The full schedule book is up - http://meetings.copernicus.org/epsc2008/ep...gramme_book.pdf

My current rough-plan for blogging is this...

Monday - Phoenix and Miniature Spacecraft.
Tuesday - Mercury.
Wednesday - Outreach
Thursday - Astrobiology and Terrestrial Analogues.
Friday - Moon.

If you see a paper or poster that especially interests you - let me know!

Doug

test

I quite agree. However, given that this is the publication that gave us puddles on a cliff-face, it is only appropriate to urge caution and seek independent confirmation of what it reports.

Dell WFP2407-HC here - and looking to get either a second, or a WFP3007-HC. There are some STUNNING 24 and 30" LCD monitors out there - LaCie ( as ever ) do some stunning ones more than able when it comes to pro-photo work -you just have to spend the money. The Apple ones are arguably over-priced. Using even a cheap calibration tool such as a Pantone Huey will help massively.

One of the best monitors I ever used was the behemoth 24 inch widescreen Sony CRT... my 24" Dell is, imho, a better display, takes up 1/4 of the desk space, and consumes a fraction of the energy. I could never go back

Doug

I don't think anyone would. We just don't know what else to look for yet. Maybe in 100 years we'll have a wider understanding of what life can be, and then we can go looking for it.

Here's the problem. The media jumped on the whole tiny-black-holes thing and went crazy for it - telling us that the world might end ( even if partially tongue in cheek ) this morning. Now - we know for a fact that the LHC isn't going to cause the end of the world. Fact. Now all the media is breathing a sort of sigh of relief that the world is still here.

BUT

Even if it were to destroy the world ( which it isn't ) - getting the first beam going isn't when that would happen - nor even when the second beam is working - it's the collisions that'll start in a few weeks time that would be the point at which, were there to be a problem ( which there won't ) it would have occurred.

So the media not only got the possibly outcome wrong, but they also got the time wrong.

Double doh!

But the simple fact is that's the only form of life we understand. It's the only form of life we know of, it's the only form of life that, as of now, we know to exist. At some point, we simply end up having a debate about what constitutes life, would we be able to recognize life significantly different to 'ours'. Sulphur based or Silicon based or whatever-based life - we don't know what reactions that might involve. Will it have something like DNA, will it have something like respiration, will it have something like photosynthesis, what will it do instead of proteins, what will it 'eat', what will it 'poop' - we have absolutely no idea. We've been unable to make carbon based life in the lab - so we're a long long way from perhaps making silicon or some other chemistry based life which we could then observe, measure and understand to the point of knowing how to detect them.

Essentially - we can do the instrument measurements we know of - Xray spec, Mass Spec etc etc ( MSL is very very well equipped in that regard ),we can do that basic elemental and mineralogical characterisation - or we can look for life as we understand it using things such as the Life Marker Chip from here in Leicester. But how can we be expected to identify a different type of life that we've never seen, never measured, have no baseline for, and have no grasp of how it might work.

That's like asking me to find a cow - if I'd never ever seen a cow or heard one described or seen a picture of one. I'd walk straight past the big black and white tree with four legs stood in a field - because I don't know it's a cow.

Well - you would need to calculate it's drag, it's cross-sectional area, etc etc.

Yes. infact using the RAC to do DD surveys after the arm is parked up for good was mentioned before landing (as, weird though it may see, the RAC has a wider FOV than the SSI)

Doug

Quite probably real. Blue sunsets, and high altitude clouds have been seen by Viking, MPF and MER.

No - the design is protected ( very very strongly ) by the CIT legal team. You will struggle to find anything I'm afraid.

Whilst personally, I consider this entire thread to be more about science fiction than anything else (check the forum rules for what that means) - I will pick you up here.

The MER's have had several significant flight software updates that have given them abilities not even considered before launch. It depends where you definition of AI lies - but go-and-touch, automated DD/Cloud watching, D-star etc, are all abilities that were developed long after landing and uplinked to a vehicle designed, built and launched without those abilities in mind. It's not unreasonable to say that the MER's that drove in their primary mission lacked intelligence (but not autonomy), and the MER's today have both an element of intelligence and autonomy.

Oh boy - here's a subject that I really don't think UMSF needs. As of now, it's on the UMSF topic black list.

Untrue
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/...yone_missi.html

Specifically
"This story is completely misleading. I have been in this trailer myself. It is on the grounds of the Owens Valley Radio Observatory, operated by the California Institute of Technology. It is used to control a small radio antenna nearby, and is NOT abandoned."

I'd also add that the compact, well insulated WEB of the rovers probably performs a far better job of insulating itself than the Phoenix design.

Doug

It's also older electroncis compared to MER, and far more challenging conditions ( requiring more heating etc )


And, for what I think is probably the 10th time on this forum. Yes - there is a 'lazurus' code onboard incase it wakes up in the spring, but no one realistically expects it to survive.

Doug

In a good way.

I'd agree. Of course, it helps, when you're not being serious, to make it far far more obvious.

Utter nonsense. Don't take this the wrong way, but you're not a person who's posting I 'recognise' on the forum. Shaka, Centsworth, Ustrax, Stu - I know what I'm going to get when I see their name. Sometimes it makes me cringe, sometimes it makes me laugh. When it was ol' Bruce - it usually made me cry. But I've not built that sort of (for what of a better phrase) 'posting style profile' for you. You're certainly not a member of the esteemed 'I've got my own thread in the admin section' club. ( and no - I'm not telling everyone who we do have one for )

So I thought I'd look at your past posting with a simple search. A significant portion of your recent posts have been in the manned section, or about the pluto debate, or spectacular rule break in starting a thread about a hearing Griffin was at. So basically, yeah, if the majority of your posts are in a section of the forum that is troublesome, or about a subject on the 'not allowed' list - surely you should expect many to end up closed or culled?


Oh - and someone needs to put the admin team faces on that military conference room photo. But put party hats, streamers, and beer bottles on the table for added authenticity.

Doug

Sounds like they just set some very conservative watermarks for the NAC, it went into safemode, and then came out a few hours later.

Doug

Ahhh - looks like ESA is setting up a NEO program. If they can stretch this out for about 20 minutes, it'll be timed perfectly to start watching qualifying for the Belgium Grand Prix Qualifying.

Uwe used the phrase Safe Mode - which I wouldn't have thought would without it being an off nominal event.

Anaglyph - good man

I had grab open, set to 'selection' - photoshop open ready to go, and the attach file dialogue already open

Here we go

9 minute before closest approach the OSIRIS-NAC turned off and entered safe mode.

Oh hell.