It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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.
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... )
... 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.
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?
In 2006, more than 100 scientists began to consider about 30 potential landing sites during worldwide workshops