601 lines
31 KiB
Plaintext
601 lines
31 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: MARS OBSERVER CAMERA PRIN FILE: UFO1596
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Msg # : 1249 PARANET conference
|
|
From: ANSON KENNEDY Sent: 08-27-93 19:43
|
|
To: ALL Rcvd: NO
|
|
Topic: THE ABOVE....
|
|
|
|
The following is the first of three articles posted on USENET's sci.space
|
|
newsgroup by the Mars Observer Camera Principal Investigator, Mike Malin. In
|
|
them, he addresses the criticisms Richard Hoagland has raised about the
|
|
mission. If anyone saw Hoagland on CNN's Larry King Live Show last
|
|
Wednesday, this is the message he quoted on the air (from the last paragraph
|
|
to be precise).
|
|
|
|
--- Anson
|
|
|
|
Newsgroups: sci.space
|
|
Path: netcom.com!netcomsv!decwrl!uunet!
|
|
cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!ennews.eas.asu.edu!malin From:
|
|
malin@esther.la.asu.edu (Mike Malin) Subject: MOC PI Comments: Face on Mars
|
|
(Long) Message-ID: <MALIN.93Aug21121909@esther.la.asu.edu> Sender:
|
|
news@ennews.eas.asu.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Mars Observer TES
|
|
Project, ASU, Tempe AZ Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 19:19:09 GMT Lines: 194
|
|
|
|
This posting is from Mike Malin, Principal Investigator of the Mars
|
|
Observer Camera, in response to the net discussions that have been
|
|
going on during the past two weeks.
|
|
|
|
Please do not respond to the e-mail address above. My only link
|
|
to the network is through this third party and I don't want them
|
|
deluged with replies. I do read the net occassionally and will try to
|
|
respond when time and interest permit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic: Observations of the "Face on Mars" and other such "Things" by
|
|
the Mars Observer Camera
|
|
|
|
There have been a lot of questions about whether or not the Mars
|
|
Observer Camera (MOC) will observe the "Face on Mars" or other
|
|
features in the Cydonia region on Mars. This note will (try) to
|
|
describe what we are going to do and why.
|
|
|
|
BACKGROUND
|
|
|
|
For those of you not familiar with the topic, several Viking images
|
|
show features on the surface of Mars that, in the eyes of some people,
|
|
resemble "faces," "pyramids," and other such "artifacts." The most
|
|
famous of these is the "Face on Mars" and associated features "The
|
|
City," "The Fortress," "The Cliff," "The Tholus," and "The D&M
|
|
Pyramid." A fairly substantial "cottage" industry has sprung up
|
|
around these features, with several books having been written about
|
|
them, newsletters published, public presentations, press conferences,
|
|
and, of course, National Enquirer and other "tabloid" published
|
|
reports. The basic premise of these people is that the features are
|
|
artificial, and are messages to us from alien beings. Their tack is
|
|
to say, "These should be rephotographed by Mars Observer, since with
|
|
high resolution we should be able to PROVE that these are artificial.
|
|
If these are in fact artificial, this would rank as one of the
|
|
greatest discoveries in history and thus every effort should be made
|
|
to acquire images." Evidence cited as presently "proving" these are
|
|
unnatural landforms include measurements of angles and distances that
|
|
define "precise" mathematical relationships. One of the most popular
|
|
is that "The D&M Pyramid" is located at 40.868 degrees North Latitude,
|
|
relative to the control network established by Merton Davies (the RAND
|
|
scientist who has been more or less singularly responsible for
|
|
establishing the longitude/latitude grids on the planets) to an
|
|
accuracy (actually, a precision) of order 0.017 degrees. They point
|
|
out that 40.868 equals arctan (e / pi); alternatively, one of the
|
|
advocates notes that the ratio of the surface area of a tetrahedron to
|
|
its circuscribing sphere is 2.72069 (e = 2.71828), which, if
|
|
substituted for e in the above arctan equation gives 40.893 degrees,
|
|
which is both within the physical perimeter of the "Pyramid" and
|
|
within the above stated precision. Other mathematical relationships
|
|
abound. The advocates of this view argue that "no scientific study of
|
|
these features has been conducted under NASA auspices" and that NASA
|
|
and the conservative science community are conspiring to keep the
|
|
"real" story from the American public.
