Photogrammetric analysis of horizon panoramas: The Pathfinder landing site in Viking orbiter images

Abstract

Abstract.Tiepoint measurements, block adjustment techniques, and sunrise/sunset pictures were used to obtain precise pointing data with respect to

The shape of Mars before Global Surveyor: Results from reanalysis of the Viking control point network

“…With the availability of a new global topographic data set in the foreseeable future, it seemed worthwhile to reanalyze the currently available data now to establish our current state of knowledge on the global shape of Mars. While the method and general results of the control point analysis are discussed in previous papers Oberst et al, 1999;Ohlhof et al, 1999], here, we report on the topographic information in the control point data and discuss science issues pertaining to the planet's shape.…”

Removal of topographic effects from lunar images using Kaguya (LALT) and Earth-based observations

“…For instance, photogrammetry cannot be practically applied to telescopic images of the Moon acquired from Earth, as the viewing geometry weakly varies for the Moon. However, this method has been used to retrieve the topographic information on different planets from images obtained during space missions (e.g., Connors, 1995;Oberst et al, 1999;Cook and Robinson, 2000;Herrick and Sharpton, 2000). Attempts have been made to recover the albedo distribution on a surface from images using the photometric stereo approach (e.g., Chen et al, 2002).…”

Mars Descent Imager (MARDI) on the Mars Polar Lander

“…Tying these positions to the surface requires correlation with planetary geodetic networks, which are often inaccurate to hundreds if not thousands of meters [e.g., Zeitler and Oberst, 1999]. Surface imaging of features also visible from orbit can be used to pinpoint lander positions to a few tens of meters or better [e.g., Golombek et al, 1997;Oberst et al, 1999], provided that such features are found. However, if the orbiter image resolution is insufficient to see features visible to the lander, or the local, meter-scale relief is too great (so the lander cannot see very far), or the surface is relatively featureless, or the surface has many features but they all look the same, then the lander cannot be located, or its location may be misidentified.…”

“…However, despite good inertial position measurements during landing and good radiometric tracking data both during the descent and for a number of weeks thereafter, the homogeneously rugged local relief, nearly featureless horizon, and the lack of spatially variable landforms in the 40 m/pixel orbiter images defeated all attempts to determine the location of the VL-2 to better than 10 km [e.g., Stooke, 1998]. Recently, the location of VL-1, previously considered well established [Morris et al, 1978;Morals, 1980], has been called into question owing to inconsistencies with the indisputable location of Pathfinder [Stooke, 1999;Oberst et al, 1999]. Such uncertainties, raised decades after Viking landed, simply illustrate the degree of difficulty in identifying landing locations through indirect means.…”

“…Through a combination of 20-40 m/pixel, relatively low-Sun orbiter photography, excellent radiometric tracking from Earth over a long period of time combined with good inertial position measurements during landing, and fortuitously landing near craters and hills large enough to be seen on the horizon in lander images, Pathfinder was located to within about 40-50 m [Golombek et al, 1997; Oberst et al, 1999]. However, despite good inertial position measurements during landing and good radiometric tracking data both during the descent and for a number of weeks thereafter, the homogeneously rugged local relief, nearly featureless horizon, and the lack of spatially variable landforms in the 40 m/pixel orbiter images defeated all attempts to determine the location of the VL-2 to better than 10 km [e.g., Stooke, 1998].…”