Some photos from today's viewing:
http://www.launchphotography.com/Phoenix_cleanroom.html
Full Version: Phoenix Pre-launch News
Awseome pictures...I piticualarly like the one of the men laying on the floor looking up her skirt, lol.....
From today and untill the launch I'll dedicate some time at the spacEurope blog to the Phoenix with several and different guests.
I've started with the participation of Walter Goetz from the Max Plänck Institute (participating in the mission) talking about the Robotic Arm Camera and the CCDs (their speciality...) and others will follow.
I tried to make some nice, understandable graphics from the images provided by Dr. Goetz, like this one, hope it may be useful.
I've started with the participation of Walter Goetz from the Max Plänck Institute (participating in the mission) talking about the Robotic Arm Camera and the CCDs (their speciality...) and others will follow.
I tried to make some nice, understandable graphics from the images provided by Dr. Goetz, like this one, hope it may be useful.
http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/mardi_update.php
QUOTE
One image planned during descent of Phoenix
July 3, 2007
Extensive testing of NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander in preparation for an August launch has uncovered a potential data-handling problem in time to modify plans for use of a camera during the final minutes of arrival at Mars.
July 3, 2007
Extensive testing of NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander in preparation for an August launch has uncovered a potential data-handling problem in time to modify plans for use of a camera during the final minutes of arrival at Mars.
Dammit. This is not good; concerned now about the systems engineering/integration rigor for other functions of the vehicle. Hopefully, this is completely unjustified.
I am the first one who says spaceflight is hard and risky. But after these strange Dawn launch problems now this. I have to ask if there is a lack of planning, competence, money, I don't know.
There has to be a backup plan for launching Dawn after July 11th and launching Phoenix on time. Pay overtime, work weekends. Downrange tracking assets need backup. I know this is not even comparable but remember a Apollo mission being delayed because one tracking aircraft is not on station.
MARDI is one science instrument now incabable of doing its mission. This instrument dates back to Mars 98! Nine years.
Or maybe NASA is now extremly risk adverse and does not take any chances as it did in the past. I don't consider this a good thing.
Analyst
There has to be a backup plan for launching Dawn after July 11th and launching Phoenix on time. Pay overtime, work weekends. Downrange tracking assets need backup. I know this is not even comparable but remember a Apollo mission being delayed because one tracking aircraft is not on station.
MARDI is one science instrument now incabable of doing its mission. This instrument dates back to Mars 98! Nine years.
Or maybe NASA is now extremly risk adverse and does not take any chances as it did in the past. I don't consider this a good thing.
Analyst
QUOTE (Analyst @ Jul 5 2007, 08:26 AM) 
There has to be a backup plan for launching Dawn after July 11th and launching Phoenix on time.
There is - it's called destacking and trying again after Phoenix has gone.
Doug
I know. And you should know that I know. And you probably know I mean launching Dawn *before* Phoenix. And reading the Dawn forum there now is a plan to try later in July. But all this is not the point here.
Analyst
Analyst
Sure it's very bad news.
But the loss does not seems to be so huge.
According to the update, this single image will still show smaller details than HiRISE.
This gives us the intermediate resolution between ground cameras and HiRISE.
For larger context views, HiRISE should do the job.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
How many images were planned between HiRISE resolution and touchdown ?
But the loss does not seems to be so huge.
According to the update, this single image will still show smaller details than HiRISE.
This gives us the intermediate resolution between ground cameras and HiRISE.
For larger context views, HiRISE should do the job.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
How many images were planned between HiRISE resolution and touchdown ?
QUOTE (Analyst @ Jul 5 2007, 09:19 AM)
But all this is not the point here.
Analyst
Analyst
The point is that Dawn was due to launch earlier - but it's been cursed with several unfortunate delays. How many delays do you want them to be able to accomodate? Or do you just want them to be able to always accomdate one more, whatever the cost?
Doug
The July 7th date was set in late May/early June after the crane problem. Strange telecon followed late June - about four weeks later and after announcing normal press conference first. So the situation is known for more than a month now.
Anyway, the combinded Dawn and Phoenix launch windows are known for about a year (since the Dawn launch was set, Phoenix was fixed much earlier). So someone should have though about "what if we can first try on date xx inside our window and not on July 20th"? Do we fuel the second stage or postpone or ...? What are the costs of trying later (after July 11th, closer to August 3rd)? What are the costs of delaying after Phoenix? Its like a mission plan: What to do if? And the "if" is not something strange and unpredictable (in particular with a afternoon launch time in the summer). In short: What is our strategy? The process as I see it lacks a strategy and looks like a set of ad hoc decisions.
