Doug
Full Version: Phoenix Pre-launch News
Well - on the up side they added more blog entries
Doug
Doug
The website redesign seems to have hidden the recent hi-res EDL video. Does anyone know where that is available?
The file was phoenix_landing_hd.mov - but even pruning URL's - it doesn't appear to be there at all any more.
To be honest - I downloaded it but my laptop ( 1.8G Centrino, Geforce 6800 Go, 1920 x 1200 screen ) couldn't handle it - I got the next one down
Doug
To be honest - I downloaded it but my laptop ( 1.8G Centrino, Geforce 6800 Go, 1920 x 1200 screen ) couldn't handle it - I got the next one down
Doug
QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 29 2006, 07:24 PM) 
The file was phoenix_landing_hd.mov - but even pruning URL's - it doesn't appear to be there at all any more.
I couldn't find it either but there there is a nice gallery including several watch cams...
...And a possible landing site...
QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 29 2006, 08:24 PM)
To be honest - I downloaded it but my laptop ( 1.8G Centrino, Geforce 6800 Go, 1920 x 1200 screen ) couldn't handle it - I got the next one down
Doug, I dowloaded it but vision on my PC (which is by far less powerful than your) was horrible...
then, yesterday, I bring it to the home of a friend who possess an Home theater with HD projector and wow
! even though not perfectly fluid, the 100" vision was terrific! 
However, I do not know the exact characteristics of the HTPC connected to projector...
QUOTE (ustrax @ Dec 29 2006, 07:30 PM)
I couldn't find it either but there there is a nice gallery including several watch cams...
...And a possible landing site...
...And a possible landing site...
They call *that* flat? Bloody hell!
I had assumed that 'flat' was going to really mean, er, flat...
Bob Shaw
Interesting performance anecdote. I downloaded the HD version (all 102.9MB of it) and I find that I can play it back without any noticable problem with IRFANVIEW on my IBM T43P (1600x1200 monitor, ATI FireGL TV3200 video card, 1.8Ghz Centrino) . However my Quicktime player (V7.something I have to admit) seems to stutter noticably and VLC Media Player has major continuity problems playing back this HD version.
I'd happily upload this somewhere if I was confident that doing so was compatible with whatever license that might govern the media but for the moment I think we need to just continue to search for the link on the new Phoenix site - it is substantially better than the "HQ" version that is the best I have been able to find on the new site layout.
I'd happily upload this somewhere if I was confident that doing so was compatible with whatever license that might govern the media but for the moment I think we need to just continue to search for the link on the new Phoenix site - it is substantially better than the "HQ" version that is the best I have been able to find on the new site layout.
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...s/PHOE01107.xml
Another possible cause of MPL's crash?
I hope it will work properly for Phoenix.
Another possible cause of MPL's crash?
I hope it will work properly for Phoenix.
QUOTE (OWW @ Jan 10 2007, 07:33 AM)
Here's the real interesting (and disturbing) portion:
QUOTEDoug McCuistion, NASA's head of Mars exploration, told The DAILY he expects the overrun to be in the double-digit millions of dollars, all of which must be offset by cutting the budgets of other Mars exploration efforts. [Emphasis added]
It might be a good thing that Ed Weiler is no longer running space science at NASA HQ. He might have swung his axe (as he came within a whisker of doing when MESSENGER faced smaller overruns) and cancelled Phoenix outright.
QUOTE (AlexBlackwell @ Jan 10 2007, 02:17 PM)
Here's the real interesting (and disturbing) portion:
[indent][/indent]
It might be a good thing that Ed Weiler is no longer running space science at NASA HQ. He might have swung his axe (as he came within a whisker of doing when MESSENGER faced smaller overruns) and cancelled Phoenix outright.
[indent][/indent]
It might be a good thing that Ed Weiler is no longer running space science at NASA HQ. He might have swung his axe (as he came within a whisker of doing when MESSENGER faced smaller overruns) and cancelled Phoenix outright.
