I would like to think so. We've made progress, we've got some still to make - but we are getting there

I think they are - the VMC images, the Rosetta blog - they're beginning to 'get it'. Osiris and Navcam images straight onto the web overnight would have been the full gold standard


Doug

So do I. I don't take decisions like that lightly. But I've taken it because I think it's the right thing for UMSF.

BTW - I saw you have a look around the URL on the bottom of the list - try the one at the top, it really is UMSF for manned space-flight in their forum. Having a manned forum here is essentially redundant once you've had a look around there. The depth and breadth of knowledge is very analogous to that regarding MER / Cassini etc. here.

And sorry Shaka - the admin forum runs on Fight Club rules so that the admins and mods can say what they want about who they want without fear of repercussion or causing offense.

Doug

That was part of the motivation in the name change

That is unusual. At first I thought it might be a moon/shadow issue, but that close to the terminator the geometry is totally wrong. It's so close to the terminator, that can't be very tall.

It's a nice challenge - I like it.

No. There is far too much scope for debate about the benefits of manned servicing, the relative merits of Hubble etc. There is no debate suitable for UMSF regarding it. Hubble data from the PDS - chat away. Servicing itself - no. What has become clear is that people can not distinguish for themselves, especially when the border is fuzzy, what is or is not acceptable. So a strict, obvious, unquestionable line is being drawn. The hubble servicing mission is off topic. Use of Hubble data, details of the instruments themselves, that's fine. But I'm not pulling threads out of the closed section (and no exceptions)

For this to work - it has to be an unquestionable, undeniable, un-fuzzy, clean break.

Please see http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...;showtopic=5444

Over the past 24 hrs, several members have demonstrated that they strongly object to and are unable to follow the 'no politics' rule, citing words such as 'censorship' and 'subjective'. How or why people find it so hard to not discuss politics still amazes me and fellow admins. So - I'm going to make it a little easier for you.

Three things in terms of Forum admin are happening as of today.

Firstly, the manned space flight section is to be turned into a read-only archive. This is NOT a statement regarding my or the forum's support or otherwise for Manned Spaceflight. It is simply a symptom of the sorts of discussion that happen there that so many brush against or dive straight into issues of, around or referencing politics. I thought (perhaps naievly) that UMSF members would be able to use an enjoy such a subsection without political issues creeping in as often as they have. Time has demonstrated that assumption to be wrong. Time has demonstrated that the vast majority of administrative headaches have their genesis in that sub-forum. If you try to argue that it's impossible to have discussions without politics, I would suggest you look at the 117,000 posts and more than 5,000 topics that managed to do exactly that. If you honestly can't see a way to have a discussion without politics, please find another forum, UMSF is not for you. Given that the manned-v-unmanned debate is against forum rules, and there is now no platform for manned spaceflight debate - this will almost certainly mean the end of any manned spaceflight discussion at UMSF. I repeat, this is not a statement regarding the pros and cons of one versus the other.

Secondly - the politics rule is staying - and is to be enforced even more strongly than ever before. So often I have heard comments such as 'I really like UMSF but.....' with that 'but' always citing one of the key things we do as an admin team to make UMSF the forum the person says they really like. Zero-tolerance of fringe theories, conspiracies etc is one. Zero-politics is another. Dictatorship style administration is another. Because UMSF is a good place to discuss image processing, MER, Cassini and so on, that does not mean it should be a good place to discuss anything any visitor wants to. It is precisely because they CAN'T that it is the place that it is. This forum was started as and will remain focused on particular discussions.

Thirdly - the Policy and Strategy subforum is to be renamed . I can understand that some might see a 'no politics' rule, but a 'policy' subforum as see confusion. This forum will be renamed 'Exploration Strategy' and is a home for debate about mission selection, pre-mission approval debate, ideas for new missions and so on. But, it does NOT become a new home for political debate.

Administration by its nature is subjective. If you are unable to establish for yourself what is or is not acceptable at UMSF, please find another forum. The forum guidelines make it rather obvious. It is when people decide to selectively ignore them that we have to subjectively enforce them.

As for censorship - this still strikes me as the most blinkered criticism I can imagine. No one is saying that you can not discuss Politics, or Cydonia. The rules simply state that you can not discuss them here.. There are plenty of other forums that you can visit if you want to have discussions outside the remit of UMSF - four popular ones are listed below.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com : Well moderated, the closest thing to UMSF for manned spaceflight.
http://www.bautforum.com : Well moderated, has conspiracy and against the mainstream sub-forums with well crafted rules to insist such discussions make progress and are well structured within a time frame. Religion and Politics not welcome.
http://www.habitablezone.com : Little moderation, has a current-events section for political debate.
http://www.marsroverblog.com : Near zero moderation, anything goes.

