This is a little pan I put together from the last "end-of-day" image Pathfinder returned of Sojourner on Sol 80. Sol 81 would be the last day for which Sojourner would return images. Sol 76 saw the last data return form the forward looking cameras. The color data was stolen from other sols. Sol 83 would be the last day any data would be returned, and Sol 92 would be the last day any contact would be made. The remaining images on Sols 81-83 were of the windsocks.

Here is a mosaic of the last views from Sojourner, from the rear hazcam, sol 81.

Nice image.

I found an interesting, but quite impossible, project on course:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057032501

Image: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment....mp;d=1413833939

I downloaded the sketchup model, but it's actually so irregular and with so many holes that it looks quite impossible to fix it...
Is anybody aware of any other 3d model existing of Pathfinder landing site? Or any other Mars landing site?
It would be really amazing to have printed copies of various Mars landing sites on my shelf! :-)

Since those 3D models are made from views from the lander itself, they'll always have unfillable holes where rocks were hiding features behind them. (Except maybe for Phoenix, which was insanely flat; I imagine the same thing will be true of InSight.) So the only way to make nice 3D printable views is to artistically fill in those gaps. I've never done any 3D printing or modeling work so I have no idea how hard that would be to do!

Sojourner imaged a lot of those areas. Even the other side of Yogi.

This is data I've looked at myself - ( from here - http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/mpf/mpfl-...im_2xxx/extras/ ) - and making a nice coherent mesh without holes is a huge HUGE creative task.

It'll be a brave person to take it on

If anybody needs it, some time ago I created a model of the lander and rover which has a higher level of detail. Send me a PM if interested and I will clean and texture the model.

Very nice! Have you ever tried to print it?

I'd certainly like to have a look at the model, Sittingduck ( specifically with a view to 3d printing )

djellison and jgoldader, the model is definitely not ready for print as it stands.

I have a period of examinations which will end Nov 7, after which I can prepare the model for printing. I can also immediately supply a version as-is if you want to take a shot at preparing it yourself (dropbox link attached).

Ŧhere's plenty of 3d models of lander and rover around now, but none of them looks printable... even the ones defined "printable" on thingiverse!
I started working on printable MER months ago but then I abandoned the project, too long time required...Eventually having one really 3d printable model available would really cool.
I worked on rocker boogie suspensions: I successfully printed a very tiny model 5 cm wide on Shapeways, but it is fixed; I'd like to make a really working mechanism, it would be really cool!

I have been working on super resolution for a few years now, especially from the worst case... a single image

Here is the Mars Path Finder from HiRise as a GIF
The original is 3x
The super resolution is 3x

I re-oriented the image with the west as the top, sunlight is from the top, (to reduce eye/mind confusion)
The big rock 'Yogi' is to the right of the lander in this configuration.

I think you can see the shadow of the hi-gain antenna and the camera mast in the middle of the super structure of the lander (big white area) as well as the two ramps and an air bag sticking out of the lander in the top right


Click to view attachment

Amazing work!

For comparison:

Hires overhead image with 3d model overimposed:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA02652.jpg

What I find odd in this is that you can not really see any evidence of the +x and -x petals and airbags. ( The rover was deployed from the +y petal, the ASI boom deployed on the +X petal. If you can't see the ASI boom or rover ramps - you're looking at the -X petal.)

There's no contrast variation, but the petals are traceable if you look for texture variation.
Click to view attachment

Something like this?
Click to view attachment

Alex_k, most of what I see on that image is just small scale noise generated by processing.

You are processing the image at a higher resolution than the original.
So any "details" that become apparent but are below the original pixel size are just noise.
I'd recommend using a low pass filter on the end result to remove them.

Anyway, you can more or less trace the petal outlines by small changes on the noise pattern.
Makes sense because even if covered in dust, they are still smother that the surrounding soil.

Details of the lander become distinguishable, don't they?

Actually not a correct conclusion. Because neighbour pixels can also contain information, especially if a camera had a little disfocus. So it's possible to extract information from them - to acceptably approximate the "pixeled" image.

If to use a low-pass filter before processing we'll lose details.
You're right that there're some artifacts in the resulted image. They can be avoided by using a low-pass filter after processing.

Click to view attachment

Yes, low pass at the end, after all filters.

On this case, the best option would be contour filters and rainbow / spectrum palettes instead of grayscale.
Those bring out structure and small contrast variations without changing the original values.

Exaggerated filtering will give you false details due to pixel value rounding errors that then get amplified over and over.

This is small example. The word "detail" printed on a small font size.
Right top is 3x resample. The "t" starts to show a false curved appearance, but in general, resolution seem to improve.
But heavy filtering (right bottom) gets you ringing artefacts and just false details (for example, a thin line connecting the "a" to the dot on the "i" as appeared.).
Click to view attachment


Just my 2cents, just trying to help,

Of couse in general you are right. But it depends on the source image and filters to be appllied. "Over and over" without limitations will get pure noise.
Another question is about information in subpixels - can it be extracted and how.

upd: for testing the method I found appropriate pair of of images, low-res for processing and hi-res for comparing: http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/20.../Boulder_Cheops
Click to view attachment Click to view attachment
You can estimate whether the details false or not.

What is actually odd is that ANYthing is visible after 17 years. :-)
Only the airbag close to ramps is high enough to get dust off it naturally; the others are quite flat and so probably totally covered by dust.
In the enhanced gif one of them is also in shadow.

The backshell and parachute as well as the landers are visible from both Viking missions, now 37 years old.

Your suggestion that the piece we see is the only piece tall enough to get dust blown off it....

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA02652.jpg

The piece of airbag to the -Y side of the -X petal is SIGNIFICANTLY larger and taller than the piece by the +Y petal.

The reason that one piece stands out in HiRISE is because of the metallic foil tangled up in that piece of airbag.

I believe a similar piece is tangled up off the end of the +X petal - but one would need to be observing at a different time of day to get a glint off that ( and due to orbital mechanics, that's unlikely ).

Thanks guys, I am looking into the petal problem at the moment (good catch!) as it relates to this image

But like I said: its the worst case super-res possible: working from a single image.
As the Hirise camera sweeps the area, a single pixel will get contributions from many surrounding sub-pixel and super-pixel objects (some dark some brighter) as well as each particular pixel characteristic, the pixel read-out artifacts of the camera, point spread functions in the system, time of day shadows, and other messy issues. And only then do we get to work with the released images.

But I do aim to improve my process as time allows (and thanks for the feedback!)

There are at least two HiRISE images that cover the MPF lander - and one even got it in color ( and so is thus actually 3 images! )

I am on it Doug!

PDP8E, how is it possible to have super-resolution from a single image?

Or do you mean deconvolution techniques?

PDP8E, I really enjoyed your 'simulated' super-resolution image. From what I understand you're working to make a genuine multi-image super-resolution rendering of the Carl Sagan memorial station. I don't know how much work that involves, but I would like to ask you to consider creating similar image of the mpl heatshield and parachute/backshell as well. I ask because I combined color information with your previous super-resolution product and am pleased with the result, and think it would be worthwhile for the other pieces of hardware. Probably it is my imagination, but it almost looks like you can make out the golden-color of the ramps.

Hey 4th Rock, and SittingDuck

I call it super-res but you are right -- it really is super-deconvolution

I am working on the items you want SittingD, BTW your color image is superb!

More later!

Can the MRO ever get a much closer view of the craft?

No. HiRISE has a resolution of 25-30cm/pixel, and that's it.

Hello,

Does anyone know if these models of the terrain around Pathfinder are available anywhere today?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIDGdBHstxs

This is it.

This could be an interesting thread to follow

In 2001, I had the good fortune of seeing the NASA Ames simulation ATC tower's 360° screens used to provide a tour of the Pathfinder landing site. It felt like being in a flying room that moved about 10 meters around a central point and we could see the terrain shift in perspective just beneath our feet as we moved. That surely used this very same data.

Thank you very much! I've been looking for these for some time. Hopefully I can do something interesting with the data.

I'm looking forward to this... I've missed you sittingduck!

There were many problems with this 3D data unfortunately, not all that I could fix perfectly. Many gaps and misalignments. Two large breaks in the terrain prevented me from continuously turning to the East.

Here is the video of the Mars Pathfinder landing site:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPrtzkEq-To...eature=youtu.be

New paper suggests that Pathfinder explored a dry spillway between Mar's northern ocean and an inland sea-

The 1997 Mars Pathfinder Spacecraft Landing Site: Spillover Deposits from an Early Mars Inland Sea
J. A. P. Rodriguez, V. R. Baker, T. Liu, M. Zarroca, B. Travis, T. Hui, G. Komatsu, D. C. Berman, R. Linares, M. V. Sykes, M. E. Banks & J. S. Kargel

Scientific Reportsvolume 9, Article number: 4045 (2019)


https://www.psi.edu/news/pathfinderlandingsite]
A NASA Spacecraft May Have Explored the Edges of an Early Mars Sea in 1997://https://www.psi.edu/news/pathfinder...ars Sea in 1997://https://www.psi.edu/news/pathfinder...ars Sea in 1997://https://www.psi.edu/news/pathfinder...ars Sea in 1997


“Our paper shows a basin, with roughly the surface area of California, that separates most of the gigantic Martian channels from the Pathfinder landing site. Debris or lava flows would have filled the basin before reaching the Pathfinder landing site. The very existence of the basin requires cataclysmic floods as the channels’ primary formational mechanism” said Rodriguez.

Another bump-

Here's the Pathfinder / Sojourner landing site-






A 2016 paper raises the possibility the site is near or at the edge of a Martian tsunami debris field-

Tsunami waves extensively resurfaced the shorelines of an early Martian ocean
J. Alexis P. Rodriguez, Alberto G. Fairén, Kenneth L. Tanaka, Mario Zarroca, Rogelio Linares, Thomas Platz, Goro Komatsu, Hideaki Miyamoto, Jeffrey S. Kargel, Jianguo Yan, Virginia Gulick, Kana Higuchi, Victor R. Baker & Natalie Glines
Scientific Reports volume 6, Article number: 25106 (2016)
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep25106