Dumped as gaseous carbon monoxide and unseparated CO2. It's worth noting that AFAIK the O2 is not actually collected, just measured to see that it existed. You could ask how useful this really is, but I'm not a chemist so my opinion doesn't count.

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/marsdust2017/pdf/6036.pdf

The MSL special issue didn't come out until a month or so after MSL landed, and I wouldn't expect anything faster with this one.

At 39 bits/sec. DSN Now shows uplink from Canberra DSS-34, they are probably trying to get the rate up to some normal value.

I have no source of information better than anyone else's.

There's a paper about them all for the upcoming M2020 Space Science Reviews issue. I've seen some stuff in the media about them: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/nasa-mar...ng-video-2020-7

Not clear, though I don't pretend to understand the specifics of the JPL usage. https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/10022/lucky-peanuts/

I'm pretty sure they can't actually hurt, though.

For the payload, small is not the issue, we've been doing small science instruments for decades. But I can't discuss the mission further beyond what can be gleaned from https://www.lpi.usra.edu/sbag/meetings/jun2...ns/Hartzell.pdf and other public sources.

As one of the developers for the Janus payload, I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes from THE PRESTIGE: "Simple, maybe, but not easy."

All of the images through sol 480 are released through PDS at https://pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov/data/nsyt/insight_cameras/ in multiple forms (including ones where spacecraft structure is helpfully masked out) but even though their SIS describes multiple flavors of mosaics, 3D grids, etc, I don't think any of those have been released yet; at least I couldn't find them.

I should have suspected as much, but I still don't know just how many gaps remain if you look at the whole image dataset.

Read the past few messages. I wasn't sure what point you were trying to make in that context. Certainly there has been some complaining in this thread.

https://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-...trait-as-a.html seems pretty complete, though it's hard to tell what gaps might have been filled and how.

I couldn't find an "official version" of the 360 pan anywhere, or even a well-documented amateur version -- maybe there's one upthread here?

I could bug Justin Maki about this but I've already bugged him enough for M2020 stuff.

And then it descends under power and lands after a fairly limited flight.

I think we should define a rule banning complaining about not going to lakes.

Huh. They did this unilaterally without telling anybody on the Junocam team, anyway. I'll inquire as to what's going on. I agree with any criticism anyone could have about this.

A good source of information is the JPL Tech Report Server at https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov . Go there and search for "skycrane". See, for example, https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/bitstream/handle/2...L%2316-2401.pdf

More information about the helicopter here: https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/bitstream/handle/2...L%2317-6243.pdf

Gee, is that Io? I wonder if we were trying to image that event deliberately?

No, nothing special that I know of. We haven't done our timing analysis yet.

When I said "fluid loop" I meant "fluid loop heated by the RTG". Look at the Cassini and Galileo examples, that had big RTGs and a whole bunch of little RHUs, leaving all the RTG heat just being wasted into space. Of course fluid loops have their own problems.



Depends on your definition of "wasted". The original plan for MSL was to use dry lubricants that wouldn't require any heating to operate. This proved unworkable and was one of the major reasons for the launch slip from 2009 to 2011: see https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1319/1

The RHU discussion is interesting but as noted neither MSL nor M2020 use them; they use a fluid loop that is directly heated by waste heat from the RTG, and electrical heaters for external components. AFAIK no non-rover has ever used a fluid loop, but I could be mistaken.

https://trs.jpl.nasa.gov/bitstream/handle/2...15-2733_A1b.pdf has a discussion of the fairly minor thermal-control changes between MSL and M2020.

You have to add the value of INS-61504_START_TIME_BIAS, yes.

We have to do it this way to preserve compatibility with the definition of the processing chain and how it was implemented in ISIS3.

You mean on volume JNOJNC_0012, correct? We haven't changed anything on earlier volumes, they are immutable.

If I'm following your question, basically yes. The latest version of each image has the best timing, and eventually the timing correction will be applied for version 1 images for new data (that may have happened already for volume 0012 PJ21 and PJ22 data.) The metadata at missionjuno will never have the updated timing, AFAIK (there is no plan to go back and patch images that are already there.)

Those are early tests. I'm pretty confident that they have smoothed it out quite a bit. I've crashed more than my share of small helicopters and if they haven't smoothed it out since that video, it will tip over for sure on any natural terrain.

They are separate. The science tether is the cable that connects to the mole. The engineering tether connects the spacecraft to the support structure. There's a diagram in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_Flow_and...perties_Package

Just so everyone is aware (I don't remember if we've ever explained this): we process and post the images pretty much as soon as we get them in complete form. Depending on downlink pass quality, we can end up with partial images that have dropped data in them, and these gaps have to be filled in by commanding their retransmission. Usually this process doesn't happen on weekends, but you can expect most or all of these images to show up in the next few days.

For PJ27, there are some nice views of the GRS on the outbound leg to look forward to.

Bjorn, could you describe your workflow for getting the brightness matching to work so well from image to image for these products? I've been using a simple lambertian removal and it doesn't work very well at all, at least for the full range of geometries over the orbit.

AFAIK this was always the plan, but I'm not sure if it was explicitly said or just somewhat implied in the status reports.
See https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission-updates/8...diment-for-now/ and note the use of the phrase "mini campaign".