I frequent all, contribute to some, and enjoy (for a variety of reasons) all of them.

If you have a problem with forum rules - send us a private message (the 'report a post' tool is probably useful for this). The reason I have assembled the admin team that I have, is because I trust them more than I trust the general UMSF membership when it comes to decisions about UMSF. Emily, Dan, Glen, Nico, Joe and I have a similar vision of UMSF. We're not all immature 20-somethings ( infact, I'm the only 20-something out of the lot, and that's not true much longer). I picked that team because they're not me - because they're older (sorry guys - it's true), more worldly, and certainly wiser than I. It's no secret that we have a virtual underground lair where we discuss the forum, most major forum decisions, and generally moan about the more pedantic and troublesome UMSF members. If a decision has to be made about UMSF, it will happen there. We may ask you for your input, but until we need it, that decision making process happens in the admin section with the mods and admins tossing ideas around.

Ultimately, however, UMSF is my responsibility, and I've made decisions this morning, on my own, that I was hoping the maturity of UMSF members would mean I wouldn't have to make. Sadly, that's turned out not to be the case. Some will inevitably accuse me of another baby+bathwater reaction. In response, I will say yes - some interesting and good discourse may well fall by the wayside because of this. I have contributed to and enjoyed the manned section myself. However, as the source of so much trouble, it has been a thorn in the side of UMSF as long as it existed, and I have hinted at it's future demise for some time. It helps clarify a grey area and of course, there are many other forums where those debates can happen instead - indeed, far better and more appropriate places where more fruitful and informative discussions can take place. If you think it's a shame that it's gone - ask yourself why you come here, and if that sub-forum really was a key part of what UMSF is about. All we're really doing is enforcing this..

- 1.1 The clue is in the name of the forum. If what you are posting is not related either to Unmanned Spaceflight, or a directly related matter, it may be deleted without notice.

The forum guidelines ( http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=boardrules ) have been appropriately adjusted. Further tweaks to the 'EVA' section will happen over the next day or so.

Fill in the blank. 7 letters, first is D.

Doug

http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_ins...162B_dstar.html - Granada I think it's called....probably only a couple of weeks good driving back around Victoria - and some diversity visible even in the approx true colour

Doug

ESA isn't politics (how can you draw an analogy about that?). Talking about politicians or political parties is, however. Given the nature of who has asked for the Shuttle to be retired in 2010 - who is asking for an extension to be investigated - and what's happening in November - it's hard to discuss this without politics getting involved.

However - the Politics rule is here for a reason - and it will never be up for debate.

Basically - if you need a definition of politics - look in a dictionary.

It's impossible to write down forum rules. I've tried - but it's essentially impossible because at any decision process, it's a judgement call. This, however, is a very clear, unambiguous one.

Yeah - they had 6 month old tracks as a comparison when they left Endurance.

I've seen mention of a return to Erebus / Terra Nova before. Probably 1/4 of the distance back to Endurance. It looking interesting - but they wanted to get a move on.

Doug

I know. MECO-SEP-2nd Ignit-Fairing-Sep. Thus Fairing sep is shortly after MECO.

What Maas did was push the Fairing sep right, to just before 2nd cutoff. He also didn't include the coast phase - but truthfully, it doesn't actually matter.

Einstein doing a Penguin impression is my personal favorite.

Much better to have it 'at home' at the brilliant TED site : http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/carolyn..._to_saturn.html

Look out for Burt Rutan's superb talk (as well as Einstein the Parrot)

This is a near impossible subject to discuss without mentioning the politics....but forum rules are rules.

Ahh - good stuff - I thought the last Earth flyby was a nice job by the blog team.

I would agree - Stefan, you're not reading what Ted has posted in response to your initial scepticism and doubts. To be honest, my patience would have evaporated long ago.

If you're lucky, at summer, near the equator - maybe 20degC

Doug

Well - those numbers do sound high - but let's be realistic about this - Bacteria made it onto Mars with plenty of landers, successful and otherwise, over the past 40 years.

Doug

Well - reports are it's being turned down to a Cat 2..

Still looks damn scary
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets...08244.terra.1km

Oh boy. I'm looking forward to AJSR's update tomorrow

I hope they can do a 'done with Victoria' press conf.

Doug

You know you're a UMSF'er when you know where to go for the high res imagery people are looking for.

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/ - specifically http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?subset=USA7 - cunningly they pre-mosaic it into regional subsets. But if you just go to 'realtime' then you can find the raw swaths.

http://www.goes.noaa.gov/GSSLOOPS/ecir.html is also a good wider-angle tracking tool


I am scared half to death for New Orleans this time around. There are swathes of the place still no recovered and this sounds like it could be even worse.