VERY cool customers on orbit - handling what could be quite a major issue like utter pro's. They've shot loads of photos at this angle, and they're not going to rotate the beta joint to get it from a slightly different angle.

Looks like damage on the 4b array - one of the lines seems to have caught around one of the eyelets...and I don't think they could reach that on EVA where it is right now.

Doug

They can only MI the front few cells - it just doesn't reach further than that sadly

Doug

I can quite imagine stuff being airborne - or another option is dust pilling up around the complex shape of the PCMA and then falling off with motion or wind.

Doug

Sun setting/rising over the rim of Victoria crater.

Doug

Get yourself Midnight Mars Browser - and never worry again
http://midnightmarsbrowser.blogspot.com/

Doug

They would be able to see it - without a shadow of a doubt - IF it's the same shape and size as seen from Mars as it is from Earth. It's not THAT much closer when at Mars - much of the distance from Earth to the Holmes is the out-of-ecliptic distance - perhaps it's 1/3rd closer. But even at the Earth range, it would be easily visible in Navcam as a bright star, and possibly even resolved as a tiny fuzzy dot in Pancam.

However - we are far from the heady days of >850 Whrs when we did astronomy from atop Husband Hill - so it'd be quite an 'ask' in terms of power etc.

As for other spacecraft observing it - they could do - not sure if they'd want to go the effort involved though.

Doug

I think it's a photoshop job - IDD image from Sol something....background from http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_ins...rench_new2.html

Doug

It's a real problem - normally I'd chastise the press for making dodgy headlines - but the motor is pulling .3 to .8 amps instead of the .1 the other side pulls. Its a genuine problem which could result in an MER-A Front-Right wheel like issue at some point in the future - and if that happened it would mean they'd have to have some careful power management in the future.

Doug

Yup - for one of those utterly enormous balloons that looks like what happens when a kitten gets hold of a roll of cling film

KISS / BISEOGE etc etc. Get to 80-100kf, get down. That's the principle here.

Doug

After 4 days of complete and continuous cloud coverage, the sky has totally cleared in the last 2 hours. It's not even fully dark, but it was so so obvious to the naked eye - and thru the binos - just extraordinary.

It looked - just thru binos - exactly like this - http://spaceweather.com/comets/holmes/24oc...Eric-Allen1.jpg

Extraordinary.

Doug

You can argue that one all you like (and you probably will, but not in this thread). No two people see the same scene exactly the same anyway. It's the MER's team best approximation. If you want a different persons take on it - try Dan's calibrated set that you can get via MMB - he has a different tack on it. The perception of colour is, at the end of the day, a rough, artistic science. There's a lot of science and many algorithms behind it - but it's essentially a judgement call at the end of the day. Different eyes, different monitors, different lighting conditions - none of which are calibrated. I have two screens at work - on one of them, Mars always looks crap - without fail. It just can't do justice to those colour ranges. My personal preference ( which is what this has to end up being ) is about half way between Dan's and the PC team.

Doug

I don't think what you describe would work. The ballon, once inflated in the ground, maintains a similar ammount of lift for the entire flight, because the maths end up roughly cancelling out between the outside, inside pressures and air density. If you look at the graphs of altitiude over time for these things, they're very close to a straight line. Thus - a ballon that was under inflated at the ground ( and thus not providing any real lift ) would be larger but still providing no lift @ 100kf.DougI don't think what you describe would work. The ballon, once inflated in the ground, maintains a similar ammount of lift for the entire flight, because the maths end up roughly cancelling out between the outside, inside pressures and air density. If you look at the graphs of altitiude over time for these things, they're very close to a straight line. Thus - a ballon that was under inflated at the ground ( and thus not providing any real lift ) would be larger but still providing no lift @ 100kf.Doug

Without the calibrated RAD imagery, no.

Your best bet in the meantime is to keep an eye on this page - http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_ins...true_color.html
Doug

The link in Post 7 actually tries to look at the human-to-vacuum problem - it's quite interesting.

Doug

It's a fake - the story is fictional, the image is a photoshop job. There's no debate to be had. You could always get the complete Apollo 11 downlink DVD set and sit him infront of it for the full EVA duration to see that it didn't happen.

Doug

An obvious photoshop job - the 'head' in that shot has been lifted from a shot taken inside, after the EVA.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...S11-37-5528.jpg
high res : http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...1-37-5528HR.jpg

Doug

Complete fiction - there are pictures of Neil with his helmet off INSIDE the LEM after the spacewalk finished - but if he had done it on the moon during the EVA it would have meant a very rapid and certain death.

Doug

Same as NH iirc, but minus one booster. The 5m Atlas V fairing. (an Atlas V 541 for MSL - 5m fairing, 4 boosters, 1 engine upper stage)

Doug

My only gripe is that brandishing MER as ones own 'Apollo' is suggestive that you would be happy with MER being the pinnacle of an entire generation's exploration of space. I wouldn't be. MER is my 'Surveyor'....I still await my 'Apollo'. I am as fond of S&O as anyone can be of spaceflight hardware - but I want bootprints in our wheeltracks.

DOug

No Gale That was my favorite.

The 1.3 MP VistaQuest is what the GMC is.

Doug

Already mentioned in the logo thread. No. The time it takes to make stuff for cafe press, and the tiny tiny amount of cash that it generates - simply not worth it.

Doug

The chances of the mechanics working are near zero I would have thought. Holmes is quite far out of the ecliptic.

Meanwhile the clouds here are strengthening my belief that there is a direct correlation between the UK climate and transient astronomical phenomenon.

Doug

http://marsairplane.larc.nasa.gov/index.html

Space Ship One on Mars? An expensive brick. Here's how an entry vehicle can change it's shape enormously....get loads of strong material, tie it to the vehicle with string, and throw it out the back. It might look a little something like this - http://marstech.jpl.nasa.gov/images/paraDev.jpg

There's out the box thinking, and there's sci-fi. Several suggestions in this thread have both feet well and truely in the second catagory, and this isn't the place for that sort of discussion. Chutes, Ballutes, Airbags...all good stuff. Flying saucers and SS1....not. Looks like no one has learnt the lesson of the space shuttle.

Doug