More Pictures of "Curiosity" Taken From Orbit

Here is a new picture taken from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter of Curiosity on the ground, the crashed skycrane, the crashed parachute and back shell, and the heat shield.

Annotated Landing Site Image (small version to fit on this page):





Annotated landing site image (full size of image above):


The Rover:


The Parachute and back shell:


Skycrane:


Heat Shield:



EDIT TO ADD:
If you want the raw images files for the above photos, they can be found in this link (near the bottom of the page)
hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Great post with excellent links, many thanks.

Impressive to see how much detail we have from orbit of the various craft on mars now.

Good info. Thanks.

Thank you for the addition. I'm very much looking forward to what this little guy adds to our knowledge and understanding of that place. One step closer to a man following it some day!

Originally posted by citizenx1
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Great post with excellent links, many thanks.

Impressive to see how much detail we have from orbit of the various craft on mars now.

Yea, aint it though? Still cant see crap on the moon though

I'd like to know why a $2.5 Billion Dollar spacecraft was outfitted with 13 year old photographic equipment.
(2 Megapixel camers)

I get better image resolution from my cell phone !

Originally posted by HIWATT
I'd like to know why a $2.5 Billion Dollar spacecraft was outfitted with 13 year old photographic equipment.
(2 Megapixel camers)

I get better image resolution from my cell phone !

Not all of the 17 cameras are operational yet.

The Main camera is on a mast that was folded away during the cruise to Mars. They are doing a complete diagnostic check of the Rover's systems before deploying the mast and the main camera. That is scheduled to happen tomorrow (if all goes well). The LAST THING they want to do is rush the deployment of a system that is not 100% operational, and have a problem occur that could have been avoided...

...that would be reckless and stupid.

Even some of the cameras that are operational still have a their clear dust covers closed. Some other of the 17 cameras do not have a need to be high-resolution, since they only exist as hazard-avoidance cameras, and are not meant for science. Most of the pictures we have seen so far have been from these low res hazard-avoidance cameras.

Originally posted by Juggernog

Originally posted by citizenx1
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Great post with excellent links, many thanks.

Impressive to see how much detail we have from orbit of the various craft on mars now.

Yea, aint it though? Still cant see crap on the moon though

OK, tell me, look in detail at the fantastic pic the OP posted, if the US flag was painted on the heatshield, the parachute, or the Skycrane, would you have been able to see it?

reply to post by HIWATT


I'd like to know, why in this day and age, you are on the internets but don't know how to use it.

Google Curiosity Rover or MSL.

READ.

Learn.

Come back with an enlightned post.

Enjoy your new found knowledge. It is free.

Originally posted by Hellhound604

Originally posted by Juggernog

Originally posted by citizenx1
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Great post with excellent links, many thanks.

Impressive to see how much detail we have from orbit of the various craft on mars now.

Yea, aint it though? Still cant see crap on the moon though

OK, tell me, look in detail at the fantastic pic the OP posted, if the US flag was painted on the heatshield, the parachute, or the Skycrane, would you have been able to see it?

Those pictures were taken from orbit by a totally different spacecraft -- the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (or MRO). The MRO took that picture from 300 km up (about 180 miles). At that altitude, each pixel on the raw images is 39 cm.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


That is exactly my point. People look at the pics from Mars, and compare it with the pictures of the Moon, and then ask why we can see that detail in the Mars pics, and still not the stars and stripes on the flags on the moon. What I was trying to say, is that even if there was a flag on the components that now landed on Mars, you still wouldn't have been able to see the flag on them.

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

That is exactly my point. People look at the pics from Mars, and compare it with the pictures of the Moon, and then ask why we can see that detail in the Mars pics, and still not the stars and stripes on the flags on the moon. What I was trying to say, is that even if there was a flag on the components that now landed on Mars, you still wouldn't have been able to see the flag on them.

edit on 7/8/2012 by Hellhound604 because: (no reason given)

I really dont care, I said it in a joking way. I figured the would give that away

reply to post by Juggernog



Ahhh, sorry ...... I still have problems reading emotions on the web, and I can remember many years ago a glossy magazine zoomed in from outer space to the writing on a postage stamp, and people actually believed that it was possible ......

I can't wait for more pics to become available and the rover starts fulfilling it's role what it was designed for. Heck, I am just glad it landed, I had too many nightmares about that complicated landing sequence.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by HIWATT
I'd like to know why a $2.5 Billion Dollar spacecraft was outfitted with 13 year old photographic equipment.
(2 Megapixel camers)

I get better image resolution from my cell phone !

Not all of the 17 cameras are operational yet.

The Main camera is on a mast that was folded away during the cruise to Mars. They are doing a complete diagnostic check of the Rover's systems before deploying the mast and the main camera. That is scheduled to happen tomorrow (if all goes well). The LAST THING they want to do is rush the deployment of a system that is not 100% operational, and have a problem occur that could have been avoided...

...that would be reckless and stupid.

Even some of the cameras that are operational still have a their clear dust covers closed. Some other of the 17 cameras do not have a need to be high-resolution, since they only exist as hazard-avoidance cameras, and are not meant for science. Most of the pictures we have seen so far have been from these low res hazard-avoidance cameras.

edit on 8/7/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

I realise that and am aware of the dust cap issue. As as referenced here though, none of the 17 cameras have a resolution greater than 2 megapixel.

??

Yet the mast cam can take 720P video at 10FPS ??

What's wrong with this picture.

reply to post by HIWATT


The mastcams have a resolution of 1200x1200 as described by MSL.

One Mastcam has a 100 mm, f/10 lens with a 5.1° square field of view. The other has a 34 mm, f/8 lens with a 15° square field of view. Both cameras image onto 1200 by 1200 pixels, and both can acquire high definition 720p video.

www.msss.com...

reply to post by HIWATT


Yea that is kinda disappointing. Someone said that its main camera was 8 mp but thats not true according to that site.

yes, your 8mp cell phone camera can take good images in weak light, and are radiation resistant?????
I still have a 1.3mp DSLR, and at any day it can take much, much better pics than my cell phone with its fantastic 8mp sensor...... Lower resolution CCD's have much less noise than these crappy 8mp cell phones, therefore they take much better pics in low light, and they are less prone to radiation.

Originally posted by Hellhound604
yes, your 8mp cell phone camera can take good images in weak light, and are radiation resistant?????

Thats not what I said and I would appreciate you stopping trying to argue with ever opinion I make.

What I said was and this is the last reply ill make to you, "that I heard it had an 8 mp camera on it but that doesnt appear to be the case" according to that website.

Originally posted by Hellhound604
reply to post by HIWATT

 

The mastcams have a resolution of 1200x1200 as described by MSL.

One Mastcam has a 100 mm, f/10 lens with a 5.1° square field of view. The other has a 34 mm, f/8 lens with a 15° square field of view. Both cameras image onto 1200 by 1200 pixels, and both can acquire high definition 720p video.

www.msss.com...

Right. That's not even 2 megapixel! It's 1.4

reply to post by Juggernog


what website states that it has 8mp cameras????

Rather go to JPLs website, or if you are not satisfied by it, go to the MSS website, as they actually designed the cameras.
www.msss.com...