And for MARDI: Ask the PI about the loss. It is probably more than 90%. Not talking about the outreach/PR opportunity lost.
Analyst
Anyway, the combinded Dawn and Phoenix launch windows are known for about a year (since the Dawn launch was set, Phoenix was fixed much earlier). So someone should have though about "what if we can first try on date xx inside our window and not on July 20th"? Do we fuel the second stage or postpone or ...? What are the costs of trying later (after July 11th, closer to August 3rd)? What are the costs of delaying after Phoenix? Its like a mission plan: What to do if? And the "if" is not something strange and unpredictable (in particular with a afternoon launch time in the summer). In short: What is our strategy? The process as I see it lacks a strategy and looks like a set of ad hoc decisions.
And for MARDI: Ask the PI about the loss. It is probably more than 90%. Not talking about the outreach/PR opportunity lost.
Analyst
QUOTE (Analyst @ Jul 5 2007, 05:01 PM)
The process as I see it
That's probably because we're not seing every part of the decision making process. You're trying to make out like they're just bringing this together like a bunch of amateurs. I really don't think that's a stance that's fair or justified. Just because you're not privy to ever iota of the decision making process, that doesn't mean there isn't a well documented, thought out and pre-prepared process involved.
QUOTE
What are the costs of trying later
We've been told - it can't be done.
QUOTE
What are the costs of delaying after Phoenix?
We were told - $25m.
As for the MARDI thing - that's a different kettle of fish. I find that news frankly shockinggiven the ammount of time there has been (given that a similar instrument was bolted to a similar spacecraft nearly a decade ago) and the ammount of reviews that must have occured since Phoenix was selected.
MPL failed because of flaws in the planned testing. Testing in this case should have flagged up this error a LONG time ago. If they find this with a month till launch - what are they yet to find? My 'faith' in Phoenix making it safely to the ground has taken a nose dive.
Doug
Just to note here, it appears they DID find a workaround plan because they say they will give Dawn shots up until the 19th of July without a Phoenix delay (the 19th is the last day of the planetary window for Dawn as well, until September).
QUOTE (Analyst @ Jul 5 2007, 12:01 PM)
Anyway, the combinded Dawn and Phoenix launch windows are known for about a year (since the Dawn launch was set, Phoenix was fixed much earlier). So someone should have though about "what if we can first try on date xx inside our window and not on July 20th"? Do we fuel the second stage or postpone or ...? What are the costs of trying later (after July 11th, closer to August 3rd)? What are the costs of delaying after Phoenix? Its like a mission plan: What to do if? And the "if" is not something strange and unpredictable (in particular with a afternoon launch time in the summer). In short: What is our strategy? The process as I see it lacks a strategy and looks like a set of ad hoc decisions.
1. It is on the fly because you can't cover all the options or think of all the 'what ifs" and you would be wasting resources.
2. Because the best time to schedule a vacation for a cape worker is a launch date a year away. They will never conflict. (except Mars launch windows), so most conflicts deconflict themselves
3. The teams are worrying about the next launch, not a launch a year away
4. Launch schedules are success oriented. See #1
5. ULA is paid a set amount for a launch service. It is NASA's problem that they slipped to be close together. ULA is not manned like it was for MER. It can't just throw overtime at the problem
QUOTE (Analyst @ Jul 5 2007, 03:26 AM)
Downrange tracking assets need backup. I know this is not even comparable but remember a Apollo mission being delayed because one tracking aircraft is not on station.
There aren't backup aircraft. They don't exist. There isn't Apollo money around. The USAF shutdown the ARIA fleet and there are only 2 existing TM aircraft in the nation: P-3 and Big Crow.
Other systems OTTR and mobile sites don't support missions with moving trajectories.
A 3 stage Delta II is hard to place a TDRSS transmitter on it since the second and 3rd stage would require one. Atlas already uses TDRSS, D-II has been reluctant to incorporate one : $ and weight
QUOTE (djellison @ Jul 5 2007, 06:09 AM)
As for the MARDI thing - that's a different kettle of fish.
Frankly, this disturbs me more than the Dawn problems.
