-
#280
by
Norm38
on 12 Aug, 2012 04:13
-
-
#281
by
Nathan
on 12 Aug, 2012 04:21
-
-
#282
by
Norm38
on 12 Aug, 2012 04:47
-
-
#283
by
cleonard
on 12 Aug, 2012 05:48
-
-
#284
by
ArbitraryConstant
on 12 Aug, 2012 07:59
-
It's amazing how a little erosion and atmospheric haze makes it look so much more like home than the moon.
-
#285
by
Nathan
on 12 Aug, 2012 09:43
-
-
#286
by
saturnapollo
on 12 Aug, 2012 13:16
-
Superb images!
Thanks for posting these as I can't find them on the JPL Curiousity site, which is the root directory.
How are you finding these? If you go to the root directory it just takes you to the JPL Curiousity site and the photos aren't under Raw or Images in the Multimedia menu.
Keith
-
#287
by
ugordan
on 12 Aug, 2012 13:21
-
They're here:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/The hi-res Mastcams are under sol 3, although the page still seems to be behaving funky. For example, the images in the first couple of rows show only the thumbnails as available, even though the full frames are there as well (and in fact were linked there originally, but disappeared since). Whereas the thumbnail filenames end with
I1_DXXX.jpg, the full resolution ones end with
E1_DXXX.jpg
Here's an animated gif of 4 frames showing the shadows move over the course of 8 minutes.
-
#288
by
saturnapollo
on 12 Aug, 2012 13:24
-
Many thanks for that. I hadn't scrolled down beyond the thumbnails, thinking these would be the latest to be added to the selection!
Silly me!
Keith
-
#289
by
douglas100
on 12 Aug, 2012 13:39
-
It's amazing how a little erosion and atmospheric haze makes it look so much more like home than the moon.
Absolutely. And it's amazing how little atmosphere you need to get that haze.
-
#290
by
Fixer
on 12 Aug, 2012 13:57
-
This appears to be a high res mosaic of the above images. Looks nice.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia16051_figure_1_raw_smaller-full.jpg
Indeed. This 50mb jpg panoram looks much much sharper than the first 9mb pia16051 jpg, just like original 'subframes'.
By the way, if you look up to horizon from left pair of exposed bedrock you will notice some kind of layered ground, what is that? Also, very interesting area inside the dunes, looks like exposed layer of rock, i wonder, if they are planning to visit it.
-
#291
by
ugordan
on 12 Aug, 2012 14:04
-
Actually, it's still not as sharp as the original frames, but it *is* much sharper than the 9 MB version.
-
#292
by
Fr4nK
on 12 Aug, 2012 15:00
-
-
#293
by
ugordan
on 12 Aug, 2012 15:03
-
Dune field.
-
#294
by
clongton
on 12 Aug, 2012 15:40
-
Dust on the deck
I totally love the pictures and panoramas, but I'm really surprised that the designers didn't include *some* kind of directed blower to remove accumulating dust on occasion. It's not like we haven't had to deal with Martian dust before. Everybody knows it *can* be a problem. And Curiosity, being nuclear powered, is not lacking in electrical ability to power the device. The last lander had to depend on being hit by a Martian dust devil to clear the solar panels for crying out loud. After spending all that money and expending all that time, let's not leave our landers at the whim of Martian weather to remain operational. I really don't want to read on here in a year or 2 that a perfectly good rover has become useless because of accumulating dust. Future lander developers, please take note.
Because it is not problem
It is not an issue for MSL and not worth the weight. MSL is designed for a 2 years mission.
It also was not an issue for MER, they were only designed for 90 day missions.
Jim, regardless of the mission it was "designed" for we all know that barring some physical accident that the rover itself can function MUCH, MUCH longer than that - many years longer. Saying that it's not a problem because the mission is only 2 years is not helpful.
-
#295
by
clongton
on 12 Aug, 2012 15:47
-
-
#296
by
ugordan
on 12 Aug, 2012 16:01
-
Jim, regardless of the mission it was "designed" for we all know that barring some physical accident that the rover itself can function MUCH, MUCH longer than that - many years longer. Saying that it's not a problem because the mission is only 2 years is not helpful.
By all means we
do not know that. MERs were tested for 90 days and beyond that it was anybody's guess how long they would last. The fact they
did last much longer than guaranteed is still no proof that MSL can last that much longer. Don't fall into the trap of extrapolating MER experience to MSL, it's different hardware.
It doesn't make sense to include hardware and abilities like dust wipers that only become useful at the point when all your other components are past their guaranteed design life. Use that mass to put more science on the vehicle instead. Fact is, dust is nowhere near an issue for MSL as it is for MER and Gale crater is described as a pretty windy place, anyway.
-
#297
by
clongton
on 12 Aug, 2012 16:08
-
Jim, regardless of the mission it was "designed" for we all know that barring some physical accident that the rover itself can function MUCH, MUCH longer than that - many years longer. Saying that it's not a problem because the mission is only 2 years is not helpful.
By all means we do not know that. MERs were tested for 90 days and beyond that it was anybody's guess how long they would last. The fact they did last much longer than guaranteed is still no proof that MSL can last that much longer. Don't fall into the trap of extrapolating MER experience to MSL, it's different hardware.
Common expression. How about "based on past experience with American rovers, in all likelihood"?
-
#298
by
Jim
on 12 Aug, 2012 16:12
-
1. Jim, regardless of the mission it was "designed" for we all know that barring some physical accident that the rover itself can function MUCH, MUCH longer than that - many years longer.
2. Saying that it's not a problem because the mission is only 2 years is not helpful.
1. That doesn't matter. The system is designed around the 90 day requirement for MER and hence, dust accumulation is not a consideration for that duration and so, blowers weren't added and the mass was used for something else more beneficial. If it becomes a problem after that, who cares? You take what bonus time there is and work around the issues that the rovers weren't designed for.
2. First of all, dust on top of the MSL rover chassis is not a problem, regardless of the lifetime. Where dust accumulation would be an issue, MMTG fins, a solution was designed in, the MMRTG is mounted at an angle. And yes, you only design to the mission duration requirement and not for extended mission, regardless if you know it can last longer. That is one way to control costs.
-
#299
by
ugordan
on 12 Aug, 2012 16:17
-
Common expression. How about "based on past experience with American rovers, in all likelihood"?
That is hardly a big enough statistical sample to draw confident claims from. Of course it's everyone's expectation that MSL will live more than 1 Mars year, but engineering should IMHO be done by setting requirements, not expectations. Otherwise what's stopping you from escalating costs for example when you realize one component could significantly outlive another and you wish to "improve" that other component as well?
