A very happy new year to all the UMSF gang - Olivier, you really are a panorama-slut Great stuff!

Doug

"the correct orbit about 12,000 miles high with an inclination of around 64.8 degrees."

That's not what you were seing in my opinion - the position you say was near equatorial and much slower moving than 12,000 miles altitude.

Doug

We've been approached by an online advertising firm who offered what I think is a good fixed monthly sum to put some text ads at the bottom of every page. They will generate, at the current rate, slightly more than the 'measurable' UMSF running costs (hosting, forum lic), and with the need to upgrade the hosting package never far away, this is about the right sort of level I was hoping to generate.

As many of you will know, I have always been reluctant to do the 'cap-in-hand' routine and would rather UMSF paid for itself than surviving on a combination of my wallet and member generosity.

These new ads are now to be found at the bottom of UMSF - and I would like members to cast their opinion. They'll be here for one month - and depending on the outcome of this vote, they will remain or be removed at the end of that period. Give yourself a day or two to see them (they're dynamic) before making a call.

If you want to pass a more detailed response, drop me a private message or an email or chuck a message into this thread.

Cheers

Doug

600km compared to 35,7890 km is little to no parallax anyway. Compared to Geostationary, given the Lat., 600km is probably more like 300 km in the N/S direction from the perspective of a geostationary satellite - the sort of parallax that a human eye would see at 10 metres or so.

Doug

Very slow speed would suggest a very high altitude orbit - and actually - that position is not too far from equatorial, thus perhaps it was a burn or the expiring of a spacecraft in geostationary orbit.

15 mins - I'd say it's almost certainly a 'dump' of some sort - was the 'source' moving across the sky - if so, how quickly?

Doug

You'll have to help me with the French.

Did this appear for one night, or multiple nights? How long did it last - how bright was it and a lot of the links on that link you give seem dead.

If I had to guess - I'd go for venting from a discarded upper stage.

google for 'wget' ( or search for it here ) - it's a command line based bulk downloader. When I had the chance to speak to someone from the PDS about 12-18 months ago, I PLEADED with them to do as the small bodies node has done and zip-up data (for MER, zipping by sol would be ideal) - as it would reduce download times and server load by 50%+

Doug

I've never struggled with this, once I read "illumination from the left" - I'm fine...BUT

I've NEVER been able to watch the Apollo 11 landing and see 'craters' on the surface, it's always been domes....it really annoys me

Doug

It's all already decided actually.

Doug

The file was phoenix_landing_hd.mov - but even pruning URL's - it doesn't appear to be there at all any more.

To be honest - I downloaded it but my laptop ( 1.8G Centrino, Geforce 6800 Go, 1920 x 1200 screen ) couldn't handle it - I got the next one down

Doug

Well - on the up side they added more blog entries

Doug

You had it right all along....you've trumped my 'MER-in-my-head' knowledge Bloody accurate - further kudos.

Doug

I actually went as far as getting a quote for some turned metal wheels for a model of Thrust 2 I was thinking of making...

Once I found out how much it was going to cost...I stopped thinking about making it

Doug

Yup - I whacked it up as an interim between the old logo, and one with the new UMSF 'icon' that I did AGES ago before life got a bit crazy here....hopefully I'll launch with the new logo ( hardly earth shattering to be honest ) on Jan 1st.

Doug

Not sure if the MI is spot on - I think the optic design is a little 'short' - as a reference, the backend and electronics box for each camera ( Pancam, MI, Navcam, Hazcam ) is the same...it's just the optical assemb. that changes...and obviously the MI has the dust cover and contact sensor..but I think these might be a bit too far 'forward'..

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/image..._mi_diagram.jpg
from
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/Master...3-027A&ex=2

Great work though

Doug

This season - I will be mostly celebrating by......changing the UMSF banner logo

Doug

The best Christmas/Birthday pressie there could be BOB'S BACK.

Doug

I thought they did....MSL certainly will, and I know others have, I assumed they all had - my bad.

DOug

Yup - 'twas I...

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=3495

Specifically

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...ost&id=8409


I was quite pleased how the Viking back-shells turned out.

Doug

Just to correct the orig. poster..... I'm not actually any wiser, just a few more grey hairs (it's true..rovers are sending me grey!) giving the appearance of being wise....I basically blag most of it

Doug,

MSL will still have a battery, as all other RTG powered spacecraft have - to allow for peak power useage over and above the RTG output.

Doug

Purrfect

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...21P2437L2M1.JPG

Doug

Isn't that exactly what the BBQ was ? Pictures of everyone?

Doug

Oh - it's got a solar sail as well