Starship Asterisk*

Everest Panorama from Mars

Explanation: If you could stand on Mars -- what might you see? Scroll right to find out. The robotic Spirit rover that rolled around Mars from 2004 to 2009 Mars climbed to the top of a hill in 2005 and took a series of images over three days that were then digitally combined into a 360 degree panorama. Spirit was instructed to take images having the same resolution as a human with 20-20 eyesight. The full panoramic result can be found by clicking on the above image and has a level of detail unparalleled in the history of Martian surface photography. The panorama was taken from the pinnacle of Husband Hill and has been dubbed the Everest panorama, in honor of the view from the tallest mountain on Earth. Visible in Gusev Crater are rocks, rusting sand, a Martian sundial, vast plains, nearby peaks, faraway peaks, and sand drifts. In the distance, fast moving dust devils can be seen as slight apparitions of red, green, or blue, the colors of filters used to build up this natural color vista.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

APOD Robot wrote:Spirit was instructed to take images having the same resolution as a human with 20-20 eyesight.

Spirit took images at the native resolution of its camera- one arcminute per pixel. Normal visual acuity is often considered to be about an arcminute, although it is difficult to determine any value very precisely, since our acuity depends a great deal on the nature of what we are seeing.

And a girl behind every tree....

Maybe more Green House Gases....

Man what a view....

If Bob and Bing were still around, they could do..."The Road To Mars"...with Dorothy.

Wonder if Spirit has AAA....

Really nice panorama.

:---[===] *

Praytell what's the approx distance to the far away peaks (brim?)

--
Czerno
NOT longing for a trip to Mars...

Spirit reminds me of "The Little Engine That Could". What a great view it provided! I can imagine the briefing to the Mission Project Team: She'll only last a month, so make your plans accordingly.

Czerno o wrote:
Praytell what's the approx distance to the far away peaks (brim?)

--
Czerno
NOT longing for a trip to Mars...

The wall brims of Thira crater about 20km away.

The wall of Gusev crater (about 80km away)
is lost in the Martian haze.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thira_%28crater%29 wrote:

---

What on earth, or rather on Mars, is the nearly perfect square near the centre of the picture when it is scrolled to extreme right? Is it a vehicle track/ "triumphal gate/ artefact? And if artefact, how do you explain it?

4321lynx wrote:What on earth, or rather on Mars, is the nearly perfect square near the centre of the picture when it is scrolled to extreme right? Is it a vehicle track/ "triumphal gate/ artefact? And if artefact, how do you explain it?

Not sure what else you could be referring to but these are very clearly vehicle tracks.

Two things strike me about this landscape panorama. One....it appears utterly lifeless and its starkness stands in contrast to the lush and biologically rich planet we live on. Two....what an incredible engineering feat it is to launch, land and sustain these probes. I'm in awe. Regarding its lifelessness I have to remind myself that even on earth the terrestrial landscape was similarly lifeless until after the Cambrian. Until that point all life on our planet evolved exclusively in the oceans. In that context the hope for finding evidence of life on Mars seems doomed because of its extremely thin atmosphere and absence of liquid water.

rgendler wrote:
Two things strike me about this landscape panorama. One....it appears utterly lifeless and its starkness stands in contrast to the lush and biologically rich planet we live on. Two....what an incredible engineering feat it is to launch, land and sustain these probes. I'm in awe. Regarding its lifelessness I have to remind myself that even on earth the terrestrial landscape was similarly lifeless until after the Cambrian. Until that point all life on our planet evolved exclusively in the oceans. In that context the hope for finding evidence of life on Mars seems doomed because of its extremely thin atmosphere and absence of liquid water.

OTOH, consider all those billions of icy moons out there heated by tidal forces with life evolving under the sea.

neufer wrote:

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

rgendler wrote:
Two things strike me about this landscape panorama. One....it appears utterly lifeless and its starkness stands in contrast to the lush and biologically rich planet we live on. Two....what an incredible engineering feat it is to launch, land and sustain these probes. I'm in awe. Regarding its lifelessness I have to remind myself that even on earth the terrestrial landscape was similarly lifeless until after the Cambrian. Until that point all life on our planet evolved exclusively in the oceans. In that context the hope for finding evidence of life on Mars seems doomed because of its extremely thin atmosphere and absence of liquid water.

OTOH, consider all those billions of icy moons out there heated by tidal forces with life evolving under the sea.

Sure...anythings possible. I'm not a planetary geologist but maybe someone here knows the answer. If a planet (or moon) lacks suffient means (magnetosphere) to hold on to an atmosphere, it's liquid water would also evaporate quickly. Could an ice covered liquid water ocean exist under these conditions?
http://www.iflscience.com/space/without ... -be-doomed

rgendler wrote:

neufer wrote:
OTOH, consider all those billions of icy moons out there heated by tidal forces with life evolving under the sea.

Sure...anythings possible. I'm not a planetary geologist but maybe someone here knows the answer. If a planet (or moon) lacks suffient means (magnetosphere) to hold on to an atmosphere, it's liquid water would also evaporate quickly. Could an ice covered liquid water ocean exist under these conditions?

http://www.iflscience.com/space/without ... -be-doomed

A planet large enough to have tidal heated liquid ocean icy moons would probably sport a strong enough magnetosphere to protect those moons.