Isn't that one of the tentants of the Discovery program? Live within your budget or get cancelled. I think that has been one of the good things out of FBC, cost caps.
QUOTE (Jim from NSF.com @ Jan 10 2007, 09:23 AM)
Isn't that one of the ten[ets] of the Discovery program? Live within your budget or get cancelled.
Yes, and Mars Scout is supposed to be patterned on the Discovery model. On the other hand, this is, after all, Mars we're talking about. Given its high visibility and attendant PR value, maybe NASA HQ is bending over backwards to ensure Phoenix flies.
It would take a lot to cancel Phoenix because of a budget overrun. Remember that hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent on the project and to cancel it would waste everything. The DAWN project had a similar review and was put on hold for months but was eventually reinstated.
Cost capped missions are both good and bad. It has made NASA pay more attention to cost but one of the problems is that NASA still likes to pick aggressive - high value missions. Deep Impact, Phoenix, Messenger, Dawn are all not simple - MGS like missions (i.e. orbiter). This rewards proposers who make "aggressive" assumptions about what a mission will cost... which then leads to overruns.
While MCO failed due to the infamous english to metric mix up one of the core issues that contributed to the failure was lack of funding. When you lack funding, you lack people, and then things start slipping through the cracks. Who is to say if MCO or even MPL had more appropriate funding if they would have failed. Perhaps testing or analysis that they probably had to cut for budgetary reasons would have found the problems that caused their loss.
The core problem is that the funding available for cost capped missions does not allow for most projects if everyone was sufficiently conservative with their cost estimates so as to not overrun. The projects that it does allow are often of lower scientific value than the more expensive ones... and the selection is heavily based on science.
NASA might be learning it's lesson however. If you notice the Scout proposals selected to go to the next round do not include any landers.
All in all it is pointless to can a mission that is in ATLO because of a cost overrun. The money has already been spent. If cost is a concern... do not select the risky missions in the first place.
Cost capped missions are both good and bad. It has made NASA pay more attention to cost but one of the problems is that NASA still likes to pick aggressive - high value missions. Deep Impact, Phoenix, Messenger, Dawn are all not simple - MGS like missions (i.e. orbiter). This rewards proposers who make "aggressive" assumptions about what a mission will cost... which then leads to overruns.
While MCO failed due to the infamous english to metric mix up one of the core issues that contributed to the failure was lack of funding. When you lack funding, you lack people, and then things start slipping through the cracks. Who is to say if MCO or even MPL had more appropriate funding if they would have failed. Perhaps testing or analysis that they probably had to cut for budgetary reasons would have found the problems that caused their loss.
The core problem is that the funding available for cost capped missions does not allow for most projects if everyone was sufficiently conservative with their cost estimates so as to not overrun. The projects that it does allow are often of lower scientific value than the more expensive ones... and the selection is heavily based on science.
NASA might be learning it's lesson however. If you notice the Scout proposals selected to go to the next round do not include any landers.
All in all it is pointless to can a mission that is in ATLO because of a cost overrun. The money has already been spent. If cost is a concern... do not select the risky missions in the first place.
QUOTE (AlexBlackwell @ Jan 10 2007, 07:17 PM)
Here's the real interesting (and disturbing) portion:
[indent][/indent]
It might be a good thing that Ed Weiler is no longer running space science at NASA HQ. He might have swung his axe (as he came within a whisker of doing when MESSENGER faced smaller overruns) and cancelled Phoenix outright.
[indent][/indent]
It might be a good thing that Ed Weiler is no longer running space science at NASA HQ. He might have swung his axe (as he came within a whisker of doing when MESSENGER faced smaller overruns) and cancelled Phoenix outright.
QUOTE (Spacecadet @ Jan 11 2007, 11:42 PM)
NASA might be learning it's lesson however. If you notice the Scout proposals selected to go to the next round do not include any landers.
