Was Phoenix a Waste?

JonClarke · Nov 12, 2008

Judging by the many comments on recent SDC Phoenix stories, there are quite a few people who think that Pheox was a waste.  Common objections include:1.  It should have been a rover2. It should have been nuclear powered.3 It was badly designed.4. It was badly built using sub-standard components.5. It performed poorly.6. The science goals were downgraded halfway through to mission to make it lookk like a success.7. No useful science was achieved.8.  The public was ignored.9. The site names were insulting and juvenile.10. It was just a bureaucratic spending exercise.11. It was over priced.12. The money would have been better spent on other Mars missions (or Ares, Orion, Europa, TPF, Titan...)13. No pretty pictures.14. Primitive robotics.15. Poorly conceived from the start.16. Planning flawed by the same system that caused the Columbia disaster.17. No new discoveries.18. Phoenix selected because it was cheap not because it could do science 19. Phoenix was a waste because its budget blew out from 250  to  more than 450 millionFrankly I think all these comments to be ill-informed at best, prejudiced and ignorant might be a better way to describe them.  But they are out there, and should be responded to.I am hoping that some anti-Phoenix people will respond, given how many there seem to be. So, who thinks  Phoenix was a waste? Jon13 and 14 added in editEdit 2- 15-18 addedEdit 3 19 added  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

oscar1 · Nov 12, 2008

No, I don't think it was a waste. Just to see ice come and go, analyse it, ride around for five months in temperatures ranging from minus 60 to minus 100°C, and the making thousands of pis, to me, looks like already worth the entire project. But the critisism, especially regarding the cost, about a project like this isn't new, for Henry the Navigator had to already put up with it, and the Phoenicians before him.

Smersh · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Judging by the many comments on recent SDC Phoenix stories, there are quite a few people who thik that Pheox was a waste.  Common objections include:1.  It should have been a rover2. It should have been nuclear powered.3 It was badly designed.4. It was badly built using sub-standard components.5. It performed poorly.6. The science goals were downgraded halfway through to mission to make it lookk like a success.7. No useful science was achieved.8.  The public was ignored.9. The site names were insulting juvenile10. It was just a bureaucratic spending exercise.11. It was over priced.12 The money would have been better spent on other Mars missions (or Ares, Orion, Europa, TPF, Titan...)Frankly I think all these comments to be ill-informed at best, prejudiced and ignorant might be a better way to describe them.  But they are out there, and should be responded to.I am hoping that some anti-Phoenix people will respond, given how many there seem to be. So, who thinks  Phoenix was a waste? Jon  Posted by jonclarke</DIV>In my opinion. there is just no comparison with the rovers, which have lasted for such a long time and been a phenomenal success, way beyond all expectations. Considering the vast sum of money that was spent to send Phoenix to Mars, and its scientific return (size of "bang" in relation to "bucks") I would say it's been a dismal failure.Ok it did discover some water ice, but that was only confirming what had for long been very strongly suspected and I'm not convinced the cost was worth it. Can't win them all, I guess.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <h1 style="margin:0pt;font-size:12px">----------------------------------------------------- </h1>Lady Nancy Astor: "Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea." Churchill: "Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."Website / forums </div>

silylene old · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, who thinks  Phoenix was a waste? Jon  Posted by jonclarke</DIV>Jon, I think this mission learned quite a lot, especially on the soil analysis and chemistry, and it exceeded its goals.When I was reading your post, I was thinking:  imagine how much louder the critics would have been had the data publication was being controlled by the ESA !If you are fishing for a mission that I think was an utter waste of $700M+, then it would be the "Gravity Probe B" (since this effect had been already confirmed with LAGEOS1 and LAGEOS2 to very high accuracy)....and not that anyone ever doubted the theory anyways  I also think that the ESA LARES satellite mission to be launched in Dec 2008 (?) may also be a waste of $, but I need to read up more on this to validate my opinion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

oscar1 · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Jon, I think this mission learned quite a lot, especially on the soil analysis and chemistry, and it exceeded its goals.When I was reading your post, I was thinking:  imagine how much louder the critics would have been had the data publication was being controlled by the ESA !If you are fishing for a mission that I think was an utter waste of $700M+, then it would be the "Gravity Probe B" (since this effect had been already confirmed with LAGEOS1 and LAGEOS2 to very high accuracy)....and not that anyone ever doubted the theory anyways  I also think that the ESA LARES satellite mission to be launched in Dec 2008 (?) may also be a waste of $, but I need to read up more on this to validate my opinion. Posted by silylene</DIV>I don't quite understand this cost issue. The Rovers cost some $ 650 mio., the oil price more than doubled since (in those 4 years in between), and Phoenix cost some $ 420 mio. Am I missing something?

samkent · Nov 12, 2008

I wouldn’t say a total waste, just a 75% waste. I have not hidden my opinions concerning Phoenix. From what I see the biggest goal was to ground truth the presence of water/ice discovered from orbit. Had Phoenix been equipped with wheels to sample several areas it might have made economic sense. For the $475 mil you could have had another MER in a different location for 90 days give or take a few years.I know that it did more than just look for the water/ice but from the publics point of viewthere were no big discoveries.   No big discoveries = no public interest = no money = no missions   Since NASA is funded by the government, the money goes where the public interest is at the given point in time. With the entire world experiencing financial issues, I wouldn’t be surprised to here that the ISS completion is being pushed back by a couple of years. It may not affect MSL since the launch window is upon us. But after MSL I wouldn’t expect any more Mars probes/landers for many years. Without a finding of life past or present on Mars, why spend all that money?   While I am on my soapbox, I predict the Moon missions are going to be delayed several years or outright canceled. We will go forth with Orion/Ares 1 but the money just isn’t there for the extra costs involved. Medicare or Moon  Where do you think the last of our dollars are going to go?

bobble_bob · Nov 12, 2008

Is it possible on future Mars missions, for them to attach some kind of wiper to the solar panels to clear some of the dust off? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bobble_bob · Nov 12, 2008

"4. It was badly built using sub-standard components."The lander lasted far longer than ever predicted, and only died due to factors out of its control. Ok they had an early issue with getting samples into the TEGA but overall it perfomed very well <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

samkent · Nov 12, 2008

Had they thought the MERs would last beyond the 90 days, I'm sure they would have installed wipers.

