Around the First Mars Probe

Gene Nygaard posted:

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.

The MOLA data on the altimetry of Gusev has been available since 1999. The
web page could have been easily updated. The "more than a mile deep" to 1.6
kilometers isn't the problem. Its that this page is just too old.
--
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 *
**********************************************

its someitmes an easily overlooked calculation when concentrating on the
result. metric is used in alot of the modern world this is why, and because
the US will never change to metric, i believe because its a world power
point we have to prove for some reason or another. i personally like metric
too and im total american. very handy conversion within metric, for those
of you that use metric and not US, consider the hassle of converting this,
if you want something like 1.75 of a foot, well a foot is 12 inches so thats
(12inches)+3/4(12inches) what the hell is 3/4 times 12 without getting out a
calculator. 9. ok 9 plus 12, 21 inches is the answer, what a hassle. ok,
whats 1.75 times a metre, 1.75 times a metre, easy, 175.0 centimetres or
1.75 metres, or .00175 kilometer or .00175 millimeters too easy for the us
bonehead authority.
wolfhedd

"Dat's Me" wrote in message
news
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.