Now, here's a question: did MPL have a descent imager and did it route its data through the same board as Phoenix is now arranged? I get the feeling from what is being said that this arrangement has been in place since the Surveyor 2001 configuration, and I know that configuration was very similar to the MPL configuration...
-the other Doug
-the other Doug
MPL had a descent imager. The Phoenix descent imager looks like a clone or direct descendant of the MPL one. Probably only folks on the inside would know about the interface details. Mike Caplinger or Jim from NSF?
QUOTE
by Doug
Just because you're not privy to ever iota of the decision making process, that doesn't mean there isn't a well documented, thought out and pre-prepared process involved.
Just because you're not privy to ever iota of the decision making process, that doesn't mean there isn't a well documented, thought out and pre-prepared process involved.
The communication, and this is the only information we have, suggests there is not such a well prepared plan. In the end it comes down to some person to make a decision: Take the risk (of fueling the second stage, of flying without a tracking aircraft, etc.) and try to fly or delay. And stand by this decision (and maybe resign) if there is a failure. Again, it seems to me like people are extremly risk adverse these days. I respect Mr. Griffin (And I am not a Griffin-fan) for the decision to fly the shuttle before STS-121 despite the opinions of other management people to delay and develop a new ice-frost ramp. This has been a bold (and correct) decision.
QUOTE
by Doug
We've been told - it can't be done.
We've been told - it can't be done.
It looks like it can. And will be from July 15th to July 19th.
QUOTE
by Doug
We were told - $25m.
We were told - $25m.
Question is: Is it cheaper to try closer to (and before) the Phoenix launch and pay overtime fees, whatever, or is it cheaper to destack, place Dawn into a cleanroom, test and stack again and fly in September or October. With $25m for the second option (and a Delta 7925H at about $80m (?)) you have plenty of incentive to use the first. $25m is almost one third extra to the total launch service cost. It looks like NASA knows this too and will try again from July 15th to July 19th.
QUOTE
by Jim
1. It is on the fly because you can't cover all the options or think of all the 'what ifs" and you would be wasting resources.
1. It is on the fly because you can't cover all the options or think of all the 'what ifs" and you would be wasting resources.
We are not talking about some strange failed component never been there before, but about a launch delay within a short planetary window. Nothing new or fancy. The simple question is: Are x days left in the window enough to start trying to fly or not?
Tracking assets: It is sad to know there are no backup aircraft anymore. Is this part of the service the range offers? It is always the same: Save a few bucks now and pay later $25m for a delayed launch. Btw., I always wondered why it takes two days to switch the range from one vehicle to another. Titan II Gemini launches took place ninety minutes after Atlas-Agena with the docking target. In the mid 1960ies! And please, nobody tell me how hard it is with modern technology.
MARDI: I seldom share the opinion of Keith from NasaWatch.com, but here he is dead on:
QUOTE
Editor's note: Although NASA and all of the mission participants are very shy about saying this, Phoenix was originally called the Mars Surveyor 2001 lander - a spacecraft with significant hardware commonality with the Mars Polar Lander. As you may recall, MPL crashed into Mars when the jolt of its engines firing made some sensors think the spacecraft had landed - so it shut the engines off - and ... splat. The main culprit was found to be incomplete integrated testing prior to launch.
It's great that they did more integrated testing this time, but I have to wonder why they waited to test such things in an integrated fashion where results from that testing could not result in a hardware fix, but rather not using part of the spacecraft's hardware - thus diminishing its capability.
And although the "science" won't be affected once Phoenix is on the surface, this is a case where the spacecraft's overall objectives will not be met - despite the spin NASA is trying to put on it. Otherwise, why was a descent imager capable of multiple images included on the spacecraft in the first place?
But wait - NASA/JPL is saying that "the mission will still be capable of accomplishing all of its science goals."
I am confused. This mission fact sheet at the University of Arizona says: "Mars Descent Imager (MARDI) - Built by Malin Space Science Systems MARDI plays a key science role during Phoenix's descent to the Martian arctic. Beginning just after the aeroshell is jettisoned at an altitude of about 5 miles, MARDI will acquire a series of wide-angle, color images of the landing site all the way down to the surface."
And further, this page at Malin Space Science Systems says "The Phoenix Mars Descent Imager (MARDI) will provide a context in which all other Phoenix observations can be fully understood. Among the most important questions to be asked about a spacecraft sitting on a planet is "Where is it?" and "Descent imaging provides a bridge between orbiter pictures, that tell us about regional and global scales, and lander images of very small, "micro-scale" attributes of the planet."