|
|
|
|
The conventional view is that this is all nonsense. The Cydonia region
|
|
lies on the boundary between ancient upland topography and low-lying
|
|
plains, with the isolated hills representing remnants of the uplands
|
|
that once covered the low-lying area. The features seen in these
|
|
mesas and buttes (to bring terrestrial terminology from the desert
|
|
southwest to bear on the problem) result from differential weathering
|
|
and erosion of layers within the rock materials. The area is of
|
|
considerable importance to geologists because it does provide insight
|
|
into the sub-surface of Mars, and to its surface processes. The
|
|
measurement of angles and distances seems so much numerology,
|
|
especially when one understands the actual limitations in the control
|
|
network (of order 5-10 km, or 0.1-0.2 degrees) and the imprecision of
|
|
our corrections of the images (neglecting, for example, topography
|
|
when reprojecting data for maps) on which people are trying to measure
|
|
precise angles and distances. Even given accurate data, however, most
|
|
science does not depend solely on planimetric measurements, even when
|
|
using photographs. There are many other attributes used to examine
|
|
features that don't work for these things. No one in the planetary
|
|
science community (at least to my knowledge) would waste their time
|
|
doing "a scientific study" of the nature advocated by the proponents
|
|
of the "Face on Mars is Artifical" perspective.
|
|
|
|
To provide you with an idea of the magnitude of this issue, consider
|
|
that I spend roughly a quarter of my time these days trying to prepare
|
|
thoughtful answers to (often abusive) letters from people who analyse
|
|
every word in every sentence in every paragraph in every letter I have
|
|
written on the subject (they send copies of my letters to each other
|
|
and exerpt them in their newsletters). They see innuendo and hidden
|
|
meaning everywhere. I also have it on first-hand authority that at
|
|
least 2 NASA Headquarters managers spend similar amounts of time
|
|
responding to letters sent over from Congressmen whose constituents
|
|
write about "The Face" and to which NASA is obligated to respond.
|
|
|
|
THINGS LIMITING MARS OBSERVER CAMERA OBSERVATIONS
|
|
|
|
Before I discuss the observations MOC will make of "The Face on Mars,"
|
|
some facts about the camera and its ability to look at specific
|
|
locations are needed.
|
|
|
|
0. The MOC is body fixed to the spacecraft. It has no independent
|
|
pointing capability. It makes pictures the same way a fax machine
|
|
does (i.e., the scene is moved past the single line detector).
|
|
|
|
1. Cross-track Field of View - The MOC has a very small field of view
|
|
(0.44 degrees), which is about 3 km from the 400 km orbital altitude.
|
|
It typically takes very small images at very high resolution (lots of
|
|
data). Anything wider than 3 km cannot be imaged in its entirety.
|
|
|
|
2. Along-track Field of View - The MOC's downtrack field of view is
|
|
limited by the amount of data that will fit in its buffer (about 10
|
|
MB). If one uses the entire buffer (which is not likely to be
|
|
completely empty unless its planned to be) and 2:1 realtime predictive
|
|
compression, this translates to a downtrack image length of about 15
|
|
km. We've designed the camera to be able to average pixels together
|
|
to synthesize poorer resolution, which frees up data. Under the best
|
|
case buffer availability, an 8X summed image would be 3 km wide (but
|
|
only 256 pixels across) by 40960 pixels long which, at 12 m/pxl (8 X
|
|
1.5) would be almost 500 km long.
|
|
|
|
3. Pointing Control Instability - The spacecraft uses IR horizon sensors
|
|
for in-orbit pointing control. Owing to variations in the IR flux of
|
|
the horizon with latitude, season, surface topography, atmospheric
|
|
dust content, cloudiness, and other meteorological and climatological
|
|
conditions, the control capability is about 10 mrad (0.6 degrees = 4 km),
|
|
which is larger than the MOC field of view.