Perhaps, but it could also be due as much to the science review panels giving a high value to proposals addressing martian atmospheric science (a high-level MEPAG objective and best addressed globally by orbiters) as it was to the TMC panels rating landers vs. orbiters.
QUOTE (OWW @ Jan 10 2007, 09:33 AM)
Did MPL fly the same radar altimeter as Phoenix will? For a variety of reasons (many of which I disagree with, but that horse has been beaten into its constituent atoms on other threads), a lot of basic avionics like RAs & inertial reference units seem to get re-invented for new missions.
[EDIT]..sorry...I should actually read instead of partially skim these articles. It is indeed a re-fly of the MPL RA.
QUOTE (nprev @ Jan 17 2007, 10:34 PM)
Did MPL fly the same radar altimeter as Phoenix will? For a variety of reasons (many of which I disagree with, but that horse has been beaten into its constituent atoms on other threads), a lot of basic avionics like RAs & inertial reference units seem to get re-invented for new missions.
I think, given the problems with MPL's descent, that a new radar might have been a prudent move!
Bob Shaw
Point taken... 
, but what I was trying to say is that given the fact we've successfully landed on Mars five times, why not fly a proven instrument? For Phoenix, I'd say that the MER RA would have been ideal...though the project timeline may not have made that evident in time for CDR.
Understand the issues of technological advancement, obsolescence, vanishing vendors, etc., but I suggest that for Mars landings it would be wise to procure something like a 10-year suite of critical flight avionics that have been 'combat tested' for use on all missions during that period. Kind of a larger infrastructure investment than a given project could foot on its own, but IMHO a less risky approach.
"Better is the enemy of good"...especially when talking about equipment designed to perform similar functions used in high-risk endevours, like UMSF!
, but what I was trying to say is that given the fact we've successfully landed on Mars five times, why not fly a proven instrument? For Phoenix, I'd say that the MER RA would have been ideal...though the project timeline may not have made that evident in time for CDR.Understand the issues of technological advancement, obsolescence, vanishing vendors, etc., but I suggest that for Mars landings it would be wise to procure something like a 10-year suite of critical flight avionics that have been 'combat tested' for use on all missions during that period. Kind of a larger infrastructure investment than a given project could foot on its own, but IMHO a less risky approach.
"Better is the enemy of good"...especially when talking about equipment designed to perform similar functions used in high-risk endevours, like UMSF!
The requirements for the MER Radar and Phoneix Radar would be a little different I would have thought - the Phoenix radar would be required to do a bit more than just altitude.
Doug
Doug
QUOTE (nprev @ Jan 17 2007, 08:19 PM)
Point taken... , but what I was trying to say is that given the fact we've successfully landed on Mars five times, why not fly a proven instrument? For Phoenix, I'd say that the MER RA would have been ideal...though the project timeline may not have made that evident in time for CDR.
Understand the issues of technological advancement, obsolescence, vanishing vendors, etc., but I suggest that for Mars landings it would be wise to procure something like a 10-year suite of critical flight avionics that have been 'combat tested' for use on all missions during that period. Kind of a larger infrastructure investment than a given project could foot on its own, but IMHO a less risky approach.
, but what I was trying to say is that given the fact we've successfully landed on Mars five times, why not fly a proven instrument? For Phoenix, I'd say that the MER RA would have been ideal...though the project timeline may not have made that evident in time for CDR.Understand the issues of technological advancement, obsolescence, vanishing vendors, etc., but I suggest that for Mars landings it would be wise to procure something like a 10-year suite of critical flight avionics that have been 'combat tested' for use on all missions during that period. Kind of a larger infrastructure investment than a given project could foot on its own, but IMHO a less risky approach.
Phoenix is different from MER which is different than MSL. How many missions does this 10 years cover? And who is building the landers, JPL, LM, or someone else?
Like you said, "issues of technological advancement, obsolescence, vanishing vendors" this would be th problem.
QUOTE (Spacecadet @ Jan 12 2007, 04:42 AM)
Remember that hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent on the project and to cancel it would waste everything. The DAWN project had a similar review and was put on hold for months but was eventually reinstated.