So what is it, NASA? Does this instrument play a key "science role" in this mission or doesn't it? You really need to be consistent with what you've said previously before you try and spin bad news into something a little more palatable.
It's great that they did more integrated testing this time, but I have to wonder why they waited to test such things in an integrated fashion where results from that testing could not result in a hardware fix, but rather not using part of the spacecraft's hardware - thus diminishing its capability.
And although the "science" won't be affected once Phoenix is on the surface, this is a case where the spacecraft's overall objectives will not be met - despite the spin NASA is trying to put on it. Otherwise, why was a descent imager capable of multiple images included on the spacecraft in the first place?
But wait - NASA/JPL is saying that "the mission will still be capable of accomplishing all of its science goals."
I am confused. This mission fact sheet at the University of Arizona says: "Mars Descent Imager (MARDI) - Built by Malin Space Science Systems MARDI plays a key science role during Phoenix's descent to the Martian arctic. Beginning just after the aeroshell is jettisoned at an altitude of about 5 miles, MARDI will acquire a series of wide-angle, color images of the landing site all the way down to the surface."
And further, this page at Malin Space Science Systems says "The Phoenix Mars Descent Imager (MARDI) will provide a context in which all other Phoenix observations can be fully understood. Among the most important questions to be asked about a spacecraft sitting on a planet is "Where is it?" and "Descent imaging provides a bridge between orbiter pictures, that tell us about regional and global scales, and lander images of very small, "micro-scale" attributes of the planet."
So what is it, NASA? Does this instrument play a key "science role" in this mission or doesn't it? You really need to be consistent with what you've said previously before you try and spin bad news into something a little more palatable.
Analyst
QUOTE (Analyst @ Jul 6 2007, 10:00 AM)
1. Tracking assets: It is sad to know there are no backup aircraft anymore. Is this part of the service the range offers?
2. It is always the same: Save a few bucks now and pay later $25m for a delayed launch.
3.. Btw., I always wondered why it takes two days to switch the range from one vehicle to another. Titan II Gemini launches took place ninety minutes after Atlas-Agena with the docking target. In the mid 1960ies! And please, nobody tell me how hard it is with modern technology.
2. It is always the same: Save a few bucks now and pay later $25m for a delayed launch.
3.. Btw., I always wondered why it takes two days to switch the range from one vehicle to another. Titan II Gemini launches took place ninety minutes after Atlas-Agena with the docking target. In the mid 1960ies! And please, nobody tell me how hard it is with modern technology.
1. It is not a range service. It is procured by NASA and/or ULA for the mission.
2. not "few" bucks. Maintaining the ARIA fleet was costing the USAF approx 100 mil a year. There wasn't enough users. The Delta II design is the real issue: a. it would require 2 transmitters b. the mass is not exceptable to users
3. During the various upgrades of the range and the drop in launch rates since the 60's, there hasn't been a requirement to launch missions that close. So the upgrades never took it into account and neither does the manpower. Apollo and the cold war are over and so are the blank checks. The range is user funded, so less and infrequent users means less money.
As for the "risk", It is a hard requirement to recieve and record telemetry of every engine burn. This is non waiverable and launch constraint. If there is an anomaly on Dawn, how would you clear it for Phoenix
Regarding the MARDI issue, I note today's entry on NASA Watch. I'm not sure about the testing for Phoenix but I thought MARDI had passed a similar test for MPL (i.e., confirmation of non-interference with the EDL sequence). Perhaps someone who was involved with the latter could clarify.
Rather than give you the inside story, which I obviously don't have the authority to do, let me ask a question. The press release says this:
So the question: what probability of failure should be considered an "unacceptable risk"? The bug that caused the failure of MPL had a probability in the tens of percent, as I recall from the review board reports, so it was obviously unacceptable. But given that a PHX landing failure would result in no science data being returned, it might not take that large a probability to be judged unacceptable. I didn't have to make that call, and I don't know what the failure probability assessment was, but the press release implies it wasn't zero. Of course, in aerospace failure probabilities of zero don't come along very often.
Disclaimer: just my own opinions, no privileged information.
QUOTE
Tests of the assembled lander found that an interface card has a small possibility of triggering loss of some vital engineering data if it receives imaging data during a critical phase of final descent. That possibility is considered an unacceptable risk...
