IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

33 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Journey to Mt Sharp - Part 4: Beyond the Kimberley, Sol 634 [May 19, '14] to 706 [Jul 31, '14]
fredk
post May 23 2014, 06:01 PM
Post #31


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4246
Joined: 17-January 05
Member No.: 152



Here's a quick job, using Phil's map to estimate 11.6 and 35 metres to the two large rocks:
Attached Image

The closer rock, which does look kind of iron-meteoric, is about 50 cm tall (visibly) by 1.5 m long - I think that'd put it considerably larger than anything MER has encountered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jmknapp
post 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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post 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.

Attached Image


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)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Floyd
post 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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charborob
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
J.J.
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PaulH51
post May 23 2014, 11:18 PM
Post #37


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2425
Joined: 30-January 13
From: Penang, Malaysia.
Member No.: 6853



QUOTE (charborob @ May 24 2014, 06:13 AM) *
ChemCam had a look at the "big rock" (lower part of the image).....

Those RMI's appear to be series (stack) of varying focus... Hopefully one of the image guru's can assemble these so we can study this in greater detail smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fredk
post May 24 2014, 12:02 AM
Post #38


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4246
Joined: 17-January 05
Member No.: 152



QUOTE (charborob @ May 23 2014, 11:13 PM) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fredk
post May 24 2014, 05:41 AM
Post #39


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4246
Joined: 17-January 05
Member No.: 152



QUOTE (jmknapp @ May 23 2014, 06:06 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
neo56
post May 24 2014, 09:50 AM
Post #40


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 808
Joined: 3-June 04
From: Brittany, France
Member No.: 79



Panorama taken on sol 637 with MastCam 34mm:


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jmknapp
post 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



QUOTE (fredk @ May 24 2014, 12:41 AM) *
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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
neo56
post 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:
Attached Image

Looking northwest west:
Attached Image


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
anticitizen2
post 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 wheel.gif wheel.gif wheel.gif
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jvandriel
post May 24 2014, 08:02 PM
Post #44


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2808
Joined: 22-April 05
From: Ridderkerk, Netherlands
Member No.: 353



Here is the complete Sol 637 Navcam panoramic view.

Jan van Driel

Attached Image

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fredk
post May 24 2014, 10:44 PM
Post #45


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4246
Joined: 17-January 05
Member No.: 152



QUOTE (jmknapp @ May 24 2014, 11:01 AM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

33 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS 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
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.