|
|
|
|
4. Spacecraft Position Uncertainty - The position of the spacecraft
|
|
is determined by radio tracking for 8 hours (roughly 4.5 hours of
|
|
actually seeing the spacecraft) a day, and by computing the position
|
|
of the Earth, Mars, and the spacecraft in an inertial coordinate
|
|
system. It takes a few days to do this, and to use it to determine
|
|
where the spacecraft will be a few days later. By that time, gravity
|
|
perturbations, atmospheric drag, and autonomous momentum unloadings
|
|
will have changed the orbit. Error studies suggest that the
|
|
uncertainty seven days after the end of a given orbit can be
|
|
represented as a 40 second uncertainty in the time the spacecraft will
|
|
be at a specific point in its orbit. This translates (at the orbital
|
|
rate of the spacecraft projected on the ground of 3 km/s) to 120 km
|
|
downtrack and (because Mars rotates at 0.24 km/s at the equator) 9.6
|
|
km crosstrack. At 40 degrees latitude, the crosstrack uncertainty is
|
|
7.4 km.
|
|
|
|
5. Non-inertial Position Uncertainty - The position of the spacecraft
|
|
is determined inertially. As noted above, the position of the
|
|
longitude/latitude grid is also uncertain to about 5-10 km.
|
|
|
|
6. Orbit Spacing - If, in spite of the preceding, orbits were equally
|
|
spaced, then the average spacing of orbits at the equator for the 687
|
|
day mission would be about 2.5 km, which means that each spot on the
|
|
equator will fall within the MOC field of view in (possibly) two
|
|
images. In fact, the repeat distance is just over 3.1 km, again
|
|
assuming equal spacing, and it is more than likely that each spot on
|
|
the equator will only be seen once. At 40 degrees latitude, the
|
|
spacing is roughly 2.4 km, and any location will be seen, at most,
|
|
twice. Given Items 1-5, it is most likely that some places will be
|
|
overflown twice, and others not at all, and that our ability to
|
|
predict this is very limited.
|
|
|
|
We are attempting to address some of these issues with, for example,
|
|
optical navigation. This could reduce the spacecraft position
|
|
uncertainty by perhaps a factor of five or more. We will try to
|
|
create a new control grid with higher precision (perhaps as good as 1
|
|
km). But we cannot do anything about the orbit spacing or the
|
|
pointing control or the width of the MOC field of view. Thus, hitting
|
|
anything as small as a specific 3 km piece of the planet is going to
|
|
be very difficult.
|
|
|
|
And what about the fact that Mars has a very dynamic atmosphere? The
|
|
one orbit we fly over something of interest, it may be cloudy, or
|
|
dusty.
|
|
|
|
SO, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO
|
|
|
|
Despite providing a number of people involved with the "private" studies
|
|
of the "Face of Mars" with exactly the same information I've just
|
|
noted, they continue to think I am purposefully avoiding taking the
|
|
picture they want. They are very concerned that the MOC is being run
|
|
by a company and that I will try to ransom or profit from the
|
|
"important" data (as if they are not). And talk of conspiracy is
|
|
everywhere. But it isn't the case: if we get a picture of "The
|
|
Face," we will most definitely release it.
|
|
|
|
"The Face on Mars," "The City," "The Fortress," "The Cliff," "The
|
|
Tholus," "The D&M Pyramid," etc. are in our target database (now they
|
|
want detailed copies of that binary data base!). We will try to get
|
|
pictures (its almost impossible not to try to take the pictures, since
|
|
the data base and initial targeting effort is fully automatic). Of
|
|
course, given the factors noted above, I'd be stupid to tell people we
|
|
were definitely, without doubt, and postively without uncertainty
|
|
going to get a picture of any of these things. For one thing, they
|
|
would then cry that I was hiding the picture if in fact we never got
|
|
one. So my approach has been not to promise anything, which of course
|
|
gets me in trouble, too.
|
|
|
|
BOTTOM LINE:
|
|
|
|
We will try. We more than likely will not succeed. There is no
|
|
conspiracy. We are not ignoring the problem (just the people, who are
|
|
making a real nuisance of themselves).