So the question: what probability of failure should be considered an "unacceptable risk"? The bug that caused the failure of MPL had a probability in the tens of percent, as I recall from the review board reports, so it was obviously unacceptable. But given that a PHX landing failure would result in no science data being returned, it might not take that large a probability to be judged unacceptable. I didn't have to make that call, and I don't know what the failure probability assessment was, but the press release implies it wasn't zero. Of course, in aerospace failure probabilities of zero don't come along very often.
Disclaimer: just my own opinions, no privileged information.
I find myself agreeing with Rakhir on the MARDI issue. One descent image, taken at the optimum time, should be enough to help quickly locate Phoenix's landing spot in a later HiRISE image. Yes, some science will be lost, but it seems to me that ten or so descent images are most desired to create a "landing movie", which would be more for PR than science. It would be nice if MARDI could squeeze out two descent images, that would do a lot to provide context for the surface images.
Lockheed Martin has had more than their fair share of screw-ups in the last ten years, so I do share everyone's disappointment about this.
Lockheed Martin has had more than their fair share of screw-ups in the last ten years, so I do share everyone's disappointment about this.
All...
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/jul/H...stpone_Sep.html
"NASA will hold a news briefing at 11:30 a.m. EDT on Monday, July 9, to preview the launch of the Phoenix Mars Lander. Prior to the Phoenix presentations, media will have the opportunity to learn in more detail about the rescheduled Dawn launch.[i][u] The briefing will originate from the NASA Headquarters auditorium, 300 E St., S.W., Washington. It will air live on NASA Television and be streamed online at: http://www.nasa.gov/ntv"
Craig
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/jul/H...stpone_Sep.html
"NASA will hold a news briefing at 11:30 a.m. EDT on Monday, July 9, to preview the launch of the Phoenix Mars Lander. Prior to the Phoenix presentations, media will have the opportunity to learn in more detail about the rescheduled Dawn launch.[i][u] The briefing will originate from the NASA Headquarters auditorium, 300 E St., S.W., Washington. It will air live on NASA Television and be streamed online at: http://www.nasa.gov/ntv"
Craig
Mardi for the 2001 Mars Lander was pre-pre-pre thinking about Mars Recon Orbiter and 29 cm/pixels from orbit. In the context of Global Surveyor images that were more than a bit noisy at full resolution (so that the noise could easily be higher than the actual contrast of small terrain features), and were much <most?> of the time taken with pixel-binning at lower resolution, MARDI was absolutely scientifically necessary.
It'd still be nice to have had a color landing-zoom movie, but it's no longer a critical mission capibility for geologic interpretation.
I expect they'll pick a frame size to get resolution between 5 and 10 cm per pixel, something better than Recon Orbiter's 25-29'ish cm/pixel, but still get decent area coverage.
(I'm still frustrated, 41 years later, that neither Surveyor 1 or 2 got descent image sequences at the moon)
It'd still be nice to have had a color landing-zoom movie, but it's no longer a critical mission capibility for geologic interpretation.
I expect they'll pick a frame size to get resolution between 5 and 10 cm per pixel, something better than Recon Orbiter's 25-29'ish cm/pixel, but still get decent area coverage.
(I'm still frustrated, 41 years later, that neither Surveyor 1 or 2 got descent image sequences at the moon)
QUOTE (edstrick @ Jul 8 2007, 12:43 AM)
It'd still be nice to have had a color landing-zoom movie...
There seems to be some confusion about the color. MARDI/PHX ( http://www.msss.com/mars/surveyor/ms98/lan...t/abstract.html ) is panchromatic (black-and-white), though the images could be colorized via the usual methods. It's the MSL MARDI (completely different instrument, just the same name) that's color.
Question: if imaging from a moving, powered platform, would you rather take a single image or a series of images?
Disclaimer: just my opinions, public information only.
Exactly - I'm sure Dan's overdone it a bit on the EDL animation - but there's no guarentee with the thing pitching and rolling around that just one image, at almost any point during landing, will get the landing site itself into frame.
Doug
Doug
I can't imagine any serious problem with HiRISE finding Phoenix after it lands, unless it wildly misses its target ellipse. At 29 cm/pixel, Phoenix should stand out like a sore thumb in a color image. If it should happen that the one mardi descent image doesn't capture the exact landing site, I don't think all that much science will be lost. The terrain should be geologically similar for an area much larger than the landing ellipse.
