I have seen several references to the MER CAD drawings (one message related "the recently released CAD files". Where do I get the CAD files?

I'm affraid it had to be taken down - Caltech considered it proprietry information.

Please dont ask for anyone to email it to you - this place has got in trouble over it once before, dont want it to happen again.

Doug

you would think that as taxpayers and the fact the space craft has all ready flown that we own data like that.also when one puts a paper in a science journal it is customary to release at least the data on instruments that collect the data.
So if I got a california intititive passed like the stem cell one calling for say $4 hundred Million for 4 copys of the mars rover to made would JPL refuse to build them for us?

I think they would queue up, in the real world. In the unreal world inhabited by lawyers, however...

[quote=infocat13,Sep 30 2005, 11:05 PM]
you would think that as taxpayers and the fact the space craft has all ready flown that we own data like that.also when one puts a paper in a science journal it is customary to release at least the data on instruments that collect the data.

I am interested in gathering information which might assist in an evaluation of the validity of patent claims regarding taxpayer funded spacecraft designs. If any U.S. citizen on this list has information or insights which might assist in establishing a question concerning the validity of such patents please help please respond to me, preferably privately.

BTW- Athough the fabled drawings (which myself and others could use) are not there, this site:

http://hobbiton.thisside.net/rovermanual/

attempts to circumvent the stonewalling of detailed information about MER from official sources by filling in details from every publicly available source.

Don

P.S. CBS National news did a piece on military contractors wanting royalty payments from model manufacturers over 'copyrights' for using their specs to produce models. It is possible that there could be support for a law to outlaw this, and tacking on NASA and its major contractors to such a bill could be an option.

As odd as this sounds I can see nasa lawyers getting upset with this idea

I am not a lawyer, nor do I know nearly enough about patent/copyright law to speak intelligently about this subject...but...

Although the distinction may be a fine one, I just wanted to point out that as Doug said in his post, it is the California Institute of Technology (who are responsible for staffing and management of JPL) that claims patent over the rover designs and copyright over the CAD drawings, not NASA.

US Patent D488,093 : Mars exploration rover Athena

US Patent D487,715 : Mars exploration rover athena

Both of those 'design patents' have as the assignee: California Institute of Technology
If you click on images button within the above pages, you can see a very detailed drawing of the MER rovers, which I believe could be reprinted/distributed, since it exists on the patent application (though, not being a lawyer, I could be COMPLETELY wrong about that as well).

Doesn't function for me (image is empty...)

They are Tiff's (madness frankly) and thus need some sort of plugin (quicktime will do)

I thought of just deleting this thread, for fear of google-bot bringing more lawyers to the 'scene' - but at least this thread tells the story of availability.

Doug

I think you will find this is less and less the case, at least for spaceflight instruments. Welcome to the wonderful world of ITAR (International Trafficking in Arms Regulations). If the diagrams or discussion can be construed as giving technical advice, and that advice can be seen by non-US citizens, ITAR may be involved. Institutions (including Universities) are responsible for policing themselves, making sure they have no violations, to stay on the list of good guys. If you, as a scientist, want to publish something, and the lawyers say no--then you have to spend the extra money, paying the lawyers to investigate whether it is really ITAR sensitive. Or you can not publish what the lawyers object to (or take it off the web, whatever). Of course, the lawyers would never push an overly broad interpretation just to get more funding for their office; that's just silly, isn't it? On the other hand, a broad interpretation is better for any institution--would you rather publish a little extra about the current project, or would you rather avoid even a small risk of becoming an ITAR violator and therefore missing out on future projects. It's sort of a low-risk, high-impact thing, and institutions that are succesful in getting NASA contracts tend to be risk-averse.

While rover CAD drawings and Mars mission scientific instruments are unlikely to help Belgium get the bomb, the relevance of ITAR concerns is real: a system capable of a "600 million mile hole in one" bears a certain resemblance to ICBM technology. So, even though instrument papers traditionally have included lots of description, and have even described what approaches failed to work as well as what worked (i.e., advice), I think you'll see that less--not because it ultimately is ITAR material, but because there are extra (costly) hoops to jump through to show it is not protected.

I can understand how the engineering behind a launch vehicle could be ITAR'd, or things such as the specifics of the RAD rockets and airbag inflation ( both military derived ) - but a CAD drawing from which one can gauge essentially only the look of the thing - I still cant figure out why that would come under the remit of ITAR...and infact it probably doesnt - it's more likely to be a copyright issue...

....but the whole issue blows straight out the window when my mind casts back to the CAD file as the freely available Patent application contains much of the same material at a similar resolution.

For those struggling with the Tif's - I have Quicktime pro, and yup - the images never show up, but if I right click where they SHOULD show up - I can 'save as quicktime source' and just save a tif to my desktop which loads fine

Doug

All too true, sadly. A great example is given on the Phoenix site, ITAR restrictions mean that (for now) the Canadian team responsible for the Phoenix MET are not being given access to the systems that will turn on and off their instruments.

ITAR might have fairly noble intent but this aspect is very damaging and it seems to me that all it does is hinder the risk averse - real traders in international arms technologies are by their very nature not risk averse.

My 2c at any rate.