By my estimate, we're now on the southern edge of the phyllosilicates. Compare Tesheiner's map for 2739 (today) and the phyllosilicate signatures (red) in CRISM:

fredk, pgrindrod, Tesheiner --in fact, all of you-- you are the reason we keep coming back to UMSF. Very impressive work.

Land ahoy!

Two hour drive today, about 120-140m.
http://twitter.com/#!/marsroverdriver

There is too much physical relief in "crator B" to be, in my estimation, the rim of a relatively small, distant crater. Therefore (and this is a big leap of faith), I think fredk has identified for us the first view of Cape York.... there, I said it. Let me be the first to congratulate fredk. (Alright, you can start shooting at me now.)

We traveled 145 meters on sol 2560? Impressive (if accurate)!

It looks like a few more days here.

"Today, we switch to the RAT and scan for surface. Tomorrow, we'll grind. Wanted to do both in this plan, but short on time (Earth and Mars)." Scott Maxwell, Twitter 3 hours ago.

That sand looks a lot like the hydrated sulfates to me, similar to what Spirit is stuck in (if I'm not mistaken). Take a look at the work of our trusty map makers:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/MRO/news/mro-20081120.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0811...n-glaciers.html

"[B]uried glaciers extend for dozens of miles from edges of mountains or cliffs."

At long last--we had been expecting these sorts of discoveries from the shallow radar instrument for some time.

Breaking news?

NASA: Mars rovers won't be cut
1 hour, 19 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES - NASA says it has absolutely no plan to turn off either of the Mars Rovers because of budget cuts. NASA is saying Tuesday that it has rescinded a letter that recommended budget cuts in the Mars Rover program to cover the cost of a next-generation rover on the Red Planet....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080325/ap_on_...HKf8Jxo8IZxieAA
No news source cited. Please excuse me if this was already posted--I haven't seen it yet.

NASA and JPL are not obligated to release Opportunity's and Sprint's camera work to us when it arrives from Mars. They have many policies and rules in place that govern the release of information, and have lots of discretion to decide what to release. Congress has been plenty active in this arena as well, ranging from various secrecy statutes to the Freedom of Information Act. Generally, scientific and technical data does not have to be released by the government in a timely manner. In fact, in many instances data will never be released to those of us in the general public, for example, "defense articles" like much of NASA's launch and tracking system information. However, once the MER photos are released to us, they're simply not "protected"--they can't be copyrighted and we can do anything we d*** well please with them.

We should thank our lucky stars that James Bell, NASA, JPL et. al have decided to release this bounty of images to us, just as they have been doing ever since the rovers landed. Public release of the rover pictures surely advances NASA's goals in space and planetary science. Because of those releases, many members of this forum have been able to contribute greatly to the scientific inquiry. Their contributions would not have been possible without the foresight of those on the rover team to disclose--as much and as soon as possible--all the images we've been privy to.

Bill is correct. The dispute that our fine colleagues here at UMSF (the "authors" of the "work") have with New Scientist's use of their work depends upon their agreement/contract with Aviation Week. It appears to me that the authors put so much work into the cover that they in fact own the copyright, but their contract may have assigned the "re-copy" rights to Aviation Week in some fashion. Depending on the terms of their contract, IMHO either Aviation Week or the authors may very well may have some legal dispute with New Scientist if NS did not have proper permission.

Antoniseb--

We should probably take this up in another forum. I've had the same problem for at least three months with 30% of the images here, and occasionally at other sites as well. I receive the identical error as you:

The image “http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=1576” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

I've done a bit of research, talked to Road Runner (my cable operator), and have still found no solution. If you figure it out, let us know.

Edit: Joffan-- Thanks for the advice. I checked out the firewall, antivirus and pop-up prgrams, all to no avail. You'd think it'd be something obvious like that.

Hmm . . . I'm not finding the new Steve Squyres Update. Perhaps some revisions are being made?

A slight change in plans--we're going to Summit 1. No doubt for the better view!

http://athena1.cornell.edu/news/mubss/
August 17 post

Space.com Aug. 17, 2005
Summit in Sight for Mars Rover Spirit

"Crumpler told SPACE.com that unless the next drives of Spirit have troubles with terrain or the like, there is a 'good probability' of being at or very close to the summit by the end of this week."

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/05081...rit_summit.html

Not much other news.

No doubt about that one! I suspect that Nature may have already been in touch with you. Many publications take enforement very seriously.

There is a large Spirit download at Exploratorium.

Doug, you have very good reason to be upset about someone using your work without giving you credit. They shouldn't. I'd be angry if I were in your shoes.

The legal reality, however, is that in the U.S. (at least) copyright law generally does not protect "ideas," "facts," "information," "data," or hard work--"the sweat of the brow." Whether British law is different, I don't know, but because of the Berne Convention, I suspect it is similar. Copyright law is only suppose to protect creative expression. That's why phonebooks can't be copyrighted. They're data ordered A-Z.

Portions of "compilations" can be protected under copyright law. 17 U.S.C. Section 103. Cape's "Full Moon" is a compilation, and his copyright only extends to his contribution to the work, but not to the NASA photographs he used. I have not reviewed his book. But I suspect that you could copy a photograph from his book, derived from NASA, without violating his copyright. (Cape's selection and ordering of the NASA photographs, however, may be protectible expression. But copying individual photographs will likely raise no copyright issues.)

"Lifting" pictures without credit is lousy conduct. If done by a publication, it may violate the ethical standards of journalists. There isn't a legal remedy, however, for all instances of bad behavior.

Having said all that, I am sure that more than 99% of those who come to this forum respect the integrity of your work and would sorely miss it should you and the other contributors quit creating it. So please don't.


Here goes: This post is NOT legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact your own lawyer, don't rely on me for anything. Sorry, everyone, it's the malpractice insurance carriers that require we do this.

pls ignore

This is a wonderful site. I've been a lurker for six months. I get my daily fix of Mars rover information and insights here. But I've never had anything to contribute, so never registered . . . until now.

Federal statute exempts all works created by employees and officers of the U.S. goverment from copyright protection. This exemption covers NASA and JPL. The rover images can never be copyrighted. It's NOT because they are in the so-called "public domain." Novels by authors such as John Grisham are "in the public domain" but still protected by copyright law. If you wish to look further into this subject, start in the Copyright Act, whose key provisions on this subject are found at 17 U.S.C. (United States Code) Sections 101 and 105.

The more complicated question is whether your "derivative works" from those rover images are entitled to protection. I'm not going to try to define where one draws the line between a derivative work (which is entitled to no copyright protection) and a protectible work that includes enough "creative expression" to differentiate it from the orginal JPL images. This complex subject is covered in numerous court decisions and the line is often not easy to draw. However, be careful in claiming protection for your works that merely stitch together rover images into panoramas or alter contrast or color intensities.

The good news is that you no longer have to register your work to be protected by the copyright law, or place a copyright symbol next to it---steps you need to take if you want to sue someone or an organization.

I must also tell you: This post is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact your own lawyer. Copyright law is a complicated legal subject, so don't rely on what I'm saying.

Keep up the great posting!