I have worried about the mission in the past. I mean, while we found out a likely reason for the MPL failure, we can only hope that there weren't other problems that were overlooked. While much time and money has been spent improving Phoenix, it still is, at its core, a spacecraft designed and built in the pre-MPL/MCO faster-cheaper-splat days. I won't have an comfortable feeling about it until it is safely on the surface (then again, the only mission I didn't feel that way about, given all the things that could go wrong, is Voyager at Neptune, and that was because I was 10 years old and too dumb to consider it).
QUOTE (tedstryk @ Jul 8 2007, 08:20 PM)
a spacecraft designed and built in the pre-MPL/MCO faster-cheaper-splat days...
As I have said many, many times before in this forum, any spacecraft can fail no matter how expensive it was. Neither MS98 failure had that much to do with money, and both designs were fundamentally sound IMHO.
QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Jul 9 2007, 03:42 AM)
As I have said many, many times before in this forum, any spacecraft can fail no matter how expensive it was. Neither MS98 failure had that much to do with money, and both designs were fundamentally sound IMHO.
That was what I was indicating by my parenthetical statement.
There's something I have missed. Is there a telemetry relay system onboard Phoenix so everything could be reviewed during descend?
It records the telemetry. Only tones (semaphores) are transmitted during descent
Did I just hear on the Phoenix press briefing that MRO
was to try and image Phoenix "...on the way down."?!
was to try and image Phoenix "...on the way down."?!
I wasn't listening, but they are probably talking about the entry trail. As I recall MGS attempted this (unsuccessfully) with one or both of the MERs.
QUOTE (centsworth_II @ Jul 9 2007, 06:21 PM)
Did I just hear on the Phoenix press briefing that MRO
was to try and image Phoenix "...on the way down."?!
was to try and image Phoenix "...on the way down."?!
It's what I heard too
MOC2 WA didn't see it with MER - and thus I doubt MARCI would see Phoenix- but I imagine a carefully aimed CTX might get it.
Doug
Doug
Is there a replay site or phone number for today's press conference?
TTT
TTT
QUOTE (Tom Tamlyn @ Jul 9 2007, 08:45 PM)
Is there a replay site or phone number for today's press conference?
TTT
TTT
your reading my mind
Yes, was just about to post. the portion I saw this afternoon were quite informative. some new graphics
tonight at 7 and 10 PM EDT on NASA TV.
ken
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Breaking.html
July 9, Monday
10:30 a.m. - ISS Commentary - JSC (Public and Media Channels)
11:30 a.m. - NASA Science Briefing - HQ (Public and Media Channels)
1 p.m. – Replay NASA Science Briefing - HQ (Public and Media Channels)
4 p.m. – Replay NASA Science Briefing - HQ (Public and Media Channels)
7 p.m. – Replay NASA Science Briefing - HQ (Public and Media Channels)
10 p.m. – Replay NASA Science Briefing - HQ (Public and Media Channels)
CRISM might be able to see something, too.
Daniel Parrat made a great work at spacEurope explaining the principles of the atomic force microscope part of MECA:
The FAMARS instrument,
an AFM for planetary exploration, part I
With Daniel Parrat, Institute of Microtechnology University of Neuchâtel
The FAMARS instrument,
an AFM for planetary exploration, part I
With Daniel Parrat, Institute of Microtechnology University of Neuchâtel
The FAMARS instrument,
an AFM for planetary exploration, part II now available at spacEurope.
an AFM for planetary exploration, part II now available at spacEurope.
I have seen a mix of August 24 and 25 listed as the last day of the window. Does anyone know for sure? Thanks.
Ugh...any day you look at it, those are nasty times for following the launch from the West Coast...should be a beautiful dawnlit or nighttime launch though! Can't wait to see your pictures, Ben 
Emily
Emily
An astrobiological point of view at spacEurope.
OT: Have you guys seen that monstruous dust storm over Phoenix, Arizona?!
Better there than over the Phoenix, on Mars...
OT: Have you guys seen that monstruous dust storm over Phoenix, Arizona?!
Better there than over the Phoenix, on Mars...
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countd...chan13large.jpg
Phoenix is now in its payload canister...ready for delivery to Pad 17-A.
Phoenix is now in its payload canister...ready for delivery to Pad 17-A.
Phoenix will be delivered to the pad today.
Photos of the mating to the second stage are going up now.
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=174
--Emily
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=174
--Emily
An 80% chance of favorable launch weather conditions this Friday...according to Spaceflightnow.com.
Go Phoenix!!
Go Phoenix!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.