Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Pathfinder site
Unmanned Spaceflight.com > Mars & Missions > Past and Future
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Phil Stooke
Presumably we will see a HIRISE image of the Pathfinder site at some point, so I am posting a polar view of the site here for comparison. I started with the Presidential Panorama. There was a slight mis-match between the ends of the pan - as if it had been slightly cropped for posting - which I can't fix, but it doesn't do too much damage to the polar view.

Phil

(PS - no, I can't really spare the time for this but you know how it is)

Click to view attachment
djellison
That's a bit freaky, I was thinking "hmm - Pathfinder polar....I'll do that when I've had dinner" about 2 hrs ago.

Also interesting...
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA02652
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA01238
And especially
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00828
and
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA01150


Doug
Sunspot
How much bigger is Pathfinder than one of the MER's? Also, the large rock, Yogi, is even visible in the high resolution MOC images, so it should look amazing to HiRISE.
djellison
The white grid on that image is 4m squares - and the lander would probably just about fit inside one, with the airbags poking out the sides of it. 15 to 20 HiRISE pixels.

Doug
tedstryk


I have posted it before, but this is a Sojourner polar from Sol 76. If it didn't move much after the lander died, it would be nearby.
climber
QUOTE (djellison @ Oct 29 2006, 06:19 PM) *
That's a bit freaky, I was thinking "hmm - Pathfinder polar....I'll do that when I've had dinner" about 2 hrs ago.
Doug

...and if I'm not lost, Doug, you were not even 20 when Pathfinder get to Mars, correct ?
Astrophil
Am I right in thinking that the current state of knowledge about the location is still reflected by this press release?
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2005/05/09
Phil Stooke
Yes, except that I prefer this slight adjustment, which I think gives a better match to the North Knob and other features.

Phil

Click to view attachment
tedstryk
I was 18 at the time of the Pathfinder mission. I vividly remember waiting hours to download its "huge" mosaics via my 14.4 modem.
djellison
I was 18, got up early to watch some coverage on BBC 2 here in the UK, and then went to the LIbrary to download the early pans onto a floppy disk, take them home, and print them out on a 24 pin B'n'W dot matrix smile.gif . Then, on a P60 (possibly with a 133MMX overdrive chip, can't remember) - trying to better line up the frames in the mosaics that were released...without much luck. I thikn that was the genesis of my image editing obsession.

Doug
Phil Stooke
Well, I guess this is the next test, Pathfinder's site.

At the top of this thread is my polar panorama of the MPFD site. Then in post 8 I show the object identified by MSSS as the lander, in their press release. That's the point indicated by the convergence of the white lines. My best guess is just a few pixels from that again, a small correction based on the polar pan and azimuths to a few surrounding features.

This story also starts with Tim Parker, who (as Matt Golombek told me) spotted the Twin Peaks on the WSW horizon in the first few frames downlinked on landing day and recognized them from Viking images of the landing ellipse. Based on that identification he predicted that a crater rim would appear on the southeastern horizon when they got more images down, and sure enough there it was. Azimuths to distant hills and small details seen on the rim of that crater confirmed the match.

Phil
AlexBlackwell
QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Dec 5 2006, 03:57 AM) *
Well, I guess this is the next test, Pathfinder's site.

I think this image(s) will be the most fascinating one of the "known" landing sites. And if, by some miracle, Sojourner is resolvable, I know a few people who are interested where it ended up (e.g., to see if its onboard out-of-comm routines actually worked). Anyone want to start a pool? tongue.gif
tuvas
QUOTE (AlexBlackwell @ Dec 5 2006, 10:36 AM) *
I think this image(s) will be the most fascinating one of the "known" landing sites. And if, by some miracle, Sojourner is resolvable, I know a few people who are interested where it ended up (e.g., to see if its onboard out-of-comm routines actually worked). Anyone want to start a pool? tongue.gif


You wouldn't be the first, as I understand, there's a pool going around with the MPF people at JPL/NASA as to where it ended up as well.
AlexBlackwell
QUOTE (tuvas @ Dec 5 2006, 09:10 AM) *
You wouldn't be the first, as I understand, there's a pool going around with the MPF people at JPL/NASA as to where it ended up as well.

Yeah, I know about that pool, too biggrin.gif
djellison
And they're all OVER the place smile.gif

Personally - my pin is near the fwd egress aid smile.gif

Doug
tim53
QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Oct 29 2006, 01:51 PM) *
Yes, except that I prefer this slight adjustment, which I think gives a better match to the North Knob and other features.

Phil

Click to view attachment


Interesting...

Sometime in the past few years, the locations for VL-1 and MPF on Malin's website changed. I wonder why?

I have a somewhat different location. wink.gif When I've finalized my updated map, I'll crop a chunk and post it here.

That ain't MPF, and MOC didn't resolve Yogi, is my prediction.

It may have gotten the lander, though... ...now I'm looking for the backshell and heatshield, which ought to be the same size as for MER.

I'm betting we'll see Sojourner, too.

