We do. I didn't say who I complained to, but it was the people at MSSS who generated these files.

Yes, I complained about that.

The camera on NH was far better from the old Voyager camera, more bits and much better dynamic range.

And indeed, the raw out-of-the-camera images from Voyager ISS were 8-bit. So one should be looking for longer exposure and/or higher gain images (if there are any) to see dark stuff. As a general rule, if an image is properly exposed for the illuminated areas, it won't have enough dynamic range to see very far into the dark.

Unless you can produce an actual cost figure then this is at best circumstantial. I have a pretty good idea of how much it would have cost on Lucy, but can't discuss specifics.

This is all 20-20 hindsight. What I don't know is how much telemetry of the array state they get. Obviously they weren't expecting a problem.

Maybe in the triton subdirectories? The image names that when into the mosaics are shown at the bottom of the mosaics.

Honestly you have this a lot easier than I did in 1981 when I saw my first Voyager data on 6250 bpi magnetic tapes.

https://pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov/volumes/voyager.html has the raw images in PDS format.

The overall system cost is probably not as low as you think, and it's not at all clear that documenting the deployment would help you fix a problem. Without knowing the details of the system it's impossible to know. There's more than enough poorly-informed discussion of this at the link I provided above.

If you want small space-rated cameras we would be happy to sell you some, and in fact there are two on Lucy: https://www.msss.com/news/index.php?id=131

Color me skeptical that this is 1) possible or 2) useful, but feel free to check out the geometry -- the best trajectory info so far is https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/naif/LUCY/ker...-TCM36-P_v2.bsp

See https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/nmp/st8/tech_paper...20NGU%20ST8.pdf for some information about how Ultraflex arrays work (BTW, ST8 never flew as far as I know). I don't know what kinds of position information or other telemetry (e.g., motor current) they get during deployment. What's been said suggests that all they get is a single binary flag showing full latching, but I doubt that's true.

It's not at all obvious to me if images, especially ground-based, would be of any use whatsoever to fixing the problem. The TTCAM cameras could in theory produce out-of-focus images of the spacecraft, but I don't know if their placement and platform articulation would allow anything useful of the panel (links to a paper on those cameras upthread.)

There's a lengthy, mostly off-topic discussion of this at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=46685.0 if you're into that kind of thing.

Not a lot of room for ambiguity there. I'd say the biggest open question is how much margin there is on the survival energy threshold.

I have no particular knowledge so this is just from reading the slides.

The DSN antennas are painted white and are diffuse in the visible, so it would surprise me if there was significant heating at the focus. I've never heard anything about this being an issue.

Not to give the mods too much of a workout, but this whole color discussion should be moved elsewhere.

I don't think this is the case, I think that the white balance behavior changes unpredictably as a function of what's in the scene and possibly due to some adaptive algorithm inside the camera.

I haven't been able to find any specifics about the exact camera module being used, especially about the optics or the auto white balance settings/behavior. I'm fairly sure that however it's being operated, it wasn't custom-set for the expected martian lighting conditions. We saw a lot of weird white balance issues with the EDLcams also. I don't know how the RDR products are being produced for any of these cameras and I would take their color rendition with a grain of salt.

When you find something about how the auto white balance works under martian conditions, please send a link.

The color balance of this COTS camera has been quite unpredictable if you go back and look at all of the images. Having said that, are these rocks "bluish" by some metric, sure, wouldn't surprise me.

As for the shiny rock, I've taken images of regular old quartz-bearing rocks in the lab with MAHLI that looked just like this image, you don't have to resort to an unlikely hypothesis involving water to explain it.

Some open-access papers about the Lucy mission here: https://iopscience.iop.org/issue/2632-3338/2/5

I think that's still more or less true, but I neglected to think about the large rate difference between System I, the rate at which near-equatorial features move in bulk, and System III, which is what we use for navigation. After a month, I think those systems diverge from each other by nearly 140 degrees. See the equations at https://projectpluto.com/grs_form.htm

Regardless, we'll be imaging in October and we'll see what we see.

I'm a big fan of the Wayback Machine, but it has plenty of gaps and lacunae, and I'm not convinced that the Internet Archive is a better longer-term hosting solution than any other alternative.

For very large image products, certainly people should host however they wish, but it seems silly to require that for every single image, especially modestly-sized ones.

Obviously nobody should expect anything posted here (or anywhere for that matter) to last forever, but this and every other forum I use is riddled with dead links to defunct photo-hosting sites. I find it hard to believe that with storage prices as low as they are, this site can't afford to store reasonably-sized images. I agree that there should be a size limit, but the current 3 MB limit seems a little low in 2021.

The drift rate is pretty well-characterized by the amateur community, so one could figure this out without a lot of difficulty. http://jupos.privat.t-online.de/

I don't think typical drift rates are high enough to go nearly 180 degrees in a month or so, but that's just an impression.

If I assume that all the numbers from S&T are degrees west (which seems to be the standard amateur convention, very reasonable) and Cosmographia is displaying System III longitudes (which is the standard NAIF convention, I believe) then the next PJ will be on the opposite side of the planet from this event, unfortunately.

Here's the Cosmographia view for the next PJ, but I'm not sure what longitude system it displays, and the whole E/W thing versus what S&T reports...

I haven't seen anything about this from a better source than Forbes, anyone else?

Juno is really too far from Jupiter now to get useful data, so it won't be until the next pass on 16 October. Not sure if that longitude will be well seen.