IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Creating a Mars 3 Panorama, Not relying on the meaingless noise from the lander itself
sittingduck
post Dec 10 2014, 10:47 AM
Post #1


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 14-December 12
Member No.: 6784



Being startled by the quality of the orbital images of the presumed Mars 3 landing site (rocks of diameter <50cm seem visible), I would like to simulate the view from the current location of the Mars 3 lander using a variety of sources. Below are a list of requirements to do this that I will attempt to fill in over time, with many questions included that I hope other users on UMSF may be able to point me in the right direction to answer. Any readers willing to help are gratefully accepted.

Requirements:

Accurate 3D reconstruction of the Mars 3 lander, with emphasis on camera location and in-frame components
- currently taking a look at the pre-existing 3D model found here but need to verify some details, anyone care to comment on accuracy?
- where can I best find engineering drawings?
- high-resolution photos?

Condition of lander/rover
- can any information about the rotation of the lander (emphasis on camera orientation) be derived from the HiRise images?
- Q Answered: Prop-M deployed before imaging
- what was the amount of dust in the atmosphere at landing time?
- Q Answered: Height of camera above ground should be close to 75-80cm.

Accurate camera behavior:
- Q Answered: the camera is a optical-mechanical cycloramic camera
- Q Answered: the field of view of the panorama is 30x360
- Q Answered: each camera had a different permanent color filter, most likely one camera had an orange filter (OS14) and the other had a yellowgreen filer (ZhZS13).
- Q Answered: automatic sensitivity control (ASC) ensuring image return within a wide range of luminance, from 50 to 50000 lux.
- Q Answered: resolution of individual circular panorama 500x6000 pixels
- were there any test-panorama images made on Earth and where are they?

DEM of surroundings
- Q Answered: a heightmap could be created from the stereo pair ESP_032447_1345 + ESP_032737_1345
- Q Answered: some experiments with commercial stereo-photogrammetry software
- what is the best existing DEM for the surrounding terrain of Ptolomaeus crater? MOLA? HRSC DTM?

Geology of the immediate surroundings
- what sort of rocks/surface is expected to exist at this location? what previous lander location best compares?
- are smaller rocks than visible in HiRise images anticipated but not visible due to resolution, or is there clearly a cut-off point of rocks below a certain diameter at the location?

The attached quick mock-up gives an idea of what I would like to attempt. It is made using the aforementioned lander 3D model, a camera of arbitary vertical FOV positioned into one of the telephotometer enclosures, stitch of several renders, one of the HiRise images overlaid into Google Mars and the terrain elevation data from Google Mars in the background, intended only as a demonstration. The visible "rock" is also a test and its height and width are estimated from the shadow it casts relative to that of the lander with known height.
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vikingmars
post Dec 10 2014, 03:24 PM
Post #2


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 811
Joined: 19-February 05
From: Close to Meudon Observatory in France
Member No.: 172



QUOTE (sittingduck @ Dec 10 2014, 11:47 AM) *
Being startled by the quality of the orbital images of the presumed Mars 3 landing site (rocks of diameter <50cm seem visible), I would like to simulate the view from the current location of the Mars 3 lander using a variety of sources.

What a GREAT idea ! I'm sure that our 3-D Forum specialists can help you !
As a start, here is one of the best pics of the Mars 3 lander I have in my digital library.
It's an old picture I just processed a little bit for you to enhance some more details... Sorry : no hi-res here ! smile.gif
Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alex_k
post Dec 10 2014, 04:49 PM
Post #3


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-October 14
Member No.: 7282



Hi Sittingduck,

Have you seen these two works (in Russian)?
1. http://habrahabr.ru/post/204562
2. http://scienceandtec.ucoz.ru/forum/2-1-1 (extra views: http://scienceandtec.ucoz.ru/photo/fotokarty_marsa/6)

For your questions:
- High-res photos can be found in museums: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&...-3%22&cad=h
- Some information about the cameras can be found in the Selivanov's article: http://libgen.org/scimag5/10.1134/S0038094613030064.pdf . Also I'd recommend the article (in Russian) about the camera of "Luna-9" which was at most similar: http://www.kik-sssr.ru/AMS_E-6.htm
- HiRise stereopair are ESP_032447_1345 and ESP_032737_1345 . There're four HiRise images of the lander.
- About EDL hardware, take a look at the photo: http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&p=199188
- About the geology, there was an opinion that the type of landing site is close to polar areas shown by Phoenix.
- About 1.2m height, I think it's size with the cover. Take a look at the picture: http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&p=201190 I estimate the height from surface to camera about 80 cm.

