Martian Cartography |
![]() ![]() |
Martian Cartography |
![]()
Post
#91
|
|
Newbie ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 5-June 08 Member No.: 4186 ![]() |
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#92
|
|
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Admin Posts: 974 Joined: 29-September 06 From: Pasadena, CA - USA Member No.: 1200 ![]() |
HiRISE DEMs are available here: https://www.uahirise.org/dtm/ Keep in mind that the corner coordinates can be of by quite a bit. Paolo -------------------- Disclaimer: all opinions, ideas and information included here are my own,and should not be intended to represent opinion or policy of my employer.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#93
|
|
Newbie ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 20-June 07 Member No.: 2461 ![]() |
I am currently doing some Mars cartography work and just realised that Spirit and Opportunity tracks in Mars2000 Sphere projection published at Analyst's Notebook don't align with Google Earth kml based data and vice versa. Does anyone have any idea which projection is used to display Google Mars data, as it does not seem to use standard GSC/WGS84? Thank you.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#94
|
|
Martian Cartographer ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 7791 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 ![]() |
I don't know, but I looked at the traverse map in Analysts Notebook and it matches the background map properly. That map is in a cylindrical projection. It might be that cylindrical projection data have been mapped straight onto the GE globe without correction.
Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#95
|
|
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 789 Joined: 27-February 08 From: Heart of Europe Member No.: 4057 ![]() |
Sorry for late reply, you can download global DEMs from MOLA altimeter here: http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/missions/mgs/megdr.html There is also combined MOLA/HRSC DEM here but for now server is down thanks to US budget shutdown. -------------------- |
|
|
![]()
Post
#96
|
|
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 789 Joined: 27-February 08 From: Heart of Europe Member No.: 4057 ![]() |
New version (1.2) of my Topographic Map of Mars.
It contains all official names up to end of year 2018 but main difference between this version and the previous one is new base map with higher resolution so now map shows almost twice as much details. There are also new mini scale bars directly in the map so estimating size of surface features is now much easier when browsing at full resolution. PDF version (171 MB!) contains on top of that more detailed regional maps of most of the landing sites including some future ones (Jezero crater and Oxia Planum). More detailed description of changes is on my blog (in Czech language but there is a Google translate button on the page). ![]() -------------------- |
|
|
![]()
Post
#97
|
|
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 857 Joined: 19-February 05 From: Close to Meudon Observatory in France Member No.: 172 ![]() |
[quote name='machi' date='Jan 9 2019, 10:45 PM' post='243339']
What a feat ! Congratulations Machi for this outstanding work ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Btw, about the deepest point in Hellas, which figure you would recommend for EPO purposes, please : the one derived from MOLA or the one from HRSC ? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#98
|
|
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 789 Joined: 27-February 08 From: Heart of Europe Member No.: 4057 ![]() |
Thank you!
I would recommend HRSC result. MOLA result is in this case affected by lack of coverage as it clearly missed the lowest point. It's a pity that MOLA suffered fatal malfunction long before MGS' end of mission. We could have better coverage of the Martian surface by the laser altimetry. -------------------- |
|
|
![]()
Post
#99
|
|
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 857 Joined: 19-February 05 From: Close to Meudon Observatory in France Member No.: 172 ![]() |
Thank you! I would recommend HRSC result. MOLA result is in this case affected by lack of coverage as it clearly missed the lowest point. It's a pity that MOLA suffered fatal malfunction long before MGS' end of mission. We could have better coverage of the Martian surface by the laser altimetry. Dear Machi, Thank you very much for your kind answer ![]() |
|
|
![]()
Post
#100
|
|
Newbie ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 20-June 07 Member No.: 2461 ![]() |
I don't know, but I looked at the traverse map in Analysts Notebook and it matches the background map properly. That map is in a cylindrical projection. It might be that cylindrical projection data have been mapped straight onto the GE globe without correction. Phil First of all, thank you Phil very much for your attention, I was really hoping for your answer. Yes, the Analyst's track aligns perfectly with HiRISE imagery as well as with stereo DTM's in Equirectengular Cylindrical Projection using Mars2000 sphere. What does not align are Opportunity tracks (and other Mars data) I originaly got in KML format. The first picture illustrates the point. Even when the track is reprojected from basic WGS84 to Mars2000 sphere datum, KML track still won't align. And vice versa. When I load SHP Analyst's track into GE Mars, it is off by about 200 meters (second picture), but all KML based data aligns nicely. It appears to me the problem lies with the the fact the apparently unknown datum other than WGS84 or Mars2000 Sphere is used by Google Mars, and so the transformation does not work out. For Curiosty rover I only have Fernando Nogal's excellent track in KML and am not sure how well it aligns when reprojected onto EC Mars2000 Sphere map Is it in the right place or is off by the same amount as the other KML Mars data? Thank you in advance, Jack |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th February 2019 - 03:58 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 a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here. |
![]() |