If you go to 'my controls' top right, and then go to 'manage my attachments'
(I think a direct link would be http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...rCP&CODE=attach )

You can see it all there

Doug

On the first point - I don't see any change. Those 'doing space' are developing the resources to talk their assets. The DSN needs more cash for maintainance and upgrading, but it doesnt require external management. To be honest, demanding an external body manages the DSN is a bit like a kid trying to steal someone elses sweets.

And MER used Mars Express as little more than a tech-demo to check compatability and functionality of the UHF payload on MEX - as a percentage of data returned, MEX would be considerably less than a percentage point.

Doug

ESA is slowly getting there with a DSN of it's own...
http://www.esa.int/spacecraftops/Image/url..._section3_l.jpg

Also - just looking at the GAO report - they only visited Goldstone...no site visits for Spain or Aus which seems a bit of a half-arsed job to be honest.

Doug

I've always thought the sun shone out of a different part of my anatomy

Doug

1 meg. And a member has a total budget for all their messages. Attachment's are the actual limiting factor for hosting - we're nearly at the 1gb level as it is and purely for long term sustainability, I have to keep a tight rope on them.

Doug

Thought I'd share this which I wizzed over to Emily last night...

"
Right ….

I started with this…

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/01/24/



That ellipse is about 87km long, 11km wide – I’m not sure which ellipse that is ( final targeted ellipse after final TCM, or the launch ellipse…it might be worth pinging someone at MER HQ to see if they know exactly where that one came from – but it’s the one we used on the forum )



Going from an estimated centre of that ellipse - the actual landing is, by my maths, 23km downtrack, and 0.4km right of the centre line – with the MER entry trajectory coming from the left.



Using this…

http://www.planetary.org/image/oppo-stooke-map.jpg



(I can’t WAIT for HiRISE imagery)





And this

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...pe=post&id=4907



I would estimate that the southern edge of the landing ellipse was between 4200 and 4400 metres south of the landing site, and crossed at some point between 760 and 773



Sol 760 Odom was 6682m, sol 773 Odom was 7249m….I wouldn’t want to try and drag in either of those sol numbers or distances driven – we did our best overlaying that MSSS image ( the larger 10m res one is available at the bottom of the page linked up the top of this email ) onto the route maps that people have done – but we’re not really sure – so that’s the sort of ‘max range’ based on what we have. There might be an MER person who knows more accurately."


[/size]

When you think about it - they got a bit of a downrange distance on both of them due to the atmospheric conditions, but they were both VERY close to centre line which is the real gauge of their accuracy in targetting...400m or so for Opportunity is utterly astonishing.







[size="2"]Doug

Truth be told, I could go even further and say that the generosity with which DSN facilities have been made available to ESA could justify in some way a contribution from those nations...of course it's very give and take with things like this - you scratch our back..we'll scratch yours etc.

One thing that I've thought of...there was a detailed breakdown of estimated DSN costs for missions in the recent as a function of number of contacts per week, length of contacts, and facility size required etc in available in the library of the current Discovery AO
http://discovery.larc.nasa.gov/PDF_FILES/N...S-Update061.pdf

I'm not sure how the funding for a facility like this works - but I presume it's income is both from funding on a mission by mission basis as outlined in that doc, and also general DSN funding from NASA that's for maintainance and upgrades as opposed to normal running costs.

Perhaps one or the other needs a bit of a hike.

Doug

There is already international involvement to some extent, with ESA building smaller facilities of it's own in various places.

There is no way in hell the UN should ever have control over the DSN. The US built it, the US use it, the US pay for it.

Doug

Were there any problems w.r.t. politicis, one could simply use a large ex-oil-facility such as they use for Sea Launch - pointing might be a bit of a problem in heavy seas - but it would be a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than an orbital facility.

But of course we're missing the point. We don't need any of this and the huge budget it would require..what we need is a more moderate investment in the current DSN.


Doug

Would cost an extraordinary ammount of money, would still require a groundstation, and would be impossible to improve over time.

Doug

Unfiltered (L1) or Navcam

Doug

As it left the pad, I noticed how 'singed' all the first stage insulation looked - more than half the height of the first stage was brown and black. Because of the GEM's - one couldn't really see if the insulation around the base of the first stage was burning as it did with an earlier Delta IV however.

Doug

On a quad - that's GENIUS - hmm...going to have to think of something. Would it look out of place if I was sailing a dingy on Ullswater...after all, Gusev USED to be a lake
http://www.lakesail.co.uk/home/index.asp?scid=4

Doug

What one does is work out a range to a feature in both pre-drive ( i.e. yestersol) and post drive ( tosol ) imagery, and the difference is the distance covered.

Doug

Well - give them twice as much money to have twice as many people so they can shift work a full 24/7 schedule and I'm sure the MER team would be only to pleased.

It's a lack of taxpyers funds that mean they have to maintain a skeleton crew.

Or would you rather the scientists and engineers actually work 7 days a week, 365 days a year, on Martian time, for two and a half years without a break?

The Tax Payers money was $850M for two 90 sol missions. They got that - operating a full 24/7 crew. Now - for approx another $50M - they've had a further 750ish sols out of each rover.

Wasting tax payers money? It's the bargin of the century!

Doug

These might be usefull
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...pic=2456&hl=VST

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...pic=2380&hl=VST


Doug

WOW - the ACTUAL STARDUST CAPSULE - it looks in amazing shape really...not too bad at all!

Doug

Helen ( Member #2 ) and I ( Member #1 ) are off to the Lake District in 10 days time, so I'm waiting for then to get an appropriate sort of picture for the montage...hopefully we'll meet up with Stu and get him on board as well

Emily probably wouldn't be overjoyed with a picture right now being on the montage for all time being at T-80 odd days.

Doug

Massive solar arrays, lots of delicate instruments....if I was a PI on Rosetta, I'd be astonishingly wary of doing this at all. Even if the threat of a damaging impact because of a low impact speed isn't too bad - the potential to contaminate solar arrays and instruments remains high..even with near zero relative velocity.,

Maybe an impactor done a few months before arrival....but certainly nothing once it's arrived

Consider the HST images - that ejecta ended up covering a VAST area around the previous DI impact.

I would be astonished if the Rosetta guys were happy with this, even more so if the mission were selected.

Doug

Nope - nothing to do with software updates or identifying changes etc - it's studying the same patch of ground in different lighting conditions as mentioned in the last PC update.

This is L2&7 - remember that very low sun mosaic that we so popular..that was L2&7 as well ....and I'm sure there will be others.

Doug

Pete just stood there...I wonder how many people had any idea who he was or what he'd done - did you get a chance to say hi?

Doug

I said near rim back when I didn't know it was just the beaconey thing at the time

Doug

Why? Truth be told, the only currently 100% honest answer is that we don't know - we don't have the right sort of data, we're not close enough to make a clear cut call. I've not seen anything that makes it obvious, and until I do - I won't get off the fence.

Doug

Is NASA HQ is really going to select a mission from which the bulk of the science is done by a foreign spacecraft with foreign instruments and foreign PI's? I'm sure there's plenty of US involvement within Rosetta - but I can't see the cheque-writers going for it in any way.

Furthermore - the ejecta would surely be a big risk for Rosetta, look at the HST images from the first DI, and any damage caused would of course have been entirely predictable and obvious eh Bruce.

Doug

I am a BAA member - give me some specifics and I'll try and get to the BAA library next time I'm down with my laptop+scanner

Dorp me an email with the Info phil, and I'll see what I can do.

Doug