2014, 11:01 AM
Post
#41
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1465 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Columbus OH USA Member No.: 13 |
Either way these are big rocks. That's the bottom line--without a reference appearances are often deceiving, but not in this case. BTW, my calculation above getting the parallax by counting pixels of offset between L and R doesn't take into account any possible toe-in or -out of the respective optical axes. -------------------- |
|
|
May 24 2014, 12:32 PM
Post
#42
|
|||
Member Group: Members Posts: 808 Joined: 3-June 04 From: Brittany, France Member No.: 79 |
Two animations showing Curiosity roving between sols 634 and 637. Higher resolution versions are available here and here.
Looking southwest west: Looking northwest west: -------------------- |
||
|
|||
May 24 2014, 05:05 PM
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 201 Joined: 16-December 13 Member No.: 7067 |
Great multi-Sol comparisons! The large rock-less ground must be nice for drive planning, but I can't wait to get up next to some interesting things.
Sol 637 anaglyph album Stretched album - really emphasizes the slopes Drive animation Sol 637 drive RNav - 6 frames looking right, the rest looking behind at the tracks Anaglyph of first segment looking right reverse-looped Anaglyph looking at the tracks during the drive |
|
|
May 24 2014, 08:02 PM
Post
#44
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2808 Joined: 22-April 05 From: Ridderkerk, Netherlands Member No.: 353 |
|
|
|
May 24 2014, 10:44 PM
Post
#45
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 4246 Joined: 17-January 05 Member No.: 152 |
my calculation above getting the parallax by counting pixels of offset between L and R doesn't take into account any possible toe-in or -out of the respective optical axes. I took that into accound, as well as 0.35 degrees of relative field rotation between L and R. (I just aligned the L and R frames until the distant slopes coincided.) But I didn't use the proper pixel scale - I just assumed 45 degrees/1024 pixels, when it actually varies quite a bit across the field. The reference I cited above gives a pixel scale of 0.82 mrad/pixel at the centre of the frame, which is where the near rock is. That gives a distance of 12.9 +/- 0.5 metres, which now is pretty much consistent with the estimate from Phil's map. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 10:35 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE 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. |