Thread created for posting MSL route maps and map updates.
Comments / suggestions adding value to the route maps are allowed, but discussions regarding the route itself and "future" paths are not. Use the currently active thread for the latter.

Eduardo Tesheiner
Moderator
-----

Here's an updated map of activities near the landing site and the start of a map of the route to Glenelg. I may get one more step added to this before I have to take a break Aug. 31 to Sept 16, and I will resume it after that. Details will be revised as necessary as we go.

Phil

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

I would just like to add - don't necessarily think of this as 'my' thread. I would be delighted to see other visualizations of the route, topo maps and other base maps from anyone else (not representations of future routes, but certainly other ways to visualize what has been done).

And to repeat something i said on the previous thread, I am forced to take a break from this from now until 16 September. I will update on the 17th or as soon as possible after that, and then frequently after that.

Phil

Copy that, Phil!

Course tracing plots from everyone are of course welcome, and all I can say is please follow Eduardo's guidance in the first post of this thread. This is to be our one-stop source for MSL's position on the surface as Eduardo so generously has done for the MERs.

I'll just be the evil robot lurking around...watching...

While I will not be able to reliably update a route map, I'd be interested in contributing by creating carefully scaled photographic base maps on which other members of the community could help by plotting points, and providing a place for those to live on planetary.org. However, I'm not quite sure how to do this in a way that others will be able to use. If I were doing this by myself, I'd make the maps in Adobe Illustrator, but I suspect I'm one of the few people here who uses it or has access to it. I can save Illustrator files as editable PDFs, or as EPS files -- if I did it that way, would others be able to contribute by adding points and segments using whatever software you have access to? I would insist on doing it in some piece of vector graphics software so that the maps could be scaled.

Emily, how about using Google Mars KML? It can be edited as a file and posted here as an attachment, and you could update it periodically in the planetary.org site.

However, I don't know how accurate the current imagery at Google Mars is.

Just a thought.

I had to deal with this problem when I took the decision to create the KMLs for Opportunity. I wanted to avoid the need to update each and every position plot on the route overlay in case of an update to the map background e.g. in case a more accurate one was provided -- remember when we were creating the tiles to cover the ground up to Endeavour? --

What I did and still do is to keep all the rover positions registered in (x, y) coordinates to a reference HiRISE image. When creating the KML layer, the process automatically converts those ones to lat / long with the help of some "control points" (e.g. bright patches, little craters) I chose near the route path. If the GE background changes I only need to adjust the lat / long of those control points and re-run the KML generation process. This method was *very* helpful when the maps at Opportunity site were updated by NASA / AMES. Remember the two versions of KML files I kept some time ago?

That makes sense. How did you do that? Is your route map simply a spreadsheet of X,Y locations in pixels that you convert into KML language?

Well, it's more than that.
But, yes, one of the columns is the (x, y) position on a reference map. Those are "automagically" converted to lat / long (another column) and the whole spreadsheet is parsed by a VB macro which creates the KML file.

Just testing...
Click to view attachment

Still testing... now with sol 24.
Click to view attachment

Hy Tesheiner. I used to follow your updates of Opportunity route maps for years now. I find them fascinating and very easy to consult with the "grid" that allow us to compare the distances between each drive, much more than Google Mars KLM's. Forgive me to be unaware on this, but what you need to do such maps for the Curiosity journey?

Looks good for a test Tesheiner.

A good image of the terrain (this may be a good one) and spare time to setup the photoshop like environment.
Patience, my little grasshopper.

Ok, thanks! I wonder if you would need some autorisation from JPL or something like this to uses some maps that they made. Insteed, I understand that you do all this stuff all by yourself Congratulations, it's a great job...which need TIME. Maybe you can take some holidays on Mars for to have some extra 38 minutes each day to do so.

I was a little bit lost after the two latest drives (sols 26 and 29) but this post pointing to the HiRISE picture taken of the rover tracks just made my day.
Here's an updated route map for Google Earth.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Glad to hear I was not alone

5 Sol 26 pictures in Google Earth Mars.......

All MSL Components +Rover tracks in Gale crater

.


Sol 26 + Rover tracks
.
Google Earth KMZ file....

VW, Thanks for that KML. Nothing I've seen better provides all the familiar images in their appropriate contexts. Very helpful to see just where everything is.

