Then it's a bit stupid posting it in a discussion forum. Perhaps it would be better suited to a personal blog.

And img2png works!

This is from Oct 2008 - a microlensing experiment looking at the galactic center - a mosaic of frames from the NAC

Larger version here : http://twitpic.com/5l855t/full

Ludicrously long data credit: : MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/RSSD/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA

On a Mac, apart from having to use the terminal to set some path variables before you use it - it's actually fairly easy. You can run it all from the terminal ( Mac version of a dos prompt ) or you can have actual programs for each app in turn.

Finished it not long after starting. It frustrates me - it's a book that spends page after page lamenting its own and its authors shortcomings. It focuses on things for which the author simply doesn't have the full picture, rather than focus on the things he claimed he wanted to focus on. It's bloggy and ranty in places. At full price, I was left disappointed. For $5 - yeah, it's worth picking up.

Doesn't need to be the same camera - just coordinate viewing angle and time of picture taking - and then we'll figure out the rest here

The HRSC team have already debunked that. IT's the result of a map projected on a serious of hot/dark pixels -
http://hrscview.fu-berlin.de/5620_0000_artefact.html
http://hrscview.fu-berlin.de/cgi-bin/ion-p...ATE=Update+view

Decepticon, on this very page of this very thread, an image released today has been linked to and is being discussed. You would almost have to be intentionally trying to miss it to not notice.

Yeah - this is the point when I wish we could have the images at their native resolution and without the enlargement that's being applied.

Every time a pointless debate of semantics begins, a baby seal pup gets clubbed to death

True story.

If you remove the stretch, then add the 1.5m height of the rover - then the problem goes away.

That's a symptom of the vertical axis being MASSIVELY exaggerated.

The simulated Vesta shape-file has made it into 'Eyes...'

http://twitpic.com/5ia7dv/full

Cunning combo of low-res poly model, and a normal map derived from the high res shape file (which had >700,000 polys!!)

This should get replaced over time as the science team produce new shape files.

How could that possibly work anyway - the vehicle is always getting lighter and needs to come to a near hover for the sky-crane phase.

Even Phoenix, which had constant thrust engines, pulsed them to manage the total 'thrust' provided.

This document has much of the info you require... it has been linked to before from this forum. Anyone serious about understanding MSL EDL would find it via google quite easily.
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/41629

In particular

"Beginning at an altitude of approximately 50 m above the surface, the PDV begins the constant deceleration segment. During this sub-segment, the PDV is decelerated from 20 m/s to 0.75 m/s. This is done at a constant deceleration rate
roughly equivalent to 90% throttle setting......
Throttle Down
At this point in the landing sequence, more than half of the initial 400 kg of fuel has been consumed. In order to maintain thrust equal to weight, the MLEs would need to be throttled back to thrust levels on the order of 20-25%. Since the MLEs operate less efficiently at these throttle settings, four of the MLEs are throttled back to their near- shutdown condition of 1%. This allows the four remaining MLEs to function in the more efficient range of 50% throttle.
The transition from eight to four MLEs introduces disturbances to the system. Therefore, a 2.5 second period of time is allotted for the disturbances to settle allowing for predictable and stable conditions for the next major segment of the landing: Sky Crane."




Then the project doesn't get through Preliminary Design Review. That was about 5 years ago. What a strange question.

107% sounds like the Space Shuttle thrust level. Where did you read that the MSL MLE's would be running at 107%?

KrisK - there's no need to embed the images inline in the thread. Moreover, your link is to the hot-images catagory at KSC, so those images wont be in it in a day or three.

Far better to link the image info pages, so as to retain access to the higher resolution images and the appropriate credit and description..i.e.

http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=54061

Quite. Neither of these views is 'incorrect'

I concur. :0)

Hell - drop an email to a NASA center - they'll send you some for nothing.

They wont be trying. Moreover, it doesn't help mitigate pollution. That stuff will leak out eventually anyway. The ONLY requirement of that DS after rover bridle cut is for it to get as far away as it can, as quickly as it can.



Imagine that entire sequence silent. Infact, you don't have to - you could turn your speakers off. It gets very very tedious very very quickly. The sounds were not my idea, and I'm not a big fan of them either - but I know why they're there. I've had lots of comments about the sounds being annoying. I've also had comments that it's not loud enough. That tells me it's in the middle ground.



Have you seen either at first hand? (Answer, no... no one has) I had an interesting discussion with the EDL people about the entry fireball. We went with what you see based on those discussions - the blue being a symptom of the emission spectra for CO2 (that was my cunning idea ) - the lack of a trail....I couldn't find documentation either way that would infer there would or wouldn't be one. It's also a really hard thing to try and animate well. Of course, one could counter your argument about throaty engine sounds with an argument about atmospheric density at Mars etc etc. We had one day in a studio to do the entire sound track. It's a case of using what was available. There was one sound specifically recorded for the animation though.... the sample being dropped into the instrument inlet tube. That was a sachet of sweetener from the sound studio's cafeteria being poured into a cup.

I was asked again and again by project people to add loads of loud music. I said that we couldn't do that - but I'm sure the public would do it themselves once it was out there. Why not try your own pass at the audio....trust me - it ain't easy.

That area is outside the landing ellipse, fyi.

Two posts that gratuitously broke the no politics rule deleted.

Not of the descent stage. It will have leaked hydrazine and other ugly compounds after crashing. I would expect them to give it an exceptionally wide berth.

Heatshield, sure.
Backshell and Parachute - from a distance >> the length of all the lines and the chute.
Six impact craters from ballast ejected before 'chute deployment - why not.

But not the descent stage.

So do I

When it premiered infront of 400 members of the MSL project - that moment got a brilliant reaction - exactly the same reaction as you could hear in the background audio of the Mars Odyssey launch when a forward looking rocket-cam cut out the very second the upper stage was due to ignite after 3rd stage sep.

No, you don't. The odd gust of dust to keep it from being all too static - but not a DD.




From http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/41629 - Page 12 specifically



I would expect it to be significantly further than that. Perhaps 10x.

No - it's a HiRISE DTM, but not one of the 4 final candidates.



Can you imagine the feedback if we did? A smouldering wreck with fuming hydrazine? A very expensive shot to model and animate as well. Not showing that was a very easy decision.



Yup - it's to avoid a potential clearance issue when returning the arm back to stow or for sample delivery. Well spotted