Fabulous picture that brought to mind Arthur C. Clarke's short story 'Transit Of Earth'.

rgendler wrote:Sure...anythings possible. I'm not a planetary geologist but maybe someone here knows the answer. If a planet (or moon) lacks suffient means (magnetosphere) to hold on to an atmosphere, it's liquid water would also evaporate quickly. Could an ice covered liquid water ocean exist under these conditions?

You mean like Europa? It could very well have liquid oceans beneath its ice.

Even without a magnetosphere, a planet might have an atmosphere for a billion years or more, like Mars. Plenty of time for life to develop. And every planet has a finite habitable lifetime.

Chris Peterson wrote:

rgendler wrote:Sure...anythings possible. I'm not a planetary geologist but maybe someone here knows the answer. If a planet (or moon) lacks suffient means (magnetosphere) to hold on to an atmosphere, it's liquid water would also evaporate quickly. Could an ice covered liquid water ocean exist under these conditions?

You mean like Europa? It could very well have liquid oceans beneath its ice.

Even without a magnetosphere, a planet might have an atmosphere for a billion years or more, like Mars. Plenty of time for life to develop. And every planet has a finite habitable lifetime.

It seems certain that any habitable planet will have its periods of extreme stress (mass extinction events). These have been crucial for the evolution of higher life forms on Earth. That said there's a very big difference between a planet like Earth which has periodically brought its biosphere to the brink and back, and a planet like Mars which may have brought its biosphere "over" the brink to a premature end. I have no evidence but if I had to wager I'd say that for every earth-like planet capable of sustaining life for billions of years..........there may be millions if not billions of Mars type planets which could not sustain life and squashed it before it could leave the crib.

rgendler wrote:It seems certain that any habitable planet will have its periods of extreme stress (mass extinction events). These have been crucial for the evolution of higher life forms on Earth. That said there's a very big difference between a planet like Earth which has periodically brought its biosphere to the brink and back, and a planet like Mars which may have brought its biosphere "over" the brink to a premature end.

What is "premature"? Of course, we don't know how easily life forms, but if Earth is taken as an example, there's no reason to think it couldn't have formed on Mars, and existed there for quite a long while (potentially until now, although that's not what I'm talking about). Conditions on Earth will only be suitable for life for another billion years or so- billions of years before our Sun burns out. Will the loss of our biosystem be seen as premature?

Without worrying about the actual probability of life forming, I'd be inclined to simply recognize that the habitable period of a small world is likely to be shorter than that of a larger one, at least for surface and near-surface life.

APOD wrote:

> Everest panorama, in honor of the view from the tallest mountain on Earth

Sorry, but no. The tallest mountain on Earth is Mauna Kea.

You remember me from last time this subject came up.

The highest mountain on Earth is not Everest, either.

Cheers!

Yahchanan

We need a windmill icon.

yahchaanan wrote:APOD wrote:

> Everest panorama, in honor of the view from the tallest mountain on Earth

Sorry, but no. The tallest mountain on Earth is Mauna Kea.

You remember me from last time this subject came up.

The highest mountain on Earth is not Everest, either.

There are, of course, different and equally valid definitions of "highest" when referring to mountains. Mauna Kea is only the highest in one sense, as is Everest.

yahchaanan wrote:APOD wrote:

> Everest panorama, in honor of the view from the tallest mountain on Earth

Sorry, but no. The tallest mountain on Earth is Mauna Kea.

You remember me from last time this subject came up.

The highest mountain on Earth is not Everest, either.

Cheers!

Yahchanan

Picky, picky! You're forgetting relativity. Mountain heights are commonly measured relative to sea level, because it gives the best indication of the kind of atmosphere at the peak. (Actually, I just made up that reason, but it sounds about right.) I've never heard of mountain climbers scaling Maunu Kea from its base on the sea floor, or Chimborazo from the centre of the Earth. However, some have scaled Everest from sea level. I have also heard that Denali is the hardest climb, both because of its height from base to peak and its very high latitude. One used to be able to drive to the top of Mount Kosciuszko, but they closed the final part of the road a few decades ago, perhaps to make it seem higher, or perhaps because of environmental concerns.

> There are, of course, different and equally valid definitions of "highest" when referring to mountains. Mauna Kea is only the highest in one sense, as is Everest.

I did not say anything about how "high" Mauna Kea is. Please do not mix terms.

When one says the "highest mountain on Earth", "highest" has to refer to the distance from the center of the Earth. Everest is wonderful, but it is not as high as Chimborazo. When referring to Everest as the highest, one should qualify the statement by pointing out the sense that it is 'merely' the "highest above sea level". Similar to the way you qualify the ages old question "what is the highest place in Florida?"

But this time the conversation is about the "tallest". "Tallest" has to refer to the elevation from the base to the summit. There is really no question. Only Mauna Loa comes close to being as tall as Mauna Kea.

Incidentally, Mauna Loa is the "largest" mountain on Earth. "Largest" has to refer to volume.

No?

Yahchanan

yahchanan wrote:No?

Yes and no.

This time no one came in and condemned us for using the word Everest to describe the mountain. Any takers?

And maybe that windmill icon could be tilted.

yahchanan wrote:I did not say anything about how "high" Mauna Kea is.

Tall, high, and large are all synonyms, depending on context.

The meaning of the caption usage is clear, and I certainly wouldn't argue there is anything wrong with it.