Best wishes!

upd. Two points about your picture:
1. The cameras were tilted like at Luna-9, -13 and Veneras so the horizon can't be straight.
2. Most probably that Prop-M rover was deployed: transmission of the panorama should follow the deployment of scientific instruments.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sittingduck
post Dec 10 2014, 05:11 PM
Post #4


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 14-December 12
Member No.: 6784



QUOTE (alex_k @ Dec 10 2014, 05:49 PM) *


Wow, thank you. No I hadn't seen them, but that's really what I wanted to do. Guess there isn't much point left in it smile.gif

edit: It looks like it is still possible to create a more accurate/life-like panorama though, so I may continue.
edit2: was it expected for the 'cone' to always land so near the lander itself as in that test photograph?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alex_k
post Dec 10 2014, 05:24 PM
Post #5


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-October 14
Member No.: 7282



QUOTE (sittingduck @ Dec 10 2014, 10:11 PM) *
Wow, thank you. No I hadn't seen them, but that's really what I wanted to do. Guess there isn't much point left in it smile.gif


Oh, no, please continue! smile.gif I suppose the first is not very exact, and the author of the second told that sources unfortunately were lost.
It's very interesting to get proper model of the landing site with proper lights and camera position.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4throck
post Dec 10 2014, 06:04 PM
Post #6


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 17-December 12
From: Portugal
Member No.: 6792



Those line scanning cycloramic cameras don't give the same type of geometry as a render using a wide field camera. You can try to stitch your renders and generate a full panorama.

You should try to simulate landers that got good images: the Lunas and the Vikings.
The Lunas have a similar camera system to the Mars probes (with some tilt), but the Vikings also worked using the same principles (but no tilt) and might be simpler to get started with.

So do your tests for those and see what you get.


--------------------
www.astrosurf.com/nunes
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alex_k
post Dec 11 2014, 08:48 AM
Post #7


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-October 14
Member No.: 7282



QUOTE (sittingduck @ Dec 10 2014, 10:11 PM) *
edit: It looks like it is still possible to create a more accurate/life-like panorama though, so I may continue.

It's very interesting to get a detailed altitudes map of four HiRise sources. A kind of superresolution in 3d.
Of couse it's possible to apply a 2d supperresolution texture to 3d map made of stereopair.
QUOTE (sittingduck @ Dec 10 2014, 10:11 PM) *
edit2: was it expected for the 'cone' to always land so near the lander itself as in that test photograph?

I don't know. But martian gravity is less so the cover can be further.

upd: In my archive I've found a schematic picture of the lander. Not an engineer drawing, but maybe it will help.
Attached Image

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alex_k
post Dec 11 2014, 02:27 PM
Post #8


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-October 14
Member No.: 7282



QUOTE
- can any information about the rotation of the lander (emphasis on camera orientation) be derived from the HiRise images?

My early experiments with superresolution techniques were intended to see Mars 3 landing site in extremal details; PSP_061154_1345 and ESP_031036_1345 were composed.
I've found that attempt.
Attached Image


And two animations:
Attached Image
Attached Image

(The second was combined with a frame from an old film about M-71)

I suppose that Prop-M covered by a lot of sand is oriented to the north. And the lander is tilted at most to that side (maybe to northeast due to deployed x-rays detector).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sittingduck
post Dec 11 2014, 06:14 PM
Post #9


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 14-December 12
Member No.: 6784



Alex_k,

Thanks for the schematic and more info!

I've experimented with a commercial photogrammetry program to generate several DEMs at various level of detail. The area immediately surrounding the lander seems to correspond with the one already made (but lost) that you showed me, although with slightly more exaggerated elevations. What do you think (first attached image)? Does it look possibly realistic?

How did you arrive at your conclusion of lander tilt? From the DEM (second attached image, X arrow = North, Y arrow = West) I see the lander resting on a small slope, tilted towards the south-east. Your idea of which way the lander is rotated is interesting. Because we can see the outline of the lander there are clearly only 4 possible rotated states, so at least 1 out of 4 panoramas simulated will be just right smile.gif

I'm still evaluating whether or not this photogrammetry program is producing any meaningful results; for example when I generate a DEM of the entire stereo pair surface area, I see a very large mound appear about 1.7km away to the south-west (same height as crater rim but not directly connected to it), which does not seem to correspond to visible relief in context images at all. Maybe it is something simple that is wrong, when you create such a model do you use map projected or non map projected images?