-Tim.
AlexBlackwell
QUOTE (tim53 @ Dec 6 2006, 03:57 PM) *
Interesting...

Sometime in the past few years, the locations for VL-1 and MPF on Malin's website changed. I wonder why?

What do you mean, Tim? The annotated images themselves changed, or just their location on the web server?
tim53
QUOTE (AlexBlackwell @ Dec 7 2006, 10:38 AM) *
What do you mean, Tim? The annotated images themselves changed, or just their location on the web server?


Their "best estimate" of the location of the lander changed. If you go to MSSS.com and get into the captioned releases, look under "landing sites". The release dated January 2000 has the correct location.

In the MOC C-PROTO, the lander is visible at that location (detected, but not resolved). So I won't need to post mine here, because it's the same.

-Tim.
AlexBlackwell
QUOTE (tim53 @ Dec 7 2006, 08:41 AM) *
Their "best estimate" of the location of the lander changed. If you go to MSSS.com and get into the captioned releases, look under "landing sites". The release dated January 2000 has the correct location.

Interesting. So you're saying that, in this image, the "Present Best Estimate" annotation was changed?
Phil Stooke
Here's the comparison. I had not noticed their change before - thanks, Tim.

Phil

Click to view attachment
Sunspot
With Pathfinder being bigger than the rovers... i'm surprised MGS hasn't been able to provide a definitive location yet.
AlexBlackwell
QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Dec 7 2006, 09:14 AM) *
Here's the comparison. I had not noticed their change before - thanks, Tim.

I guess I'm more confused. I was aware of the change in location between M11-2414 of January 2000 and the cPROTO image of May 2005. However, am I (mis?)reading Tim's post as saying that the latter has changed since it was originally posted?
tim53
QUOTE (AlexBlackwell @ Dec 7 2006, 11:33 AM) *
I guess I'm more confused. I was aware of the change in location between M11-2414 of January 2000 and the cPROTO image of May 2005. However, am I (mis?)reading Tim's post as saying that the latter has changed since it was originally posted?


Sorry for the confusion.

The January 2000 position where the "present best estimate" arrow points is the location of the lander. The May 2005 location is incorrect. I can't get any of my azimuth vectors, nor the MPF-based topographic map, to line up with that location.

Phil:

Your circle is at the "previous estimate" location of MSSS'. My original location was based on the Viking Orbiter 40m/pixel images (there were 4 overlapping there, so I was able to do a "super resolution" composite - really a noise reduction composite - of those images). I think it corresponds to an area big enough to accomodate both the locations given in the MSSS 2000 release, but not the 2005 location. Maybe by only a bit though. I figured a precision of about 100 meters for that location.

The C-PROTO is good enough that I'd predict that the "present best estimate" location, which is similar to my latest estimate, is accurate to within a few meters. ...but we'll see when HiRISE images the site.

-Tim.
AlexBlackwell
QUOTE (tim53 @ Dec 7 2006, 11:12 AM) *
The January 2000 position where the "present best estimate" arrow points is the location of the lander. The May 2005 location is incorrect. I can't get any of my azimuth vectors, nor the MPF-based topographic map, to line up with that location.

Oh, okay. Now I get it. I suspected that's what you were saying, but thanks for spelling it out for me biggrin.gif
tim53
Folks:

Here's my last pre-HiRISE plot of the location of MPF in MOC image R0501414. Slightly brighter dot at end of yellow line is the lander.

MSSS' January 2000 release had it right, but they changed their "best estimate" locations in the 2004 and 2005 releases.

I've searched until I'm nearly blind for anything that might be shouting "parachute" or "backshell", but I think the topography at this site is just too rough to identify them at MOC resolution.

-Tim.Click to view attachment
Sunspot
Whats this? Image processing artefacts a hair on the lens or rover tracks?
djellison
QUOTE (tim53 @ Dec 9 2006, 12:00 AM) *
Folks:

I've searched until I'm nearly blind for anything that might be shouting "parachute" or "backshell",


That's two of us smile.gif I was very suprised there's no sign of the MPF backshell UNTIL....I saw the HiRISE imagery of the MERB Backshell and realised that MOC never really showed us the MERB backshell but actually just a large swathe of light soil kicked up by its impact...it should have been obvious when comparing to rover views of the hardware, but it never quite clicked into perspective. I'm fairly sure HiRISE will pick it up easily though.

It's interestig to compare the backshells of all 4 spacecraft imaged so far. By virtue of their EDL timeline, the Viking backshells have floated softly to the ground and look just about perfect sat there. After bridle cut, it seems that the MERA chute reinflated thus letting the backshell land softly - but the same doesn't seem to be true of MERB, where the chute appears smaller on the ground and the backshell very obviously not intact suggesting no chute reinflation and thus a hard backshell landing. It will be interesting to see what Pathfinder did!

Doug
tim53
QUOTE (Sunspot @ Dec 8 2006, 04:14 PM) *
Whats this? Image processing artefacts a hair on the lens or rover tracks?


processing artifacts.
Phil Stooke
I like that location, Tim. I have labelled a few features seen in my circular pan (top of thread) - the long drifts north and east of the lander, and the big dark rock north of the lander on one of those drifts. A ridge extending off towards the SE shows up on mission topo maps, if I remember correctly.