Sunk cost... the decision shouldn't be to justify past expenditure, but to justify additional future expenditure. You stop and ask, given what it will cost me to finish this hardware and complete the mission, is it worth it? Unless you have grossly awful hardware like the composite LH2 tank on the VentureStar--when you actually are throwing a lot away and starting from scratch--the answer is usually yes. But, then again, the superconducting supercollider proved that sunk construction costs don't commit the government to finishing their projects!
(yes, oversimplified discussion of VentureStar's woes, but the point is that sunk costs don't guarantee that problem programs get the green light to spend more, especially given political climate changes.)
QUOTE (Jim from NSF.com @ Jan 18 2007, 04:57 AM)
Phoenix is different from MER which is different than MSL. How many missions does this 10 years cover? And who is building the landers, JPL, LM, or someone else?
Oh, no argument that these missions are quite different, and the "NIH" syndrome would be a significant obstacle to overcome...
Using radar altimeters as an example, this is a mature technology designed for a specific, common, flight-critical function...why continuously re-invent it? If there was a NASA directorate focused on developing common avionics boxes, then they might produce a new "standard RA RT" every ten years or so based on a demand of, for example, four lunar and/or Martian landers over that period. The SRA RT would have programmable vehicle MIL-STD-1553 & let's say RS-422 serial data interfaces (as well as available discrete outputs for event triggering) & an adaptable power supply (let's say between 10-32 VDC). The installation variables would be antenna type & placement as well as antenna cabling.
This essentially makes any standard box (in addition to RAs, I'm thinking of IRUs, comm transceivers, Sun/star sensors, etc.) a constraint for a given mission, since designers would have to figure out how best to install it, evaluate mass & volume impacts, etc. However, this also removes the burden of designing & building (or arduously selecting) their own, which may drive down costs & decrease developmental time (esp. if the boxes were provided gratis by NASA as government-furnished equipment). There even may be some pressure to use up the stock, which might translate into more approved missions...
QUOTE (nprev @ Jan 18 2007, 05:10 PM)
Using radar altimeters as an example, this is a mature technology designed for a specific, common, flight-critical function...why continuously re-invent it?
The MPL/PHX radar is a multibeam Fourier doppler radar that can measure velocity. The MER radar didn't need to do that, and couldn't. So there are legitimate engineering reasons to develop new designs that I don't think you are appreciating.
There's plenty of standardization for box-level avionics: the LN-200 IMU and the Small Deep Space Transponder come to mind.
http://marstech.jpl.nasa.gov/publications/...C-1188-2005.pdf has some background on the MPL radar, and a proposed radar design for MSL.
I stand corrected (& thanks for the clarification! ). I was unaware of the standardization efforts you described; hopefully the trend will expand as appropriate & practical.
). I was unaware of the standardization efforts you described; hopefully the trend will expand as appropriate & practical.
"...The MPL/PHX radar is a multibeam Fourier doppler radar that can measure velocity. ...
I would have thought that the Mars 2001 lander that was "Transformered" into Phoenix had a perfectly decent radar, probably derived from the Polar Lander technology. It's not as though this was the hottest new technology. Viking and the lunar Surveyors did it. Granted, they'd be heavy and made of parts no longer available, but this seems more than a bit strange that's it's a bit $ impact. I'd like to know "THE REST OF THE STORY...."
I would have thought that the Mars 2001 lander that was "Transformered" into Phoenix had a perfectly decent radar, probably derived from the Polar Lander technology. It's not as though this was the hottest new technology. Viking and the lunar Surveyors did it. Granted, they'd be heavy and made of parts no longer available, but this seems more than a bit strange that's it's a bit $ impact. I'd like to know "THE REST OF THE STORY...."