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
* Origin: MICAP Georgia State Chapter & Georgia Skeptics (9:1012/25.0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Msg # : 1252 PARANET conference
|
|
From: ANSON KENNEDY Sent: 08-27-93 19:45
|
|
To: ALL Rcvd: NO
|
|
Topic: MARS OBSERVER CAMERA PRIN
|
|
|
|
This is the second article by Mars Observer Camera Principal Investigator
|
|
Mike Malin.
|
|
|
|
--- Anson
|
|
|
|
Newsgroups: sci.space
|
|
Path: netcom.com!netcomsv!apple.com!oli
|
|
vea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net
|
|
!gatech!asuvax!ennews!ennews.eas.asu.edu!malin From: malin@esther.la.asu.edu
|
|
(Mike Malin) Subject: MOC PI Comments: Proprietary Rights to Images (Long)
|
|
Message-ID: <MALIN.93Aug21122008@esther.la.asu.edu> Sender:
|
|
news@ennews.eas.asu.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Mars Observer TES
|
|
Project, ASU, Tempe AZ Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 19:20:08 GMT Lines: 130
|
|
|
|
This posting is from Mike Malin, Principal Investigator of the Mars
|
|
Observer Camera, in response to the net discussions that have been
|
|
going on during the past two weeks.
|
|
|
|
Please do not respond to the e-mail address above. My only link
|
|
to the network is through this third party and I don't want them
|
|
deluged with replies. I do read the net occassionally and will try to
|
|
respond when time and interest permit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic: Proprietary Rights to Mars Observer Camera images
|
|
|
|
The first thing you must recognize is the difference between a
|
|
facility instrument and a Principal Investigator instrument. With the
|
|
former, NASA or its designated field center (JPL in the case of
|
|
planetary missions) contracts to buy the instrument, either from
|
|
industry or from within its own facilities. In the latter case, NASA
|
|
contracts with an individual (actually, his institution) for an
|
|
investigation (more on this in a moment).
|
|
|
|
Since Mariner 6 & 7 in 1969, all planetary S/C cameras have been facility
|
|
instruments built by JPL to specifications developed interactively
|
|
with a group of scientists (a facility team) who proposed separately
|
|
to conduct specific science tasks. Generally, these scientists had
|
|
very little knowledge or interest in the hardware, and were more than
|
|
content to let the engineers at JPL decide what capabilities were to
|
|
be incorporated. The scientists were guaranteed "first rights" to the
|
|
data in return for devoting much of their "discretionary" research
|
|
time (i.e., time not supported by teaching or other institutional
|
|
duties) to the project. Most of my colleagues spend between 3 and 5
|
|
times as much time on their flight project commitments as they are
|
|
paid for, including considerable travel time. The ancillary
|
|
advantages of flight project participation (computing hardware,
|
|
augmented staff support, prestige) are less compensation than
|
|
perquisites (i.e., they result in "nice" improvements in one's ability
|
|
to conduct research, but usually not anything truly "enabling"), and
|
|
often do not compensate for the loss of time to devote to science.
|
|
|
|
When the Mars Geoscience/Climatology Orbiter Science Working
|
|
Group did not recommend a facility camera be flown on that mission
|
|
(which was renamed Mars Observer later), that allowed, for the first
|
|
time in 25 years, for a PI camera. In PI instruments, NASA selects
|
|
investigations, not just instruments. A total package must be
|
|
proposed, including the development of the instrument (and its
|
|
testing), its operations and data collection, and the processing and
|
|
interpretation of the data. In PI instruments, NASA buys knowledge,
|
|
not hardware or data. Proposals that seek to provide less than this
|
|
whole are considered "unresponsive" and are often returned without
|
|
consideration.
