I have concerns over what he might attempt with respect to +Z motion

The material of every spacecraft needs to be compatible with the environment it's sent to and to function properly.

The briefing was almost 2 weeks ago.

It doesn't really matter what it's called. "Storm'' is the phrase that will make the most sense to the most people.

And please - lets not have another pointless naming semantics discussion in this place.

I think they stitched them outside, then uploaded to Photosynth and Gigapan.

Because it's not TETR. Just look at a photo of TETR.

Perhaps I'm missing something - but it seems fairly symmetrical - and features around the 'equator' of the model match the image that Dan provided of Pollux.

To me - it looks like what someone would make as a model of Pollux - before the design of Pollux itself was actually finished.

The only caveat I don't see them making is that an oxidizing environment doesn't necessarily require an atmosphere rich in 'Oxygen'

The atmosphere of Venus contains a powerful oxidizer (H2SO4) Even the current martian atmosphere (CO2) is a mild oxidizer.

"Professor Wood said: 'The implication is that Mars had an oxygen-rich atmosphere" - that's the link they've not proven unless I'm missing something. To be fair - it's been 15 years since I wandered into anything even slightly resembling a chemistry class.

Yes - a clear CR hit.

I managed to try it at E3 - it looks FANTASTIC. Can't wait to play in. Release date is the end of July.

D

The case that there was liquid water on the surface for geologically significant periods of time has got stronger in the past decade, and significantly more detailed in the past year. Peaking with Mariner 4? I don't think so.

This explains some gullies. It doesn't explain others - especially those with lobate features etc. Given the recent discoveries from Opportunity and Curiosity - it's fairly clear that no - scientific opinion isn't swinging away from a warm, wet early Mars. Indeed - that story is more robust now than ever before.

Almost 200 sols apart - 1/3rd of a martian year - we know there to be dramatic differences in the Tau - those images SHOULDN'T look the same.

Yeah - it would take some very long exposures ( and thus pretty noisy images probably ) - and also there's the energy penalty of heating the actuators at night to do it as well.

99% of the public are not going to know that. They're going to hear the media repeat, ignorantly, things like 'as bright as the full moon' and wonder why they can't see it.

For the VAST majority of people - the use of 'magnitude' is enormously unintuitive, misleading and typically leads to disappointment. They are not to be blamed either. It's not 'on them'. Not even slightly. The way astronomers notate brightness is misleading to the layperson - period.

If you turn on the comet layer in 'Eyes...' - then ISON is there as well. http://eyes.nasa.gov

Shortcut URL - http://1.usa.gov/133yxyt (Java enabled browser on Mac or PC required)

D

I assume you've found the model hanging in the Smithsonian to be lacking somehow?

Doug

Look more closely - I see at LEAST 15 little bits of drill tailings blowing around. Infact, since making the GIF I see loads more.

This surface has had nothing to do but get used to wind patterns for hundreds of millions of years. Then along we come and drill a hole in it, dump tailings on it, fire a laser at it.....you're going to see motion of that material in the wind.


Doug

Indeed they do.

We have prior knowledge of the transits thanks to Kepler's data to date. That was my point. Nothing to do with detection - simply a comment on the suggestion that Kepler be fired up just to observe the odd transit already known to be occurring. I'm really not sure how or why the discussion went down the CHEOPS route. FWIW - CHEOPS is still only in a study phase- it hasn't been selected for flight.

Hole fired closed to the rover will 'look bigger'.

And the paper I linked to proves otherwise.

That article states "With the imminent arrival of new, dedicated planet hunting spectrographs (HARPS-N, ESPRESSO, APF), the size of the sample of identified stars hosting small mass planet will grow even more rapidly."

HARPS-N, ESPRESSO and APF are ground based.

I assume you mean MER.

I can assure you - all mechanisms etc are tested to 3x the required lifetime. That's not 'over engineered' - that's called engineering margin to guarantee a good shot at reaching your requirements. It's JPL policy. It puts the bellcurve of expected failure centered beyond 90 days.

Squyres has been on record - years after landing - saying he thought maybe 120, if everything went perfectly maybe 180 sols. I'd be interested in exactly where you see JPL engineers describing MER as 'overengineered'. That's not a phrase I've ever heard them use. Required engineering margin....yes. Not 'overengineered'

Plus - the dust was STILL expected to kill the rovers very shortly after 90 sols. This paper by the late great Jake Matijevic details the expected liftspan of the rovers...

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstre...9/1/02-0732.pdf

Slide 3 explicitly states that the expected useful lifespan of the rovers was 100 sols for MER-B at the 'Hematite' site ( aka Meridiani ) and 92 sols for MER-A at Gusev.

So - maybe you might find an engineer on Sol 500 saying "We obviously tested for more than 90 sols". But BEFORE launch - I challenge you to find any engineer on record stating they expected the rovers to last significantly longer than 90 days. I don't think you'll find it.

If we already expect a transit - why not observe it from a telescope on Earth?

Kepler was designed for survey - not targeted observation. It will probably be best used hereafter as an NEO surveying telescope....a use that would make the most of it's large sensor and comparatively large FOV, whilst accommodating it's degraded pointing accuracy.