Could you pull out a height profile, from - say, Victoria to the edge of Endeavour including the rim? and/or from our current location to the rim at Cape York. That sort of thing

Actually, the per-sol driving distance for MSL isn't significantly different to MER.

Not cryptic... they used a green plastic drinks bottle during the first press conf to show the orientation of the comet etc.

I'm sure all the CAD and other detailed specs are safe and available. What's not available is a budget to build it or a ride to get it to Mars. Moreover, Beagle 2 didn't work. We don't know exactly why, but the fact is that it didn't. Building another and sending it straight away would have been like launching the 2001 Mars lander after the MPL failure. The sensible thing to do was stop, figure out why, and then only fly once they were sure of what had happened and how to fix it. Hence Phoenix landed 7 years after the 2001 lander should have done.

I do hope landers at the scale of B2 ( certainly in the <150kg class ) make it to Mars eventually - but they'll be derivatives of that design, not a build to print.

And it's worth mentioning, whilst B2 was in itself not a success, it brought Mars into the media spotlight like nothing has ever done before in the UK, it inspired a lot of interest in STEM subjects, and some of the instrumentation has found a home in the medical industry - so it was a project worth doing all the same.

It can be used to TRY and sharpen the focus, but you are playing a very tenuous game to try and pull out anything meaningful that you identify in those deconvolved images that isn't apparent in the orig. images.

It's simply below the resolving power of Pancam or Navcam to make any meaningful interpretation. There are a thousand things that could cause something to happen. FWIW, my initial gut reaction remains to this day - it looks like clean patch free of dust, not a surficial feature and the word 'stain' has never sat well, imho. However, there are many complex and interesting components and materials involved in building the rover, and some of them we know to be behaving unexpectedly ( such as the delamination of the sundial base ). I would like to see what people do with PDS calibrated data, rather than trying to 'deblur' jpgs - which really is a way to generate feature that simply don't exist.

Short answer - we're never going to know.

We had exactly that back when there was plenty of time and power and little to do, late into the hiatus at the Olympia outcrop during the IDD trouble.

The hills are to the east.

The sun sets in the west.

http://epoxi.umd.edu/7press/schedule.shtml

"The MRI pixel scale at closest approach will be 7 m/pixel"

For some reason - none of those links work - (the entire domain doesn't exist at my end)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWHU4VMGDDM

However - that YouTube link contains all of them, I think

The situation lives under a bell curve, defined by several parameter that we don't have a good grasp of.

Whilst prospects get less positive over time, the sun continues to climb each day.

This story is a long way from being over, whatever the outcome.

Then try a monitor. A laptop. Something else.

I don't wish to seem rude here - but it does seem like you're essentially refusing to think for yourself.

Your continued full inline quoting also shows you don't take note of UMSF admin either.

My patience is just about expired.

Change you resolution to something less than 2560 x whatever.

That's a known flaw with the Unity plugin. On 30" or 27" displays. Set your res to 1920 x 1080 / 1200 and you'll be good to go.

You can find out for yourself by using Eyes on the Solar System - you can see every single command for imaging in real time. That should answer any and all questions you have about the frequency, type and number of images taken.

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/eyes

To my knowledge, there is no more detailed description of the imaging sequence available than that.

Once you've figured it out, please share the results with us.

Yes, it's oft inferred or assumed that amateur is the opposite of professional, when it's not. The driving difference, is a salary.

Reminds me of this image
http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_gra...23_16540139.jpg

Awesome model racing car setup, right?

Nope - just tilt-shift DOF http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/09/t...grand_prix.html

In the entire encounter - from a few months out, and the next few weeks - in total it's more than 100,000

During the close encounter phase, it's certainly hundreds of image. We put the actual imaging sequence into Eyes on the Solar System - you can see it still under the EPOXI Replay http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/eyes/ . None of the images marked AutoNav are downlinked, but all the ones marked science should be. As a point of note - the image names that include 600000something - watch out for those in the top right corner as the replay happens - you will see them appear. That's the 5 'early downlinked' images that we've had released to date.

You also said "Perhaps true, but "...not claiming 100000% scientific accuracy" is not much of a disclaimer."

Stu's post included far far more disclaimer than you have used for images you have posted.

As I said - I consider it more than enough disclaimer. I will not be adding disclaimers to thing I make. Feel free to add them to things you make (something you have not done, to date)

Off topic posts moved to the Kitchen Junk Drawer thread.
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=6771

'Base Language'. Really? REALLY?

I guess your standards are catastrophically different to my own.

It's about the politest word I could possibly use to describe people such as those that wrote at length about the conspiracy proven by Emily's Cassini image.





Care to quote that in full and not selectively pull out a small section of it?

"And, as always, just for fun - not claiming 100000% scientific accuracy - here's a pic showing Endurance (top), Santa Maria (middle) and Victoria roughly to scale..."

That's more than enough disclaimer.

Of course, you are free to add your own disclaimer to your own contributions to UMSF. I notice you've not felt it necessary to do so :

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&id=21641 ( OMG What happened to Jupiters rings!! )
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&id=21775 ( What the? GIANT YELLOW CIRCLE ON MARS )
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&id=21384 ( Street sign on mars clear sign of intelligence )
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&id=21248 ( See - they sent a second rover to hide the evidence of life, how else did they take this photo? )
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...st&id=20887 ( Mimas is going to impact Tehthys ! )


I will not be doing so. It's unnecessary.

Given that the description of what they are and how they are made is right here at the place where the images are to be found, I see no reason to suspect a message on the image would have any more impact.

Consider your boss.... if in the bottom corner it said 'Photo montage' - he would be none the wiser. If you were unable to convince him, right there, in conversation... no text qualifier on the image would manage it either.

Every single image here is doctored in some way at some stage by some means. If someone is so uninformed as to need to be reminded of that every time they see an image... there really is very little we can do for them. In the case of Emilys recent adventure - the people commenting were nothing but conspiratorial nut jobs. No message, qualifier, cautionary comment or bi-line would convince them otherwise. Emily came right out and said, clear as anything... I made it, this is how, this is why it looks like it does... and people STILL piped up about the obvious conspiracy it proved must exist.

In brief - why compromise an image with un-necessary text to accommodate idiots?

Meh.

Innocuous, oft repeated and discussed, and an oversimplification of the Purgatory event.

sigh.... this has already been discussed. Pressure per unit area is not the be all and end all of mobility and traction.