QUOTE (nprev @ Jan 18 2007, 08:10 PM)
Using radar altimeters as an example, this is a mature technology designed for a specific, common, flight-critical function...why continuously re-invent it? If there was a NASA directorate focused on developing common avionics boxes, then they might produce a new "standard RA RT" every ten years or so based on a demand of, for example, four lunar and/or Martian landers over that period. The SRA RT would have programmable vehicle MIL-STD-1553 & let's say RS-422 serial data interfaces (as well as available discrete outputs for event triggering) & an adaptable power supply (let's say between 10-32 VDC). The installation variables would be antenna type & placement as well as antenna cabling.
This essentially makes any standard box (in addition to RAs, I'm thinking of IRUs, comm transceivers, Sun/star sensors, etc.) a constraint for a given mission, since designers would have to figure out how best to install it, evaluate mass & volume impacts, etc. However, this also removes the burden of designing & building (or arduously selecting) their own, which may drive down costs & decrease developmental time (esp. if the boxes were provided gratis by NASA as government-furnished equipment). There even may be some pressure to use up the stock, which might translate into more approved missions...
This essentially makes any standard box (in addition to RAs, I'm thinking of IRUs, comm transceivers, Sun/star sensors, etc.) a constraint for a given mission, since designers would have to figure out how best to install it, evaluate mass & volume impacts, etc. However, this also removes the burden of designing & building (or arduously selecting) their own, which may drive down costs & decrease developmental time (esp. if the boxes were provided gratis by NASA as government-furnished equipment). There even may be some pressure to use up the stock, which might translate into more approved missions...
NASA doesn't fly enough missions or "common boxes" to justify this. Also why should NASA develop the boxes? That is for industry to do (market driven economy)
The boxes referenced (INU, SDST) aren't part of a focused "standardization" effort. Just some some onezes and twoezes that have become COTS.
QUOTE (Jim from NSF.com @ Jan 19 2007, 06:23 AM)
NASA doesn't fly enough missions or "common boxes" to justify this. Also why should NASA develop the boxes? That is for industry to do (market driven economy)
The boxes referenced (INU, SDST) aren't part of a focused "standardization" effort. Just some some onezes and twoezes that have become COTS.
The boxes referenced (INU, SDST) aren't part of a focused "standardization" effort. Just some some onezes and twoezes that have become COTS.
Any chance of Phoenix being woken up the following spring after a year long hibernation? Once the solar panels begin to generate power, what would it take to thaw the thing out and reboot the electronics? No one ever thought the Mer rovers would be working into their forth year, so why not ask the preposterous?
I was wondering about that to. Can the lander be put into Hibernation?
QUOTE (djellison @ Oct 25 2006, 02:11 PM)
They saw the heatshield up close....but not the chute and backshell
And I still think the opportunity for a self portrait in the reflective insulation on the heatshield was a tragic miss
Doug
And I still think the opportunity for a self portrait in the reflective insulation on the heatshield was a tragic miss
Doug
This would have all burned out
http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_ins...heatshield.html
http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_ins...heatshield.html
Swathes of unburnt reflective insulation from inside the heatshield - some reflecting the sun, some the sky, some the ground.
Doug
http://pancam.astro.cornell.edu/pancam_ins...heatshield.html
Swathes of unburnt reflective insulation from inside the heatshield - some reflecting the sun, some the sky, some the ground.
Doug
Aviation Week of this week says they've discovered a crack in the backshell but this will not push back the launch date
Phoenix Lander Readied For Mars Exploration
By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer, Space.com
posted: 01 February 2007
05:01 pm ET
Looks like they dodged a Weiler-style bullet:
By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer, Space.com
posted: 01 February 2007
05:01 pm ET
Looks like they dodged a Weiler-style bullet:
QUOTEGoldstein said that in March of last year, the Phoenix project started having “some significant challenges” in bringing the mission in at a $386 million cost cap. The team notified NASA Headquarters of the overrun last August, requesting a new slug of money, he added, roughly $31 million.