Wow! I really, really, like it.
And welcome to UMSF, verfkwast.

Here here! Excellent work verfkwast.

I like it.

.
Update Googlle earth Rover overlays
MSL Components +Rover tracks in Gale crater.......
All 5 images placed + ballast

.
for who wants more ...
Here's the 1st Full Crater Map for Google Earth
it makes Google Mars a great tool to have some fun with Gale Crater
.

]

needs 2 gb memory
& 600 mb diskspace
Update 12/9: Easy install
.

Downloaded. The pixel size is about 10m.

Hi Tesh - it's been a long time since I have been able to visit here - and so glad to see that you're keeping up a good route-map! As usual.

I'll be looking forward to your latest update on where this new rover is. Thanks much!

I'm waaaay behind on the new interface, so hope my first post in years 'makes it'...

Here's my attempt at locating MSL on sol 38.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

I'll take a stab at Sol 41 based on the latest Navcams:

Click to view attachment

And a thumbtack:

Click to view attachment
Hopefully, I got it right...

Mark

Route map update...

I am fairly happy with all locations except the last one, which is very preliminary - originally I had it further south but I like Markril's estimate. All features of the map may be updated retroactively from time to time.

Phil

Click to view attachment

EDIT:

Looks like the last drive should be a bit shorter, and the one before a bit longer... I will be adding a scaled grid to this later.

Thanks guys for the mapping effort. As I said in the other thread, the limited amount of available full resolution navcams all around the rover must make mapping challenging.

I put that track into Google Earth--here's the overall view of the track as seen from a point about 25 meters above the landing spot:

Click to view attachment

Even from that vantage, Glenelg is slightly below the horizon. The ground image is the slope map. The track appears to go through some rougher terrain, so maybe it went around that a bit? Green is 12.5°-25° slope (no traverse on sand, some slip on bedrock).


Here's the ground-level view from the terminal point:

Click to view attachment

The pushpin for Glenelg is just peeking over the rise, so maybe it's not quite visible yet? GE elevation is based on MOLA and the "ground level" observation point in this case is from a height of 1.75 meters.

Beeline range to Glenelg is about 190 meters, 170 meters to the landing site.

KMZ file:

Click to view attachment

Revised route map for sol 41 - I had to revise the sol 40 point, which was difficult to match with HiRISE.

Phil

Click to view attachment

Here's an estimate for Sol 42. It's easier to identify some of these ground features when viewing in 3D.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Mark

I got the same location!

Phil

Click to view attachment

Could you add a scale bar to the route map? That would be really helpful in understanding it.

Not to worry Hanno, Phil has promised that. BTW welcome to UMSF.com seeing it is your first post!

I'll get to it, but it helps to recall from the JPL news updates that the longer drive segments are generally about 30-35 m long.

My intention is to work on these maps at a standard scale with a 100 m grid superimposed. For areas with a lot of activity in a small area I will make more detailed maps at a larger scale, with a scale bar. The current map is between the two scales and I'm working on a different version for later, but right now I want to keep using this high contrast enlarged HiRISE base.

Phil

I know I have been assuming standard map orientation with North up, West to the left, etc., etc. Assuming the HiRISE image was taken in the afternoon, that would be consistent with the lighting.

Obviously, if we need to slew a map around for ease of demonstrating a particular route (as I can imagine may be needful when we get around to things like driving up a drywash cut canyonlike into the lower mound), it would be nice to see a compass rose somewhere, just for general orientation... and to help people like me find things when someone says "it's just west of the Sol 24 position."

-the other Doug

Here's my version of route map for Google Earth / Mars.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

Phil, slight differences on the sol locations aside, I see that the route on your map have a rotation of a few degrees (five?) when compared to mine and the same happens to the HiRISE background. I'm using the map-projected version of ESP_028401_1755 as a reference to register the polar mosaics and which is presumed to have North up. What do you think?

I'm using a map-projected image as well, but a pre-landing one chosen to be almost vertical (I don't have the file name with me right now). The incidence angle might cause an apparent rotation on sloping ground. And map projection might be based on a different central meridian or based on a preliminary ephemeris.

Phil

Definitly true in my case, once I created a Anaglyph and compared it to Marks visual explanation. (see below)

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&id=28176

I hope this down and dirty Anaglyph provides some context for other people.


