It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Curiosity: Potential Anomalies (Update 01/2014)

page: 71
85
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by funbox
 


This one.




posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by BuzzDengue
 


How did you get all those dimensions?



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 

SOL 550
_NLB_446322839EDR_F0271124NCAM00275M_
Approximately an 18 inch diameter round opening of apparently a pipe, tube or container containing surface debris. Perspective reflections and shadowing... Target is at 841X, 394Y pixel address.


files.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

Hi AraMap, It is the level of magnification/zoom to center the target pixel into from the original source image, this is so you can view the same section of the source image I referenced. Is that what you are asking? Hope you are doing well.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


cheers ArMaP, had spent some time looking for that one, have to say as distant anomalies go this one has some acute lines, will probably become more defined if we get closer



funBox



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

I used the NASA/JPL scale bar used on other images of similar frame and estimated... and stated "approximate"...
(for example see... mars.jpl.nasa.gov... )

For closer items I try to use an estimation that involves each turn of MSL's wheels being 6.2 feet, so I am trying to reference some scale on posting certain things. I guess if I took the time to count the wheel treads and divided that into 6.2 feet, I could get an even better estimated for "wheel close" targets such as

files.abovetopsecret.com...
For example, based on using my estimating, this item is from 1.5 to 2.5 inches tall and is on a stalk or stem that is 1/16 of an inch in diameter... it is less than 3.5 meters from MSL's Mastcam lens, if I am correct.

Do you have a tool that could further define? Any help or input is welcome and much appreciated.


edit on 2014/2/23 by BuzzDengue because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   

funbox
reply to post by jeep3r
 

common formations ? how could nasa say that , there's nothing quite like it in that region, but given the position they are at they probably wouldn't be able to get to it, not sure why there heading up the mountain, surely a better geological and mineral understanding can be found at its base/ lake region, maybe its going up there to take some fantastic 350k pictures

Well, I was being a bit cynical here. I was trying to see it from 'their' perspective, you know: mission goals, science objectives etc. Of course that formation is everything else but 'common', but obviously (as you said) another interesting path is avoided.

By the way, I also think that the 'lowlands' at Gale would probably be more interesting from a geological point of view. Less elevation should mean we've got access to older strata exposed in some of the formations along the way ...
edit on 23-2-2014 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

BuzzDengue
Hi AraMap, It is the level of magnification/zoom to center the target pixel into from the original source image, this is so you can view the same section of the source image I referenced. Is that what you are asking?

I don't know if that's what I am asking, as I don't understand it myself.


Just to clarify, x is horizontal and y is vertical, right?


Hope you are doing well.

I was, thanks, until some allergy got me.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   

BuzzDengue
I used the NASA/JPL scale bar used on other images of similar frame and estimated... and stated "approximate"...
(for example see... mars.jpl.nasa.gov... )

I see, but don't forget that you must use the scale only for photos from the same camera, different cameras have different lenses and objects appear with different sizes.

I have been using AlgorimancerPG to get the measurements, but for Curiosity it only works with the navigation cameras. Luckily, the photo you posted is from one of the navigation cameras, so we can get some measurements.

The "approximate 2 foot square base", according to AlgorimancerPG, is 26 metres from the camera and the pixels at that distance correspond to 0.021667 metres, so a 30 pixels wide object corresponds to 0.648 metres (2 feet).



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

Yes, X-Y coordinates... your viewing software (I think I remember you use Photoshop) should show you the pixel address in some fashion... grid selection may be an option, not sure.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


... so my estimate was a fairly good one... ? ; ]

The farther object I estimated at 275 feet high, is the best geometry I could accomplish with my estimating... I'd be interested in how close, or not, the 275 ft height shows in your calc tool.


edit on 2014/2/23 by BuzzDengue because: added comment on other target...



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


how do them shoes feel? did you have waves of incomprehension ? when I wear the shoes of nasa , I find it hard to find reason for going up there at all, *funBox slips on his nasa clown shoes* unless they have got wind of eagles nests , maybe there is a good vantage point, full of superviews and extended horizons, to capture with their cameras

and besides , why even have such a fixed destination from the offset, that to me does not take into account all the variables along the way, its like they are in a hurry to get somewhere they know little about, whilst missing most of the journey, to much haste not enough science in my opinion

has their been an explanation to why they are sending curiosity up them dare hills?

funBox



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by BuzzDengue
 


in photoshop you set pixel rulers in its prefrences, units and grid setup, changing it to pixels will give you co/ords

funBox



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   

BuzzDengue
... so my estimate was a fairly good one... ? ; ]

Yes.



The farther object I estimated at 275 feet high, is the best geometry I could accomplish with my estimating... I'd be interested in how close, or not, the 275 ft height shows in your calc tool.

I think it's too far away for it to work, it returns an error.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 

SOL 390
Mars Hand Lens Imager - MAHLI
0390MH0305000000E1_DXXX
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Another apparent silver/chrome orb on a tripod/quadpod structure.
These have appeared multiple times.


files.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   

funbox
and besides , why even have such a fixed destination from the offset, that to me does not take into account all the variables along the way, its like they are in a hurry to get somewhere they know little about, whilst missing most of the journey, to much haste not enough science in my opinion

I think that any mission has more chances of being accepted (and paid for) if you provide a clear destination and actions than a mission for which you would just say "we will look and decide what to do when we are there".



has their been an explanation to why they are sending curiosity up them dare hills?

From what I have read about it, the idea is not to go "up the hill", it's to get to the base of the mountain and look/analyse the layers from which the mountain is made.

See if you can find something about it on the "MSL Science Corner".



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


I think it's going up a little ways, up the hill, mount. I seem to remember this particularly from the start of Blister's thread about Curiosity's Destination. -- but reading the OP again I'm not sure if it's mounting a frontal on the hills or is just going to wander laser blasting as it goes. Blister's first diagrams have heights:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 23-2-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


after reading the article ArMaP I was still left feeling a little deflated , surely this isn't all there is to be read about the mission ?,



In 2006, more than 100 scientists began to consider about 30 potential landing sites during worldwide workshops


anywhere we can read about these musings?

funBox



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by funbox
 


I don't know, but I remember seeing photos taken by HiRISE of several different places during the selection phase.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


well I found a little more info here , but its scanty , how is the little buggy going to get up that first clay cliff face? seems implausible from the picture they provide


nasa inspection points

the curiosity site is a terrible place to navigate information :/

funBox



new topics

top topics



 
85
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join