The first batch of images has been pushed to https://www.missionjuno.swri.edu/

Based on the most recent clock drift file, that time maps to 2018 DEC 15 11:05:20 assuming it's really a raw SCLK value. 0 SCLK is nominally 2000-001T12:00.

I think the cruise thrusters are there on the left side.

Nominally, but the clock isn't perfect and drifts a small amount. See https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/pub/naif/INSIGHT/...KSCET.00009.tsc

And I don't know what the relationship between the time and the actual exposure time is for InSight. It takes tens of seconds to read the image out, though, so it might be off by that much at least.

MMO would have gotten something like a peak of 80 kbits/sec at closest Mars range using Ka-band. https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/smallsat2...df/20_Malin.pdf

FWIW, I'm unconvinced that international cooperation ever saves money if a full cost accounting is done.

12U cubesat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Micro_Orbiter

wikipedia is a little out of date, mission wasn't funded for launch in 2020.

There are only two cameras, ICC and IDC. This is an image with the sun near the FOV. I assumed they moved the arm and this is the sky.

I'm not sure if the IDC had a cover (website says there is one, but I'm not sure if that's true) or if it's been removed.

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2018/pdf/2764.pdf

10 kg more landed mass from what I can tell (360 kg for InSight). From what I know of the design I don't think there's a lot more mass margin. All 12 engines at full thrust produces about 3600 newtons which is about 2.6x more than needed to hover (if I did that right), but they don't run all 12 engines at full thrust and there's the rocket equation to think of.

If you say that something weighs X kilograms, you really mean that it has a mass of X kilograms. I've never heard anyone in aerospace try to use some other verb than weigh in this context. Using "mass" as a verb ala Heinlein has never caught on.

Units of force are a different matter and in my experience that's where the confusion comes in.

The dust on the ICC lens makes me wonder how dusty the Phoenix MARDI would have been had we ever managed to get a post-landing image out of it. Unfortunately there was a sequence glitch in the one attempt that was made, and PHX died before we could try again.

Uh, what? How much do you think arms weigh?

The original MSL design did have two arms, one for sampling and one for contact science, but that got descoped pretty quickly.

As noted, it's off. The cover didn't work very well, apparently.

Turns out that very wide-field fisheyes like this one can be more susceptible than narrower-field optics to dust contamination, somewhat paradoxically.

Keep in mind that the landing ellipse was several CTX swaths wide, so missing wouldn't be that surprising.

[deleted]

Missed with HiRISE. If only there was a wider-field "context camera"...

We offered a number of options, but they chose not to use any of them (of course they had a cost.)

In all honesty the landing context argument isn't extremely compelling, assuming we get HiRISE images post-landing.

Huh. Crud on the dust cover is a lot clumpier looking than what we got on the MAHLI dust cover on MSL. Maybe more localized material from the different thruster configuration and camera placement.

The tilt at landing is well-known from looking at the gravity vector and the vehicle is actively controlling its attitude during powered descent. The tilt in the last 10 seconds of parachute descent, for example, is completely irrelevant to the tilt at landing.

Varying atmospheric conditions are the major reason that the landing ellipses are relatively large.

The way EDL is validated is that many Monte Carlo runs are done with all of the parameters varied across their expected ranges and we see if the landing is successful.

Most of this is covered by ITAR so I wouldn't expect to see public information about the specifics.

You need to calm down a little.

Certainly for previous landings there have been a lot of simulations of what the attitude on chute was, and we used them to calculate exposure times, photometric angles, etc, but at best they were measures of what could have happened. Nobody expected them to look much like reality, and they didn't. For example, the MSL descent was much less oscillatory than some of the simulations.

"Eight Miles High" by the Byrds?

I'm having a hard time adding attachments over on the Insight thread. The upload seems to work but when I try to download, I just get an error message about not having permissions.

Has it occurred to you that maybe the problem is your interpretation of the data, not that they are "incredibly wrong"?

There was some realtime downlink of Schiaparelli data, I think it's described in the failure report. I'd be very surprised if it was online in raw form.

Here's the Insight dump with 1-second intervals.

 edl.zip ( 2.37MB ) Number of downloads: 380

I said most of the kernels on the NAIF site don't model the landing. The one I extracted the data from does at least at some level, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered with it.