Just to be ornery, and based on these few matches, I'll pick a neighboring little spot to be the lander and call your object Yogi...

Phil

Click to view attachment
Sunspot
Regarding the final position of Sojourner. The rover was designed to circle the lander if communications were broken with the lander. But lander communications with Earth were lost first....isn't it possible that the lander was still functioning and communicating with the rover for some time after that happened? If so, Sojourner "might" be in the same spot it was last seen in.
djellison
QUOTE (Sunspot @ Dec 10 2006, 10:40 PM) *
Regarding the final position of Sojourner. The rover was designed to circle the lander if communications were broken with the lander.


No - that's what I thought, but actually - it was due to go back to the lander, but at the same time it had a keep-out zone at the lander. It would have kept trying to get closer, whilst nudging the keepout zone...and probably turned right and circled the lander not by design, simply as a symptom of two fighting commands..get close and keep out.

However - eventually, the rovers knowledge of its own location would drift and it could have gone basically anywhere.

The lander had no commands to send to the rover, and I think the lack of communication from the lander was probably a lander failure, not just a comms failure. But to be honest, who knows. Personally, I give the rover a 50% chance of still being at Chimp, a 25% chance of being near the rear rover egress aid, and a 25% chance of having gone rogue and gone crazy smile.gif

Doug
Sunspot
awwww poor thing lol. Hopefully we'll find out soon. tongue.gif
ustrax
QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 10 2006, 11:47 PM) *
...a 25% chance of being near the rear rover egress aid...


I'll go for this 25%... smile.gif
MizarKey
My money is on the chipmunks having secured the sojourner...Warning - this link leads to the twilight zone
AlexBlackwell
QUOTE (Sunspot @ Dec 10 2006, 02:02 PM) *
awwww poor thing lol. Hopefully we'll find out soon. tongue.gif

Anyone want to start a UMSF pool on this? We could slice up the landing site into grids and take predictions.
ElkGroveDan
QUOTE (AlexBlackwell @ Dec 11 2006, 12:17 PM) *
Anyone want to start a UMSF pool on this? We could slice up the landing site into grids and take predictions.

I'll take the far rim on sol 902. biggrin.gif
AlexBlackwell
QUOTE (AlexBlackwell @ Dec 11 2006, 10:17 AM) *
Anyone want to start a UMSF pool on this? We could slice up the landing site into grids and take predictions.

Okay, looks like Doug got the ball rolling biggrin.gif
PDP8E
Pathfinder Overhead shot is up on the HIRISE site

http://hirise-test.lpl.arizona.edu/images/...MPF_parts_2.jpg

cheers!
djellison
Twin peaks is suprisingly a bit "hmm - where'd all those features go?"

Doug
AlexBlackwell
Question: How accurate was the analysis based on the MOC cPROTO images? (1, 2)
tim53
QUOTE (AlexBlackwell @ Jan 11 2007, 12:50 PM) *
Question: How accurate was the analysis based on the MOC cPROTO images? (1, 2)


MSSS had the MPF located accurately in their January 2000 captioned release. Viking 1 is about 50 meters southwest of the actual location.

-Tim.
jamescanvin
QUOTE (tim53 @ Jan 12 2007, 09:05 AM) *
MSSS had the MPF located accurately in their January 2000 captioned release. Viking 1 is about 50 meters southwest of the actual location.


And looking at your post here I see that you were EXACTLY right. Well done Tim. smile.gif

Click to view attachment

Overlay of Tims position 'Mars Pathfinder' label on the MOC (plus Phil's annotations) and the Hirise with the 'MPF' label.

James
Toma B
Has anybody downloaded that full res .jp2 image of Pathfinder site?
Before this (really unnecessary) site update at least see how big is that file...now for some reason that information is not available... sad.gif
Could somebody please post a crop of those "twin peaks" in full resolution?
Sunspot
Why don't the solar panels show up at all? Too much dust?
jamescanvin
See the old style page http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/PSP/PSP_001890_1995 it's 849Mb.

For Twin Peaks see Doug's post above (39)

James
djellison
Not full res by the way....I downsized it about 50%

Doug
djellison
Best thing I could find to overlay it one of these...

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA00752.jpg

(anim gif attached)

Doug
Myran
Thank you PDP8E.

And now lets see for those two harder to find ones, but that we might have a realistic chanse of finding. The polar lander and beagle. But we wont have the advantage of surface images to guide us right there. But if found would at least give some hint of what actually happened to them.
jamescanvin
Comparing the jpgs released by NASA with the jp2 from HiROC.

Click to view attachment

There is quite a difference, particularly in the apparent angle the two 'ramps' make with each other. I don't think that the jpegs are of PSP_001890_1995 but of another image (to form a stereo pair).

James.
djellison
Not sure if it really adds anything - but worth a go anyway.

Doug
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.