I've deleted two posts. ESA's ability to build or launch a spacecraft to survive beyond the orbit of Mars is entirely proven and certainly not worthy of Stephen's remarks.

The one that works via Google is less accurate than Eduardo's. It's also updated less often. I would trust Eduardo's over everything apart from JPL et.al.

It really is amazing just how hard some people find it to follow a very simple 'NO POLITICS' rule.

Very little progress with the last drive - more churning - but the FL wheels seems to be back up on the surface. Rear Left did a LOT of churning. Not sure which way we'll go - but if Scott is right .. http://twitter.com/marsroverdriver/status/1236828620 .. we might be making a different route.

Just reading Scott's blog - today, funnily enough - http://marsandme.blogspot.com/2009/02/spirit-sol-48.html - talks about the work required to churn soil, he's comparing the first Spirit trench to Opportunities...

"Opportunity's hole, by contrast, was nearly 10cm deep, and they needed less than half as much energy to dig it. Which would tell me something about the differing soil composition between the two sites, if I were that kind of person.)"

That would bode well for Opportunity (if the floor of Eagle crater is like the rest of Meridiani) - BUT - the dunes may become a worse danger if we're dragging.

Doug

SSTL have already been on record about the ability to get a high res orbing asset built and launched for <$5M - which would be remarkable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7862827.stm

Doug

For MER at least - http://www.windriver.com/products/vxworks/

There will be some happy people, and some disappointed people. Both systems have plenty to offer, so no one should be too upset.

As with the other thread - this is pointless - and it's sci-fi engineering. Not here please.

Sorry - this thread isn't going to go anywhere positive. It's covering ground that's been covered previously, and is skirting around the edge of a banned subject. The place for big long "Where's my flying-car dammit" rants is your own blog - not a discussion forum

We are currently on the route previously used to get to Silica Valley. We cut the corner of Home Plate back in the Sol 767-774 range. That was, of course, before we had the FR failure.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/tm-...MERA_A906_3.jpg

New Horizons will fill the gap a little bit

Oh - absolutely - I want both of them, yesterday. But it's not as if one getting picked means the other target will never be visited. It's also fair to moan, a bit, about missing a flagship for the '00s (Galileo 80's, Cassini 90's, ??? 00's, New Mission 10's ) and feel that we're in some way owed two. But then we're in the 'It's 2009, where's my flying car' game

We can - just one will have to happen first. Then, when the other target gets it's chance in a decade or two, all the technological improvements mean it'll be an ever better mission

Data is not annotations. Yes - there are huge amounts of data anticipated - of course there are - and of course I'm aware of that. That has NOTHING to do with annotating images. Nothing.

There are PDS conventions for describing data - as I am sure you are aware - but, I say again, annotations are massively diverse things from scales to grids to labels to arrows to paths to sites to directions to layers to bedforms to routes to dunes etc etc - and all of these are done by JPL, Cornell, ESA, ESOC, SWRI, ASU, CICLOPS, HRSC, MPI, dozens of institutions annotating thousands of things in a million different way - there can be no convention on how to do that. Even two people doing exactly the same thing, do it differently.

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/tm-...l1813_1_br2.jpg is different to http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/tm-...l1687_2_br2.jpg

I would say you're looking for something that doesn't exist, and is impossible to establish. It's like trying to have one set of rules, for every sport in the world - from Football to F1. You need to better specify exactly what you mean by annotations before you can progress.

Looks like you're having more luck that I did in the other HRSC Dem thread. What are you using, Terragen?

I wouldn't call those images dust-storm indicative. Very long shadows mean late in the day, mean decreased contrast between shadow and lit surfaces.

This is the best place to look to see the rover file ID's broken down

http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/edr_filename_key.html

For any one satellite on any one orbit - yes.

But 3000 satellites, orbiting 14 times a day, 365 days a year, for, say, 10 years - and infact, it's not beyond the realms of possible in any way shape or form.

Doug

They should have been - as MC cites, the details of the defunct satellite were available, along with most other chunks up there.

Not keeping track of your satellites and comparing them to the published NOARD elements, is like sailing along a coast without charts.

At 7.5km/sec - it takes about 0.00013s for a spacecraft to cover the, say, 1 metre width of an Iridium sat.

I wonder if anyone was watching it do an iridium flare at the time


Doug

Published annotations are so diverse in terms of style, quality, quantity and content that even if there were such a convention, it's never been stuck to.

Nahh - the LGA wouldn't have been in the way of something on the Horizon - I put money on either HGA occlusion, or UHF optimisation

I think that's what happens when you do a turn-in-place with a FR wheel that doesn't turn, but still drives.

You should check into the Opportunity Route Map thread where Tesheiner is doing the same sort of KML thing.