[quote name='Shaka' date='Jun 6 2006, 07:33 AM' post='57182']
We're only thinking of your welfare, mon ami.

Ah my dear Shaka, you're even more romantic than myself! Thanks for your "help". ...
Just a coincidence both "Victoria" facts occured same day, same place.
I'm back to Mars now and more Farimer than ever... take it easy, board the plane, you'll see what you'll see.

By the way, I climbed this past week-end there : Parc National des Pyrénées, Cirque de Gavarnie.
Click to view attachment

Parc National des Pyrénées, Cirque de Gavarnie.
Ou, la la la, c'est magnifique!

[quote name='Shaka' date='Jun 6 2006, 08:50 PM' post='57275']
Parc National des Pyrénées, Cirque de Gavarnie.
Ou, la la la, c'est magnifique!

Oh Yes! I don't want to be out of topic so, just another one I took last fall from higher and with another angle :
Click to view attachment

Still OT: Is that the "Brecha de Rolando" (*) at the far distance?

(*) Sorry, don't know it's name in french.

[quote name='Tesheiner' date='Jun 6 2006, 10:02 PM' post='57293']
Still OT: Is that the "Brecha de Rolando" (*) at the far distance?
(*) Sorry, don't know it's name in french.

You've got it right : Brêche de Roland...so we can see Spain on the other side. There start el "Parque Nacional de Ordessa y del Monte Perdido", which is my favorite place in the World (!). Have you been there Tesheiner ?
Altogther both PN belong to "Unesco Patrimony".

Twice at Ordesa , but my mountaineer skills are quite limited.

That dripping sound you hear is all the geologists drooling.

[quote name='Tesheiner' date='Jun 6 2006, 10:17 PM' post='57300']
Twice at Ordesa , but my mountaineer skills are quite limited.

If you've got hicking wills, you've got to try a third time with me : you choose the route , I bring you there

I think we're losing it here, guys. Call in the Topic Police.

anyway I prefer Andorra....

Kenny

I think we're losing it here, guys. Call in the Topic Police.

You're right Kenny. Only trouble is : Bobby opened up the topic and now he's changing his name
We're nearly off for a new parralax measurement by Tesheiner... you'll see soon enough that Beacon is on Gavarnie, Monte Perdido, Ordessa, Andora, Far RIM

To paraphrase our Near Rim Mascot:
"Paralax, Shmaralax, as long as I'm rich."

Sounds like Tom Lehrer on Wernher v Braun to me...

In recognition of things Danish, perhaps these lines from The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark summarize my view on the near / far beacon debate:

Look here, upon this picture, and on this,
The counterfeit presentment of two brothers.
See, what a grace was seated on this brow;
Hyperion's curls; the front of Jove himself;
An eye like Mars, to threaten and command;
A station like the herald Mercury
New-lighted on a heaven-kissing hill;
A combination and a form indeed,
Where every god did seem to set his seal,
To give the world assurance of a man:

In other words -- far rim.

I think we far-rim folks need to start a chant to welcome you

We are here!
We are here!
We are here.....

Hortonheardawho must not step down of fence. You must be sitting on there along with others. The bet dayline is already in clock.

Rodolfo

Beezlenut Rah!
Beezlenut Rah!

Wrong answer...

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...indpost&p=57044

The fact the bet is closed doesn't mean anybody can't express their opinion , even a wrong one (far-rim) like in Horton's case.
Maybe those who place their bets too late should be allowed to be included on the respective team's cheerleaders.

[quote name='Tesheiner' date='Jun 8 2006, 11:23 AM' post='57522']
The fact the bet is closed doesn't mean anybody can't express their opinion , even a wrong one (far-rim) like in Horton's case.
Maybe those who place their bets too late should be allowed to be included on the respective team's cheerleaders.

That's FAIR, Tesh! Good on You. They even can come on board if somebody else get hurt in the team

Wrong answer...
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...indpost&p=57044
Whaouou, Ustrax use my opinion as THE reference! That's an honnor, thanks
You know that I'm ONLY right on two things :
1- Beacon is on the Far rim
2- Oppy will arrive at VC on Sol 935

Thanks both of You. I can see that Iberic's Peninsula play in the same team.

I join to far side!
money investments to bet!
Lordi is the winners of eurovision!

Since I have an evil streak, allow me to "stir the pot" a bit:

What if it turns out the fence sitters were right? Is it even possible that we are seeing one of the outcrops on the SIDE of Victoria? Has this been even considered in countless pages of discussion and I missed it?


(apologies to Tesh for copying from his route map)

That's not fair

I considered since the beginning of this madness that near rim also meant ~90° counter-clockwise and far rim beyond that.

There's no fence between near-far

Nico

I doubt that, because it's inconsistent with the angular separation between CC and the beacon we see on the pancams. The beacon would have to be some hundreds of pixels to the right of its current position to actually be on VC's side.



It's always a pleasure to see it being used elsewhere.

On the basis of the last 2 comments, I withdraw my previous suggestion! Huzzah!

I Propose to draw a line between Near and Fear so there won't have any cheats, fights, and kicks as does some Mundial Soccer players.

The idea is that the division line is 90 degree perpendicular to FOV view of Oppy and its line cut on halves of VC.

Click to view attachment

Now, it is Tesheiner's turn to rule it out!

Rodolfo

World Cup Informal Poll???

Sorry, Warmonger, the rules forbid discussions of religion in UMSF. Right, Doug?

Beware, Ducks, SpongeBob has spoken...

jo, jo, he needs to wear eyeglasses!

Rodolfo

Now, don't be mean, Rod. He's more convincing than most of the Far-rimmers.