At a meeting last week, Goldstein said that NASA officials gave the project a go-ahead, although the final price tag of the mission has yet to be fully vetted. “The vehicle is behaving very nicely. Things are looking good technically as well as with the schedule and where we are headed. We have no threats to launch at this point,” he said.
QUOTE (stevesliva @ Jan 18 2007, 07:23 PM)
Sunk cost... the decision shouldn't be to justify past expenditure, but to justify additional future expenditure. You stop and ask, given what it will cost me to finish this hardware and complete the mission, is it worth it? Unless you have grossly awful hardware like the composite LH2 tank on the VentureStar--when you actually are throwing a lot away and starting from scratch--the answer is usually yes. But, then again, the superconducting supercollider proved that sunk construction costs don't commit the government to finishing their projects!
(yes, oversimplified discussion of VentureStar's woes, but the point is that sunk costs don't guarantee that problem programs get the green light to spend more, especially given political climate changes.)
(yes, oversimplified discussion of VentureStar's woes, but the point is that sunk costs don't guarantee that problem programs get the green light to spend more, especially given political climate changes.)
This is also a good way of looking at it. VentureStar is probably a bad example because it is unclear it would have worked at all and even if it did it was far from where Phoenix is now.
Also to comment about "using things that flew before" is often a problem because it is not available. Remember MER/MPL were started over 10 years ago and were designed with reliable technology then. Companies stop making parts after that long (ask Intel for Pentium 200 MMX or a 486) and this is even more true when it involves space qualified parts, which involve a huge amount of paperwork and testing.
A couple of recent updates from the Phoenix website:
Mars Mural Unveiling
by Angela Poulson
February 15, 2007
The Phoenix Mission Science Operations Center is proud to announce the unveiling of a twenty- by sixty-foot mural on its south exterior. This artistic celebration of the Phoenix Mission was painted by Alfred Quiroz’s fall 2006 mural painting class as collaboration between the UA School of Art and the UA’s Lunar and Planetary Laboratory.
Special Delivery! Flight Units Complete!
by Suzanne M. M. Young
February 14, 2007
What do I know?
by Deborah Bass
February 12, 2007
Mars Mural Unveiling
by Angela Poulson
February 15, 2007
The Phoenix Mission Science Operations Center is proud to announce the unveiling of a twenty- by sixty-foot mural on its south exterior. This artistic celebration of the Phoenix Mission was painted by Alfred Quiroz’s fall 2006 mural painting class as collaboration between the UA School of Art and the UA’s Lunar and Planetary Laboratory.
Special Delivery! Flight Units Complete!
by Suzanne M. M. Young
February 14, 2007
What do I know?
by Deborah Bass
February 12, 2007
It's great that they updated the Phoenix site...but, um, did Deborah Bass repeat those last lines in her blog on purpose? Quite odd. And I'm kinda confused as to what the "flight units" are that Susanne Young is talking about. The hydrazine fuel? They both get 'C's in writing!! J/k
AvWeek (6/10/07): Phoenix Mars Lander Readied for Launch
NASA's KSC video feed page contains a shot of Phoenix undergoing launch preps...as well as a shot of Dawn's Delta II rocket (with all SRBs now attached)
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/
Babkm, thanks for posting the link to the outstanding article on Phoenix by AviationWeek's Craig Covault.
It's not only a clear and beautifully organized summary of the basics, but it's also filled with nuggets of insight, comparison, and bits of new (to me) information.
I miss the golden days of the frequent MER press conferences, when we could watch Covault and other experienced science journalists at work. (To say nothing of watching SS and the rest of the MER team.)
TTT
It's not only a clear and beautifully organized summary of the basics, but it's also filled with nuggets of insight, comparison, and bits of new (to me) information.
I miss the golden days of the frequent MER press conferences, when we could watch Covault and other experienced science journalists at work. (To say nothing of watching SS and the rest of the MER team.)
TTT
Guess now that the "scoop" on the scoop is out, I can finally show the picture I took of an early model of the ice abrader at Honeybee Robotics in April 2006. They were working on it then, but it was kind of hush hush...