|
|
|
|
For a PI, the work effort is even greater than for a facility team
|
|
leader or member. The compensation is somewhat better (I ended up
|
|
being paid probably 80% of my time by MOC), but the hours are even
|
|
more monsterous. I've worked 60-80 hr weeks for most of the past 6
|
|
years, and much of my team averaged 50-60 hrs during that same time
|
|
(remember, as non-exempt salaried employees, we're only paid for 40
|
|
hrs). True, I now have a staff of 14 (before I had 1) and a wealth of
|
|
computer hardware, but my science output for the past six years has
|
|
been pitiful (hopefully, though, that's about to change). So what is the
|
|
inducement? Well, there are at least four (not in any particular
|
|
order):
|
|
|
|
1. I get to do it MY way. Not really, of course. When you have a
|
|
engineering team, you do it their way (or your stupid). But you do
|
|
get considerably greater responsivity from a team you've hand-picked
|
|
and who work directly for and with you, than you might from a more
|
|
distant (both in space and time) group selected independently by NASA.
|
|
This leads to a remarkably greater instrument capability, since you
|
|
can trade off risk and performance directly, without intermediaries.
|
|
|
|
2. I get to control what is actually done with the instrument. Thus,
|
|
specific science topics near and dear to my heart are those that get
|
|
precedent. Laying to rest some misconceptions about Mars that have
|
|
propagated into the literature can be quite satisfying.
|
|
|
|
3. I get to be the first to see many new things about a planet I've
|
|
studied for almost 25 years.
|
|
|
|
4. I get to etablish the new precedents in the literature (for better
|
|
or worse). This is a part of the story of the much maligned
|
|
proprietary rights period.
|
|
|
|
There are a couple of other reasons for the proprietary rights period
|
|
that are induced by our contract with NASA. First, NASA only wants to
|
|
archive the data once. So they want it "bested" (all end-to-end data
|
|
dropouts that can be fixed should be fixed), they want the final
|
|
ancillary information (pointing, spacecraft position, etc.), they want
|
|
a detailed "experimenter's notebook" (why was each datum collected,
|
|
was the collection successful, is it what was requested, etc.), and
|
|
they want it all in a format that can be easily transferred to the
|
|
Planetary Data System which, in concert with the National Space
|
|
Science Data Center, is responsible for archiving and disceminating
|
|
planetary mission data to interested scientists and lay persons.
|
|
Second, NASA requires us to deliver results, not just data. So we are
|
|
not in accord with our contracts unless we provide interim science
|
|
reports on an agreed upon schedule. Given budget limitations that
|
|
lead to personnel limitations, a certain period of time is needed to
|
|
both validate the data and prepare the preliminary science reports.
|
|
Previous missions have had 1 year proprietary rights periods, and
|
|
Voyager took almost 2 years to get the initial Jupiter data out to the
|
|
general community. On the other hand, Mars Observer's "standard"
|
|
release is six months from receipt, with the following kluge resulting
|
|
from scheduling issues and data infusion limitations of the PDS: the
|
|
first month's data will be available in month seven, the second
|
|
through sixth month's data will be available in month 13, the 7th
|
|
through 12th month's in month 19, etc. While I recognize this may be
|
|
irritating to some, it represents a reasonable compromise with the
|
|
realities of physical data systems and human nature.
|
|
|
|
To give you an idea of the magnitude of the problem from my
|
|
perspective, consider that MOC will take roughly 3 terabits of
|
|
decompressed image data in 687 days compared to Magellan's 3 terabits in
|
|
243 days, which means that MOC will acquire the same amount of data in
|
|
its standard mission as Magellan did in its. Granted, there is a rate
|
|
difference (about 1/3), but we're doing it with nearly a factor of 20
|
|
fewer people, and for a budget that's at least an order of magnitude
|
|
smaller (the difference is machines, not higher salaries). And we're
|
|
responsible for BOTH uplink and downlink planning and operations.