Just some data based on sol 848 position:

Feature: Angular separation
===================
Corner Crater (CC): 3.75º
CC <> Beacon (if at near rim): 14.55º
CC <> Beacon (if at far rim): 13.25º

And from the pancams:

CC <> Beacon: 920 pixels = 14.4º (if pancam fov=16º), or 15.1º (if pancam fov=16.8º)

------

Now, choose you preferred position for the beacon, I'll stay with near rim. It should be about 80 pixels to the right in the pancam image if located at the far rim.

Click to view attachment
The Knights who say "Near"

PS: Once the rover moves another 100-150m southwards I'll make another update of this pics.

Is that yellow guy your best weapon to defeat the solid Near Rim standing?...



You're done...

..............helpless giggling........Ustrax!...........madman.......

Ustrax, you are the best!

LOL!!!

Unfortunately, your angular separation analysis is flawed. All you have shown is that there is a low area on the near rim through which the far rim walls can show. We have actually been seeing different sections of that far rim wall as we progressed. Haven't you noticed how the beacon fluctuates in brightness from sol to sol, and sometimes disappears?? That is because we are seeing different sections of the far rim each time, each with differing levels of reflectivity. That the beacon appears to be "above" everything else is just an optical illusion as a result of distance and vertical stretching. Of course, I can't prove this scientifically, but my gut is feeling good (umm, I suppose that could be the tacos).

Stick together Team Sponge, we shall prevail!

Brian

Has anyone detected a beleaguered air wafting from the far rim?
Praise the Lord and pass the tacos!

I may be too late for the actual voting, but let me suggest that near-rimmers face reality - the beacon is on “The Far Side”.

With apologies to Gary Larson.

Right on BrianL My gut is feeling lousy though -early in the morning and already too much coffee

Nico

Sure, I've seen that change of brightness whenever the pancam shoots were taken with different exposure time.
And yes, you are right; it disappeared on last pancams (sol 849). Oh... forgot to say it's just out of the fov.





Remember everybody. This image below is just an optical illusion; the beacon is not above everything else.
Click to view attachment



---
Click to view attachment
The Knights who say "Near"

I don't think anyone has yet offered any rebuttal of the image I posted here, where it can be seen that the beacon does in fact move relative to the near rim due to parallax. If the beacon was on the near rim, it would be stationary against the near rim features.

Heck, Pando, them Nearrimmers have gone from tilting at windmills to

Thanks for repeating Pando. I somehow missed that the first time. I believe it's the most compelling evidence I've seen yet.

One rebuttal comin' up! The features near the beacon are a bit closer to us than beacon itself, so a bit of parallax is expected. There would be a lot more parallax for a far rim beacon.

At least... I think so, but I admit this is based on earlier views where Opportunity was driving pretty close to a straight line towards the area we are looking at, so not much parallax. Now we are moving significantly south of that line. Views of the beacon in the next few days should really start to distinguish these possibilities.

Phil

Thanks Phil!

I think this is what makes this situation so compelling - the near rim team have rulers on hand measuring the parallax shift to the n'th degree on blurry images, even though JPL has identified it otherwise. The far rim team has the look of Endurance crater firmly planted in their minds, and countering the parallax evidence with the "gap in the near rim" theory.

I think we shall see soon!

I didn't have to give a rebuttal, since I had already given a prebuttal a few days earlier in this post!

Exactly as Phil just said, I wrote there that some of the features we see extend quite a bit closer to us than the beacon, which sits right on the rim (see orbital imagery!). We're seeing this view heavily foreshortened.

But I did much more - I went ahead and calculated what the parallax shift would have been had the beacon been on the far rim. Answer: 65 pixels! So even though the other features are a bit vague, a parallax of 65 pixels would have been completely obvious! We haven't seen anything near 65 pixels of parallax.

JPL did say the outcrop was on the far rim, but I don't think this was the result of a detailed analysis, I think it was just an assumption. And a perfectly reasonable one at the time.

Here's another assumption, not something I can prove (yet). We can see that Victoria sits on the edge of a boad shallow depression. Its north rim is low, its south rim is high. I am assuming that Victoria is tilted, not just north to south, but also east to west. I suspect the far rim will turn out to be a lot lower than the near rim.

Phil

Could you clarify this Phil? The far rim is the south rim!

I'm still keen to get a proper full look at Victoria. The last shots we've had of the low (eastern) part make it clear that we're not seeing the entire picture yet - that low side is still partly obscured by the foreground.

I'm actually worried a bit that we may never get a good, complete look at Vicky. The terrain around and up to the rim is so close to flat (remember that what we see is horribly foreshortened and often vertically exagerated!) with a rim just a few metres above the plains, but a diameter close to a km.

But clearly there's relief inside Vicky. That'll be a view to write home about!

Maybe the MER team could do us a favor and take a series of images as the sun sets, towards Victoria? If the beacon disappears or darkens significantly before the near rim, we'll know it's far rim.

I think fredk already gave you an answer. Just add that ok, the images are blurry, the beacon may be just 1-3 pixels (not anymore ), but you must take into account that the difference on its expected position at near or far rim is currently about 80 pixels... and the pancams are definitely not that blurry.

"Could you clarify this Phil? The far rim is the south rim!"

Sorry. We are approaching Victoria from the NW, looking SE at it from our current position. What I mean is, the SW rim of Victoria is higher than the NW rim, which is clearly down in a depression. I'm suggesting the far rim - which is the SE rim on an orbital view - is maybe lower as well, and totally invisible from our current position. In fact it would take quite a feat of geometry to keep a far rim beacon just visible over the near rim all the way from where it was first seen to now.

Phil