Click to view attachment
Seems like they didn't change the design a whole lot based on the AW&ST pictures.
Airbag
Click to view attachment
Seems like they didn't change the design a whole lot based on the AW&ST pictures.
Airbag
U-M scientists simulate the effects of blowing Mars dust on NASA's Phoenix lander, due for August launch
University of Michigan News Service
June 14, 2007
University of Michigan News Service
June 14, 2007
I'm reminded of the cliff-top scene from The Big Lebowski
Doug
Doug
QUOTE (djellison @ Jun 14 2007, 01:08 PM)
I'm reminded of the cliff-top scene from The Big Lebowski
As Walter said to The Dude: "F--- it, man. Let's go bowling."
It had to happen: the wit and wisdom of the Cohen brothers has finally entered the august domain of UMSF dot com... ...too cool, really!
...too cool, really!
QUOTE (nprev @ Jun 14 2007, 09:12 PM)
It had to happen: the wit and wisdom of the Cohen brothers has finally entered the august domain of UMSF dot com... ...too cool, really!
...too cool, really!So, what you're saying is you went to Mars with a couple of *little* guys, eh?
-the other Doug
First stage for Phoenix's Delta II rocket now in place at Pad 17-A:
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cf...rch.cfm?cat=173
(Scroll down since the photos were put in Dawn's gallery section)
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cf...rch.cfm?cat=173
(Scroll down since the photos were put in Dawn's gallery section)
Here is Phoenix's category for future reference:
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=174
...not sure why they put those in Dawn's category. Of course if you read the captions on the Complex 36 demolition photos, I'm not surprised.
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=174
...not sure why they put those in Dawn's category. Of course if you read the captions on the Complex 36 demolition photos, I'm not surprised.
Up From the Ashes: The Genesis of the Phoenix Mission
Phoenix PI Peter Smith tells the story of the science objectives of Phoenix and the implications of what may be discovered.
June 15, 2007
23.3 Mb movie
Find Your Passion
by Peter Smith
June 17, 2007
Martian Chronicles - June 18 - Return of the Thread Tests
by Patrick Woida
June 18, 2007
Phoenix PI Peter Smith tells the story of the science objectives of Phoenix and the implications of what may be discovered.
June 15, 2007
23.3 Mb movie
Find Your Passion
by Peter Smith
June 17, 2007
Martian Chronicles - June 18 - Return of the Thread Tests
by Patrick Woida
June 18, 2007
QUOTE (dvandorn @ Jun 14 2007, 08:35 PM)
So, what you're saying is you went to Mars with a couple of *little* guys, eh?
-the other Doug
-the other Doug
Of course; but don't be messin' with The Dude, yo, even indirectly!
Meanwhile...fine history encapsulated, AB...I'm confident that the ashes of Phoenix's genesis will be nothing but obstacles and afterthoughts in the future, which is entirely congruent with the history of exploration in general. This is going to be one hell of a mission, and by God I can hardly wait...
although it probably won't be as nice for people to play with the data (pretty pictures) since it doesn't move, but it will be very exciting as it digs deeper and deeper. In a way it's moving in a vertical direction. Science wise it is a very exciting mission and I am getting excitied about it
QUOTE (remcook @ Jun 19 2007, 09:47 AM)
although it probably won't be as nice for people to play with the data (pretty pictures) since it doesn't move
I thought that at first, but now I'm looking forard to seeing how a set landscape changes in appearance during the sol... how the shadows grow and shrink, how the colours and hues of the ice shift subtly, how the sky changes in appearance... this will be a much more "relaxing" armchair mission I think, less frenetic than steaming up and down hills or johhing around the rim of a crater, snapping everything in sight like a tourist on their first visit to London! A little like finding a well-hidden beauty spot while hiking and then just sitting there on a boulder for an age, savouring it, drinking in the experience, you know?
Really looking forward to it now after reading more about it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.