|
|
|
|
The bottom line on proprietary rights: as stated by several people on
|
|
the net, these rights are often viewed as an inducement to get good
|
|
people to work on projects. This is only part of the
|
|
explanation...NASA requires considerable work to be performed on the
|
|
data prior to their release (in a way, the data are out of NASA's
|
|
hands when released, and they want the data to be in the best, final
|
|
form at that time). The proprietary rights period will not prevent
|
|
the public from seeing many of the more interesting and important
|
|
discoveries from the mission (see accompanying message re: public
|
|
access to MOC data). It assures that the return on the initial
|
|
investment is maximized and prepares the material for further use.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
* Origin: MICAP Georgia State Chapter & Georgia Skeptics (9:1012/25.0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Msg # : 1254 PARANET conference
|
|
From: ANSON KENNEDY Sent: 08-27-93 19:47
|
|
To: ALL Rcvd: NO
|
|
Topic: MARS OBSERVER CAMERA PRIN
|
|
|
|
This is the third (and last) article by Mars Observer Camera Principal
|
|
Investigator Mike Malin.
|
|
|
|
--- Anson
|
|
|
|
Newsgroups: sci.space
|
|
Path: netcom.com!netcomsv!apple.com!oli
|
|
vea!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net
|
|
!gatech!asuvax!ennews!ennews.eas.asu.edu!malin
|
|
From: malin@esther.la.asu.edu (Mike Malin)
|
|
Subject: MOC PI Comments: Public Access to Images
|
|
Message-ID: <MALIN.93Aug21122249@esther.la.asu.edu>
|
|
Sender: news@ennews.eas.asu.edu (USENET News System)
|
|
Organization: Mars Observer TES Project, ASU, Tempe AZ
|
|
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 19:22:49 GMT
|
|
Lines: 152
|
|
|
|
This posting is from Mike Malin, Principal Investigator of the Mars
|
|
Observer Camera, in response to the net discussions that have been
|
|
going on during the past two weeks.
|
|
|
|
Please do not respond to the e-mail address above. My only link
|
|
to the network is through this third party and I don't want them
|
|
deluged with replies. I do read the net occassionally and will try to
|
|
respond when time and interest permit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic: Public access to Mars Observer Camera images
|
|
|
|
First and foremost, you can all help by getting the word out that
|
|
there is NOTHING DIFFERENT about the public accessibility of the MOC
|
|
data from previous missions. If anything, access will be improved.
|
|
The "Face on Mars" crowd seems obsessed with some perceived
|
|
differences arising from the fact that the MOC is a PI instrument. As
|
|
I hope to show below, such obsession is unfounded.
|
|
|
|
There are several levels at which the public will have access to the
|
|
MOC data. These are 1) press releases, 2) public display, 3) NASA
|
|
Select displays, and 4) Planetary Data System (PDS) release.
|
|
|
|
Definition: "release" means material is in the public domain, and that
|
|
the MOC team has no control over its use. "display" means the data
|
|
are shown to the public for information sake, but are not yet in the
|
|
public domain.
|
|
|
|
1) Press releases: The Mars Observer Project Office at JPL, the JPL
|
|
Public Information Office, and NASA Headquarters are all committed to
|
|
getting information about Mars Observer out to the public. Because
|
|
Mars Observer operates as a distributed system (i.e., mission
|
|
operations is not centralized at JPL, but rather is distributed across
|
|
the country at the institutions of the experiment principal
|
|
investigators), this represents a formidable challenge. Each PI is
|
|
free to release whatever he wants from his experiment, whenever he
|
|
wants, and from his home institution. Our agreement is to inform our
|
|
colleagues across the country and at JPL of our intentions, but we are
|
|
not required to seek any authorization for such releases. JPL will
|
|
try to coordinate a few group releases, keyed to special events in the
|
|
mission.
