[X] My Assistant

[dot.dk]

Ant103:
Well done! All they need is a teensy little MER...

There is a little Oppy here

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...pe=post&id=5444

[Bob Shaw]

There is a little Oppy here

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...pe=post&id=5444

So there is!

Bob Shaw

[dilo]

...
The ~left side of VC in that 10 x stretch is confusing to say the least. After all, a depression (partly) around VC, as speculated earlier?

Don't know if can be useful, this altimetry map from MOLA show a depression but I suspect that spatial resolution is too low, at least in the east (upper) portion:


(the step visible in the mid of altimetry profile is not real but clearly due to a discontinuity in the database)

[Bill Harris]

Victoria was fprmed on a hillside and there is bound to be unusual topography around it.

This is a perspective view created from MOLA and the source "map" view. These are from my archives and, although I got the images here, I don't know their source. In the perspective, "crater" in Victoria, and the BIG crater to the SE is the big crater to the SE.

--Bill

[sranderson]

Don't know if can be useful, this altimetry map from MOLA show a depression but I suspect that spatial resolution is too low, at least in the east (upper) portion:


(the step visible in the mid of altimetry profile is not real but clearly due to a discontinuity in the database)

Something is strange here. This shows that once you get to the 35-meter crater, you are at the rim of Victoria, and should be able to see everything all the way down to the bottom with no obstructions. That can't be right. The MOLA data seems to be fundamentally deficient. It appears that this could be the result of Victoria's diameter being less than the resolution limit of the MOLA data. The Victoria crater is thus spread out over a larger area in the MOLA data.

Scott

[helvick]

The MOLA data seems to be fundamentally deficient. It appears that this could be the result of Victoria's diameter being less than the resolution limit of the MOLA data.

You're dead right there. The MOLA data is superb on the planetary scale but it's asking way to much of it to get this amount of detail for a wee little crater out on the plains.
MOLA's sampling "spot size" was 130m diameter and the on track spot to spot interval was ~ 330m. The track to track spacing varied due to the mapping orbit but the best MOLA covered areas only have a couple of points per square km. The best data on Victoria and the area around her has to come from stereo photogrammetry if there is appropriate source images.

[Toma B]

Just a thought...
Is it be possible that what we are seeing in these vertically exaggerated images (circled with blue line) is actually far rim of VC?
Near rim may be still under horizon or in line with it…

[Shaka]

It seems rather unlikely, Toma, that the only bright reflective vertical part of the far rim http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...pe=post&id=5415 we could see would be the Beacon.
It ought to look more like Endurance in that case, as centsworth showed:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...pe=post&id=5426

[dilo]

Good question, Toma. But I must agree with Shaka...
Sometimes I had too the impression to see crater interior in the stretched images; however, in addition to the "beacon" argument, if you look carefully to dark and bright rim features, they match very well with VC closest side as seen from MGS.
IMHO, in addition to the "beacon", the only point where we possibly see a small portion of the far side is on the left, showed by a red arrow in the Sol813 image below (10x stretch)

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Ant103]

That Terragen image Ant103 posted is awesome though. Was this created from a real DEM data, or is this using a hand-made height map as well? I like the fact that it can simulate the level of detail for the texture which makes it look much more real.

The elevation map is made from MGS data by using The Gimp. But, I make this with the idea that Victoria is a normal crater and the known slopes of a normal crater.
But, were are the DEM data of Victoria crater? Are there very precise?

[ustrax]

I don't know if someone already mentioned it but I think we are seing already visible outcrops on the Victoria's 'left rim'...

http://s16.photobucket.com/albums/b14/ustr...nt=outcrops.jpg

Original here:
http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/opportuni...00P2405L2M1.JPG

Start covering that hole 'cause ustrax is back...

[dilo]

Start covering that hole 'cause ustrax is back...

WOW, ustrax!!!!
Welcome back, happy to know VC caused you comeback! your logo "Victoria ahead" is fabulous, I would like to use it!!!
If I made correct identification, features you highlighted are outside of VC, at the far edge of the slight depression surrounding it from east...
perhaps we are looking to distant outcrops, or even big dunes.

[dilo]

Here my image version, processing reveal some shadow in favour of "big dunes" hypothesis...
But what about this "tall" very distant hill? (clearly visible also in the "official" JPL stretch)


edit: oops, forgot to post image

[Tman]

Hi Marco, I tried to boost these bumps by expanding and blacken (the original is a cutting from Tim Parker's mosaic):

http://www.greuti.ch/oppy/oppy_sol804_sehorizont.jpg

Strangely the black beam between the bumps seems to be real.
These bumps in my image is the left peak in your stretched pics I think.

[ustrax]

WOW, ustrax!!!!
Welcome back, happy to know VC caused you comeback! your logo "Victoria ahead" is fabulous, I would like to use it!!!
If I made correct identification, features you highlighted are outside of VC, at the far edge of the slight depression surrounding it from east...
perhaps we are looking to distant outcrops, or even big dunes.

Good to read you dilo!
Of course you can use it...the vessel in the center is truly the Victoria one.
I'll try to attach a solo and large version as soon as possible.
Thank you for the corrections! I'm just arrived now and trying to get use to this new locations.