Click to view attachment

What I am not certain about is that this view is toward the NE. Also that mid distance could be described as a view of the northern portion of Glenelg. If I was a sailor I would describe my method as dead reckoning. I am not going to have time for much else. Back when Spirit was climbing Husband Hill I dead reckoned myself down and about 50 meters back out onto the plains before I was totally convinced I was completely lost!

Jack

EDIT Changed SE to NE.
Thank you markril!

FWIW, I've been using the orthoimages from this DTM page:

http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/dtm/dtm.php?ID=PSP_010573_1755

Specifically:

PSP_010573_1755_RED_A_01_ORTHO
PSP_010639_1755_RED_A_01_ORTHO

They are map-projected, but are also adjusted using the DTM data to be a view looking directly down.

Mark

P.S. Jack, that view is looking NE...

Could rover shadows be used to get a rough fix? For example this shot:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/ra...0427M_&s=42

NASA does mark the UTC time of the shots (one of the few bits of shooting conditions given), in this case 2012-09-18 09:38:11 UTC. An ephemeris program shows that the sun at the MSL site at that time was at 25.1° elevation and 275.1° azimuth, so the shadow of a vertical gnomon would be at 95°. Here's the image with the camera boresight and the approximate location of the right navcam shadow marked with red dots:

Click to view attachment

The separation between the dots is 392 pixels horizontally and 188 vertically. The navcams are specced at 0.0468° per pixel, so that's 18° in azimuth and 9° in elevation. So an estimate of the direction of the camera boresight is 95° - 18° = 77° azimuth and -25° + 9° = -16° elevation--assuming the mast is vertical, using plane geometry, level ground, etc. As a rough check, there are about 384 pixels (16.4°) from the boresight to the horizon, which works out to pretty close to 0°.

AARG! I am cursed. I really meant to write NE or ENE. The general direction to a region north of the Glenelg. The red dot on the JPL graphic PIA16148.
I have the PIA1648 graphic on my desktop! I have MSL's location on sol 42 marked on that graphic! I am pretty certain that North is up in that graphic! That is generally the direction I thought I was looking. But that is not what I wrote!


Click to view attachment

This is the (approximate) direction that I think is shown in images NXA_401232890EDR_F0041632NCAM00427M_.JPG

My boss and sundial fanatic Bill Nye would love this Stellar fixes of one kind or another always seem to be the ultimate aid to navigation!

I saw Bill Nye's presentation at PlanetFest where he talked about his father being a dialist (S.O.D.--sundial obsessive disorder). It was a charming talk. I had to laugh at his description of the "furniture" on dials like the obligatory motto, particularly his example of a French motto: "every hour injures, the last one kills." Ouch. MSL rejects French fatalism: "To Mars, To Explore."

One sol at a time...

So not cartesians cartographers

Roy

My background image is PSP_010639_1755, map projected but not an ortho-image. As it is close to vertical the differences should be small.

Phil

This is the standard format for the basemap I will be working with (subject to modification). It has a 100 m labelled grid which deals with the scale and orientation issues (but not uncertainty over the map orientation as noted above).

On a sol by sol basis I will update just the enlarged view, in a window which will follow the rover. From time to time I will update this view in fixed windows with small overlaps. Large scale plans will be made where needed. All this is for a future project, so you are getting a preview of it. Routes will be updated from actual rover tracks as the HiRISE images become available.

Phil

Click to view attachment

Phil, I'm no expert in image projections but I wonder if the differences will be noticeable once we start climbing. If so, the orthos are publicly available and I can point you to them. I really like your map and if you want to port it to the orthos it might be easier to do it now that we have done only a handful of drives than later on.

Paolo

Thanks, Paolo. I have the orthos, but did not use them in this flat area. The guilty secret of orthos is that the reprojection results in a loss of crispness, and I wanted to see every tiny detail in the original image so I could relate the panoramas to the surface details. In hilly terrain I will switch to orthos.

When I map a surface location I am trying to locate it with respect to features in the background image, not to calculated x,y coordinates. So differences in a map projection or ortho projection may result in different x,y positions, but the actual surface location should match up properly.



Phil

Sol 43 update.

Phil

Click to view attachment