|
|
|
|
From the MOC perspective, I hope to release many (dozens?) of
|
|
images over the course of the 687 day primary mission. Limitations on
|
|
these releases include: media interest, cost of reproduction, cost of
|
|
time to prepare the releases, etc. While most of you (by virtue of
|
|
the fact you're on the internet) have made the switch to volatile
|
|
communication, much of the world, including the media, have not.
|
|
Since we can't cater to one special interest group over another (e.g.,
|
|
computer types), we must provide our "product" in as broad a format as
|
|
possible.
|
|
|
|
There WILL be releases of ORIGINAL DIGITAL DATA in binary form.
|
|
The MOI-28 day image was an exception, not the rule by which future
|
|
releases are planned. My staff and I abhor rescanning, and do not
|
|
intend for our releases to be screwed up in that way. What happened at
|
|
MOI-28 is that the release was moved forward from the date we had
|
|
agreed upon (NASA was eager to try to get into the Friday papers
|
|
rather than Saturdays) and my co-investigation team of scientists, who
|
|
are not yet in residence (since real data acquisition doesn't start
|
|
until December), hadn't even seen the image yet. I wanted them to at
|
|
least have some view of it before the whole world had access to it
|
|
digitally, so I didn't provide JPL with a releasable digital-format
|
|
image. JPL PIO simply scanned it in on its own volition. In the
|
|
future, releases will be better coordinated and the digital and
|
|
hardcopy versions will be released simultaneously.
|
|
|
|
I should note, however, that the digital version will be EXACTLY
|
|
that used to generate the hardcopy (i.e., not raw). Raw data will be
|
|
released as part of our contractual obligation to archive and release
|
|
ALL of the data to the public domain after validation and initial
|
|
science analysis (See below, PDS release, and separate message on
|
|
proprietary rights).
|
|
|
|
In summary, press releases will occur as often, if not more so,
|
|
than was seen during any of the previous ORBITAL missions. Viking
|
|
released roughly 30-40 PR images per vehicle (2 orbiters, 2 landers)
|
|
over two years, and we will easily match or exceed that rate
|
|
(20/year). Voyagers had the advantage of short encounters and
|
|
concentrated media attention--don't expect that kind of coverage to
|
|
extend over a two year mission.
|
|
|
|
2) Public Display: I REALLY want to get the MOC data out in front of
|
|
the public, so on my own initiative, but with the enthusiastic support
|
|
of both the NASA Science Internet and the Mars Observer Project, I
|
|
have begun negotiating to provide a "live" digital video feed from my
|
|
facility to the National Air and Space Museum, to JPL's visitor's
|
|
center, and to NASA Headquarters. Other facilities (Kennedy Space
|
|
Center's, Johnson Space Center's, and Goddard Space Flight Center's
|
|
visitor's centers, etc.) may be included. This will be an automatic
|
|
rescaling of our canonical 2K X 2K pixel images to 480 X 480, with
|
|
ancillary information (location, image id, etc.) displayed in NTSC
|
|
format that will occur roughly in "realtime." NASA Select will
|
|
probably broadcast some of these displays (see below).
|
|
|
|
Images shown via this display are still proprietary, meaning we
|
|
haven't validated them nor performed initial science analysis. They
|
|
are not released and cannot be reproduced or recorded digitally
|
|
without our permission (basically, any reproduction would constitute
|
|
"release"). Video recording by media is allowed, as is such recording
|
|
by the public of any broadcasts. The displays are volatile, however,
|
|
and once the image is gone, it cannot be recovered. This is EXACTLY
|
|
like the broadcasts of Voyager data during its outer planet
|
|
encounters. I have gone to considerable trouble to provide this
|
|
capability, since it isn't inherent in the distributed data system of
|
|
Mars Observer.
