Around the First Mars Probe

A river running into an ancient lake, is about where the first probe
landed, minus th boats, so far.

http://cmex.arc.nasa.gov/SiteCat/sitecat2/gusev1.htm

=DF=83--=B9=B9

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 02:19:31 -0600, ߃–– ¹¹ wrote:

A river running into an ancient lake, is about where the first probe
landed, minus th boats, so far.

http://cmex.arc.nasa.gov/SiteCat/sitecat2/gusev1.htm

߃--¹¹

Just had a look at the site. Looks interesting but, someone should
inform "Guzzy" that 1600 m is in fact just short of a mile (by 9 m) rather
than "(more than a mile)" as is shown on the web page.

Dat's Me wrote:

Just had a look at the site. Looks interesting but, someone should
inform "Guzzy" that 1600 m is in fact just short of a mile (by 9 m) rather
than "(more than a mile)" as is shown on the web page.

Well, I guess the author never figured out that a mile is 1.609344 kilometers.
Other than "talking down" to people as "Guzzy", the author made another
mistake. From looking at the altimetry maps, much of the floor of Gusev is
*more* than 1600 meters below the martian datum (the equivalent of a
"sea-level" reference on Mars). In fact, the crater floor at the Spirit
landing site might be closer to 1900 meters below the datum, so the site is a
little wrong there too (it sure isn't "zero", as the guy who wrote the silly
stuff on the site must have miscounted the 100 meter contour marks). The rim
of the crater varies in elevation from a hundred meters below the datum to as
high as 1000 meters above the datum, so Gusev's depth from rim to floor might
be as much as 2900 meters depending on where it is being measured from. It
might be nice if somebody actually took a close look at their own maps! Clear
skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 11th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 18-23, 2004, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

without looking at the picture, ill assume its more like a river BED leading
into a lake BED.
wolf

"ßf-- ¹¹" wrote in message
...
A river running into an ancient lake, is about where the first probe
landed, minus th boats, so far.

http://cmex.arc.nasa.gov/SiteCat/sitecat2/gusev1.htm

ßf--¹¹

"wolfhedd" wrote in alt.astronomy:

without looking at the picture, ill assume its more like a river BED
leading into a lake BED.
wolf

So minus the STRANDED boats, I understand.

--
CeeBee


"I am not a crook"

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 05:01:35 -0600, David Knisely wrote:


Well, I guess the author never figured out that a mile is 1.609344
kilometers.

I was going to school during the transition to metric in Australia, so I
found knowing the conversion factor (to 3 decimal places at least) very
handy.

On the other hand, as far as I'm aware, the US hasn't converted to the
metric system (though I hear & see/read it being used to some degree
lately) so, I'm inclined to be understanding of mistakes like the one that
was made, though I thought it worth correcting. I will add, after the
debacle with the lost probe/orbiter (whatever it was - not worth looking
up for this purpose), you would think that NASA would ensure that anyone
publishing anything under it's name would be sure to get the
imperial/metric conversions correct.

Other than "talking down" to people as "Guzzy", the author made another

"Guzzy" has its place, there are plenty of people (especially children)
who would respond well to that concept.

mistake. From looking at the altimetry maps, much of the floor of Gusev
is *more* than 1600 meters below the martian datum (the equivalent of a
"sea-level" reference on Mars). In fact, the crater floor at the Spirit
landing site might be closer to 1900 meters below the datum, so the site
is a little wrong there too (it sure isn't "zero", as the guy who wrote
the silly stuff on the site must have miscounted the 100 meter contour
marks). The rim of the crater varies in elevation from a hundred meters
below the datum to as high as 1000 meters above the datum, so Gusev's
depth from rim to floor might be as much as 2900 meters depending on where
it is being measured from. It might be nice if somebody actually took a
close look at their own maps! Clear skies to you.

Strewth! One begins to wonder how accurate the rest of the information
is.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:47:37 +1000, Dat's Me (With foot in mouth) wrote:

On the other hand, as far as I'm aware, the US hasn't converted to the
metric system (though I hear & see/read it being used to some degree
lately) so, I'm inclined to be understanding of mistakes like the one that
was made, though I thought it worth correcting. I will add, after the
debacle with the lost probe/orbiter (whatever it was - not worth looking
up for this purpose), you would think that NASA would ensure that anyone
publishing anything under it's name would be sure to get the
imperial/metric conversions correct.

After doing a bit of checking: The item lost was worth looking up.

Was a mars orbiter & was lost around 1999. The "Guzzy" pages were written
in 1997.

David Knisely wrote in message ...
Dat's Me wrote:

Just had a look at the site. Looks interesting but, someone should
inform "Guzzy" that 1600 m is in fact just short of a mile (by 9 m) rather
than "(more than a mile)" as is shown on the web page.

Well, I guess the author never figured out that a mile is 1.609344 kilometers.
Other than "talking down" to people as "Guzzy", the author made another
mistake. From looking at the altimetry maps, much of the floor of Gusev is
*more* than 1600 meters below the martian datum (the equivalent of a
"sea-level" reference on Mars). In fact, the crater floor at the Spirit
landing site might be closer to 1900 meters below the datum, so the site is
a little wrong there too (it sure isn't "zero", as the guy who wrote the
silly stuff on the site must have miscounted the 100 meter contour marks).
The rim of the crater varies in elevation from a hundred meters below the
datum to as high as 1000 meters above the datum, so Gusev's depth from rim
to floor might be as much as 2900 meters depending on where it is being
measured from. It might be nice if somebody actually took a close look at
their own maps!

Oh, get real! Nobody "miscounted the 100 meter contour marks." It
started out as 1900 m or even some more precise number. That became
"more than a mile." The "1600 m" figure on the web page is merely a
conversion of that last measurement, expressed first because of an
editorial decision to always list the metric value first. It's about
as good a conversion as you can get--the only other reasonable
alternative would be "about 2 km." The original measurement likely
wasn't readily available at the time the latter conversion was made.
Furthermore, it would be silly to expect the editors to go back to the
original data and remeasure everything themselves before publishing
it.

This is simply an illustration of the simple fact that whenever you
need to do a conversion, you lose something. Sometimes you lose some
of the original precision; other times you lose the sense of the
original precision, when the result of the conversion is expressed to
too many places.

Gene Nygaard

actually i was talking to bill, theres no water, so its not a lake, but a
lake bed... lol.
i got it, lol.
just didnt understand the last part, "im not a crook" who said you were.
wolf

"CeeBee" wrote in message
. 6.84...
"wolfhedd" wrote in alt.astronomy:

without looking at the picture, ill assume its more like a river BED
leading into a lake BED.
wolf

So minus the STRANDED boats, I understand.

--
CeeBee


"I am not a crook"

"wolfhedd" wrote in alt.astronomy:

just didnt understand the last part, "im not a crook" who said you were.


It's my sig. That's why it's below the dotted line.

http://www.historychannel.com/speech...peech_209.html

--
CeeBee


"I am not a crook"