If I wanted to test a stereo pair of an area at least 12km across, what images would you use?
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alex_k
post Dec 12 2014, 01:22 PM
Post #10


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-October 14
Member No.: 7282



QUOTE (sittingduck @ Dec 11 2014, 11:14 PM) *


Very impressing images! As for me they seem more realistic than the previous attempts. Can you show please south-west direction?

On a plane and solid surface the lander will tilt to its center of mass. I supposed that most heavy should be Prop-M rover. But actually the equipment placed on petals - gamma-rays spectrometer and x-rays spectrometer, clockwise from Prop-M - seem also heavy enough, so after the rover deployment the lander may tilt to their side. Of course a slope affects more. smile.gif

I haven't worked with DEM generating software. For my processing I used map projected photos, non-projected may be more precise but I don't think the difference is very strong.
If you want to calibrate the method, may be to try Opportunity panoramas? For example this: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mer/mult...y/pia11507.html by http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_018701_1775

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4th rock from th...
post Dec 12 2014, 02:22 PM
Post #11


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 378
Joined: 21-April 05
From: Portugal
Member No.: 347



You may assume that the tilt is the same as with the Lunas. Not much, probably just the effect of gentle local slope or rocks.
Here's a nice page about Luna that shows that:
http://www.strykfoto.org/luna9.htm


--------------------
_______________________
www.astrosurf.com/nunes
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PDP8E
post Dec 13 2014, 04:55 AM
Post #12


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 594
Joined: 10-October 06
From: Maynard Mass USA
Member No.: 1241



At one point in time last year, I was using the 'candidate Mars 3' site as a 1st try to do super resolution from a single frame.
It involved creating multiple phantom images and then merging them

Here is the GIF of the original image at 3X and the super resolution at 3x

Attached Image


--------------------
CLA CLL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rlorenz
post Dec 13 2014, 02:20 PM
Post #13


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 452
Joined: 23-February 07
From: Occasionally in Columbia, MD
Member No.: 1764



QUOTE (sittingduck @ Dec 10 2014, 05:47 AM) *
Being startled by the quality of the orbital images of the presumed Mars 3 landing site,I would like to simulate the view from the current location of the Mars 3 lander using a variety of sources. Below are a list of requirements to do this that I will attempt to fill in over time, with many questions included that I hope other users on UMSF may be able to point me in the right direction to answer. Any readers willing to help are gratefully accepted.

Requirements:

Accurate 3D reconstruction of the Mars 3 lander, with emphasis on camera location and in-frame components
- high-resolution photos?
[/u]


Perhaps the attached will be useful. Fairly high-fidelity model at the Lavotchkin Association (the manufacturer) in Moscow this summer.
It looks to me like the cable/connectors to the petal actuators will figure prominently in the panorama. Note the heatshield in the background
Attached Image
Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sittingduck
post Dec 14 2014, 08:31 PM
Post #14


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 14-December 12
Member No.: 6784



Great image PDP8E, that will help me narrow down the exact angle of rotation of the lander and will give better detail to nearby rocks.

rlorenz, yes they will obscure large areas of the image!

Unfortunately I think I'm going to stop pursuing this method of DEM/DTM creation. Here is a comparison between relief derived from a real image vs. a simulation of the same light on the generated terrain model (animated gif). Comparing these it seems that this method is not accurate enough. I will instead attempt a different method.
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image

 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alex_k
post Aug 14 2015, 08:26 AM
Post #15


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 70
Joined: 14-October 14
Member No.: 7282



For a research purpose I need an exact DEM of Mars 3 landing site. There're HiRISE images PSP_006154_1345, ESP_031036_1345 and stereo pair ESP_032447_1345+ESP_032737_1345.
Having a little experience in 3d modelling, I tried various software for processing stereo paris, all without appropriate result.
The best heightmap I can create was produced using CrazyBump software by illuminance from PSP_006154_1345 image. Here is a result of processing:
Attached Image

Being acceptable for distant features, the heightmap has some distortions: shadows become depressions, etc, so closer details are deformed.

Can anybody help to get more exact DEM of the landing site?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st August 2017 - 02:10 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 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.