|
|
|
|
3) NASA Select Displays: NASA Select satellite television will carry
|
|
some amount of Mars Observer mission coverage, the exact amount and
|
|
timing is TBD. Competition for NASA Select time is quite steep,
|
|
especially during Shuttle missions, and the amount of time Mars
|
|
Observer will get is probably pretty small. For example, Mars
|
|
Observer begins its mapping operations around the last week in
|
|
November/first week in December. Since the Space Telescope
|
|
refurbishment mission is scheduled in the same time period, it is
|
|
unlikely Observer will get much air time. The commitment for now
|
|
(very preliminary) is for a 15 minute weekly summary throughout the
|
|
two year mission, with coverage of special events (like joint press
|
|
conferences which JPL will plan). HARD CHOICE FOR YOU ALL: do you
|
|
want to see 24 hr coverage of shuttle missions or coverage of Mars
|
|
Observer? Let NASA Headquarters know.
|
|
|
|
4) Planetary Data System (PDS) Release: The PDS is a distributed
|
|
data archiving system that, working in conjunction with the National
|
|
Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) at Goddard Space Flight Center,
|
|
provides public and professional access to space mission data. NASA
|
|
has written into all Mars Observer contracts the requirement to
|
|
prepare appropriate archive data products, and to transfer these
|
|
products to the PDS after the proprietary rights period, which is
|
|
nominally six months (see separate message re: Proprietary Rights).
|
|
With recent budget cuts imposed by Administrator Goldin's demand for
|
|
lower Mission Operations and Data Analysis costs (what did he THINK
|
|
was going to be cut?), these archived products will be pretty raw, but
|
|
thanks to modern computers, also not unreasonably inaccessible to people
|
|
with a little know-how. The MOC data are not in image format in their
|
|
raw form--we send the data down compressed. Nor is it standard
|
|
JPEG--we developed our compression (a varient on DCT) before the
|
|
standard was settled upon, and by using a larger transform block (16 X
|
|
16) and a set of 16 requantization tables we developed empirically, we
|
|
actually get better images for a given Q factor. The intent of the
|
|
PDS is to act as a bridge between the original investigators and other
|
|
scientists and the public in gaining access to the data. The PDS
|
|
nodes (USGS Flagstaff and JPL for Imaging, Washington University for
|
|
other Geoscience data) are set up to provide both on-line and personal
|
|
help in finding what is needed and getting it into the format that's
|
|
desired.
|
|
|
|
Within a year of the end of the mission, all the data will be "in the
|
|
public domain." But unlike most previous missions (Magellan being the
|
|
the first of the new breed), data will be released DURING the mission,
|
|
so you don't have to wait the entire mission to see the very first
|
|
data.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
* Origin: MICAP Georgia State Chapter & Georgia Skeptics (9:1012/25.0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Msg # : 1257 PARANET conference
|
|
From: SHELDON WERNIKOFF Sent: 08-26-93 20:08
|
|
To: BOB DUNN Rcvd: NO
|
|
Topic: ODE TO THE MARS PROBE
|
|
|
|
|
|
ODE TO THE MARS OBSERVER
|
|
(To the tune of Gilligan's Island theme song)
|
|
|
|
|
|
NASA built a satellite, and aimed it at the stars,
|
|
they sent it to take pictures of the surface of Mars.
|
|
eleven months it travelled, and everyone was sure,
|
|
there'd be no major problems on this one planet tour...
|
|
|
|
refrain "one planet tour"
|
|
|
|
But then without a warning, something big went wrong,
|
|
the radio went silent, the satellite was gone.
|
|
Despite the preparations, and the billion dollar cost,
|
|
and despite all the efforts of the NASA crew,
|
|
the mission it was lost...
|
|
|
|
refrain: "mission it was lost"
|
|
|
|
A billion dollar space probe, gone without a trace,
|
|
Could it be connected with the Martian happy face?
|
|
Some people swear it's up there, as clear as clear can be,
|
|
Could it be there's something else we're not supposed to see?
|
|
|
|
refrain: "not supposed to see"
|
|
|
|
Someday soon on a mountain top, on a clear and moonless night, An
|
|
astronomer, with his telescope,
|
|
will be watching Mars, all alone,
|
|
And there he'll see a message reading...
|
|
"SEND US SHARON STONE"
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |