Re:color balance. I think any analysis or processing at this point is pretty much futile. As far as I can tell everything we've seen so far has been a photo taken of a monitor/projector displaying a picture. Nothing has been a native ''image' from the vehicle. So any discussion of color balance etc. needs to include the white balance of the camera that took the picture in a room of unknown lighting of a screen of unknown properties showing a picture of unknown processing level.

Trying to compare the color of what we are seing to what the moon should or ought to be is, in my opinion, at this stage, entirely futile.

I'm afraid the issue is probably local to your computer.

I've checked across all the browsers I have access to and I see no similar symptoms whatsoever.
On a Mac : Chrome (31.0.1650.63) Safari (6.0.2) and Firefox (10.0.11)
On a PC : IE (10.0.11) Firefox (26) and Chrome (31.0.1650.63)

As you alude to - you're comparing highs and lows from near the Martian equator - with Highs of Earth's equatorial region and lows of high altitude Antarctic region.

You're not comparing apples with apples.

I would argue that winter polar minimums on Mars could very well take that range and make it pretty much as large as that for Earth.

I see nothing in terms of a sound business plan, they've not even begun to hint at who will pay for it, what their return will be, which LV they'll use etc etc.

It's not going to happen.

I think you misinterpreted the intent of UGordan's message.

Doing "wonders" and "calibration" are not one and the same.

So again I'm left wondering - what is your objection to the 'ruined' calibration target. What are you trying to achieve and how does the lack of a clean calibration target ( which neither spacecraft has ) play into this - and how is any of this "self explanatory"

Neither design is capable of keeping themselves clean. One is dirtier than the other, in part thanks to those magnets. Net result - they both have an amount of dust on them. They are both 'ruined'.

The Pancam team have shown themselves perfectly capable of published well calibrated data without a clean calib target - I see no reason why the Mastcam team will not be doing the same. What is your actual concern here.

Over simplification.

Firstly - it doesn't matter how dirty Curiosity is - it doesn't require clean solar panels for it's survival
Secondly - Opportunity has been that dusty at times. Right now, it's a little less dusty perhaps
Thirdly - You're taking different sets of images from different sets of cameras, none of which are calibrated, and trying to extract a direct comparison.

Not unlikley to happen. IMPOSSIBLE. There is no where near enough fuel onboard to even entertain the idea.

Let's say we have an 80m drive, at the end of which something like what you say is visible.

Where is it? Where on the 80m drive? There's no way of knowing. moreover you can only see perhaps 40% of each wheel, possibly less, from MAHLI at the end of any particular drive. So a situation may occur where we have one of your streaks visible on the wheel....and it might have actually occurred several drives previously - several hundred meters ago. How are you going to find it. Furthermore - anything a rear wheel runs over....has already been run over twice by the wheels in front.

Again - whilst your enthusiasm for this is admirable, I'm afraid it doesn't stand up to the realities of Mars, or rover ops.

There will in due time, I'm sure, be papers published about how the wheels are behaving - but attempting to characterize and identify particular rocks as part of the daily planning cycle....no....it's just not practical.

However - we will never know what they are a measurement of. Which rock/soil/pebble etc cause what damage.

I'm afraid whilst your enthusiasm for this is admirable - there really isn't a legitimate means to extract quantitative data from this.

None of the above are plausible.

Group therapy for the morbidly pessimistic.

Everything I've heard and read, repeatedly, states it's not a concern.

There were holes in the wheels on the VSTB rover in the Mars Yard long before MSL launched. This shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone.

Why you would come to that conclusion I don't know - but yes - it's wrong.

There's no such thing as a 'high speed drive'. When in motion the rover is typically at the same speed. 3cm/sec.

What you're perceiving as 'high speed' is a blind-drive ( no stops ) compared to autonav ( many freqent stops )

The speed of the rover when in motion is the same regardless. Go look at some speed plots at http://curiositylog.com/ to see the typical speed over time of the rover.

Cassini will eventually be disposed of into Saturn's atmosphere a-la Galileo - so that'll tick all the boxes.

No - the way the flare appeared - from the one, sunlit side of the spacecraft as both spacecraft and third stage entered into sunrise - it was lens-flare of a specular reflecting on gold MLI.

Again - you're proposing an utter overhaul on not just the nuclei of comets, but the ground and space based observations of THIS comet - based on the fact that one instrument on one spacecraft didn't see one particular thing.

Moreover - we don't know for sure that SDO didn't see it. We've simply seen the uncalibrated browse data - not processed science products yet. It may well make its presence known in the SDO data yet.

Yes - that it was too small to be observed at all in SDO. Some exotic nucleus composition would fly in the face of all the ground and space based observations that preceeded it's no-show in SDO data.

Well - I did ;-)

That could be solved by not posting endless comments about 'weak torn wheels'.

Not by pointlessly changing a vehicle design.

Well - the wheel rim itself would way about twice as much. I've held one. They're not 'heavy' but there's certainly a few KG's in there.

And you're forgetting - compliance in the wheel is one of the design requirements to take the edge of impacts as wheels drop off rocks etc. Making it 'stronger' just so it doesn't get holes in it ( holes that don't matter ) could very well be counter productive.

Why would you change the design for 2020. They work. They work great. There's nothing whatsoever to suggest they're going to stop working. Why would you invest a second of time, energy, or money - or mass budget - in making them unnecessarily heavier?

Sharing a concern doesn't in any way validate it.

And just to repeat ( because seemingly it does bear repeating ) there is nothing to be concerned about. This is expected. It doesn't damage the rovers mobility.

Concerns about wheel damage are not..repeat NOT valid.

If it breaks up, you'll find out if a broken up ISON is visible on Dec 4th......on Dec 4th.

Facetious - but accurate. We don't know. Comets are not that predictable. There are far far too many variables.. "If it breaks up" you say. When. How. How slowly. How quickly. What solar wind might come into play.

It will do what it will do, and there's really not much point in second guessing it.