Zipi · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it possible on future Mars missions, for them to attach some kind of wiper to the solar panels to clear some of the dust off? Posted by bobble_bob</DIV>I'd prefer some compressed air blower, but since Mars atmosphere is so thin the compressor unit could be a problem... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bobble_bob · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Had they thought the MERs would last beyond the 90 days, I'm sure they would have installed wipers. Posted by samkent</DIV>When they state how long they believe a mission will last for, is that their honest prediction or just something they say to the media?Saying "Pheonix will last 90 days" and then the mission lasts a good few months longer, sounds alot better than predicting a mission will last for x days and it dies early <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

silylene old · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I wouldn’t say a total waste, just a 75% waste. I have not hidden my opinions concerning Phoenix. From what I see the biggest goal was to ground truth the presence of water/ice discovered from orbit. Had Phoenix been equipped with wheels to sample several areas it might have made economic sense. For the $475 mil you could have had another MER in a different location for 90 days give or take a few years.I know that it did more than just look for the water/ice but from the publics point of viewthere were no big discoveries.   No big discoveries = no public interest = no money = no missions   ............... Posted by samkent</DIV>As I said in my post, we learned quite a lot about Martian soil chemistry, including unexpected discoveries which overturned some prior 'facts'.  And we found ice.  Over 45 papers have been written so far, and many more are to come.Had inexpensive Phoenix had wheels, my guess is that it wouldn't found anything new within the time constraints of how far an rover could've traveled before losing power as winter arrived.  As far as I could tell, the terrain at the pole all looked exactly uniform in all directions, as far as the cameras could see.  Time spent wheeling around across a uniform nearly featureless terrain is time not spent digging and analyzing soil samples. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

samkent · Nov 12, 2008

Yes Phoenix was able to get some scientists excited, but it did little for the majority of us.  If big brother could come up with another 475 mil (not likely) would you want another Phoenix? Even if it was to last 6 months or more I don’t think it could gather the support needed to put a mission together.  Which would you put your support behind?  Phoenix3  MER3 Long range rover  (200 miles+), no science arms and such, better cameras, Panel wipers

tanstaafl76 · Nov 12, 2008

I don't think it was a waste.  Sure, there were no "shout it from the mountaintops" discoveries but you can rarely predict such things much less guarantee them.  We did learn important things about the composition of northern Martian soil, characteristics of ice formation and weather, and it was a solid engineering success by successfully executing a soft landing, the experience of which can be used for future craft. If there was one of your line items that I would agree with though, it would be the nuclear power issue.  I would have much rather seen a nuclear powered Phoenix that could operate around the clock and last through the winter, I think it would have given the mission a much better capability to collect and analyze a larger amount of data.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

silylene old · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I don't think it was a waste.  .......I would have much rather seen a nuclear powered Phoenix that could operate around the clock and last through the winter, I think it would have given the mission a much better capability to collect and analyze a larger amount of data.  Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV>A nuclear powered Phoenix would have been much more complex, much heavier, and would've cost $billions.   We have to work within the budgets we are given. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

samkent · Nov 12, 2008

Nuclear power to dig in an area the size of a sandbox for a year or two??? What’s the point? A lander without wheels will be a tough sell for long time to come.

silylene old · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes Phoenix was able to get some scientists excited, but it did little for the majority of us.  If big brother could come up with another 475 mil (not likely) would you want another Phoenix? Even if it was to last 6 months or more I don’t think it could gather the support needed to put a mission together.  Which would you put your support behind?  Phoenix3  MER3 Long range rover  (200 miles+), no science arms and such, better cameras, Panel wipers Posted by samkent</DIV>So unless you see beautiful full color panaramas from megapixel array cameras mounted on a moveable platform, you don't get excited.  And cruising around photographing the bleak rather featureless polar regions would get very boring, very quickly.  Presumably, you would want to avoid polar regions too, as it really will never generate as good photoshoot as some other locations.There is a much more to science than generating tourism pictures.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

tanstaafl76 · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A nuclear powered Phoenix would have been much more complex, much heavier, and would've cost $billions.   We have to work within the budgets we are given. Posted by silylene</DIV>I'm not disputing that, I'm just pointing out I would have preferred to see that scale-up of the project in return for greater results.  How much that increase really would have needed to be is up for debate I'm sure, but I'm not disputing that a nuclear power source wouldn't be more expensive.People have become used to seeing the Mars Rovers continue to operate for years past their original design time frame and because of that longevity they are seen as a tremendous value for the money.  Phoenix never really had that chance due to the polar climate, so to see such a great achievement of soft-landing a craft wind up having a relatively short lifespan is just unfortunate, and IMHO makes it more difficult for the scientists involve to demonstrate the benefit to laypersons and taxpayers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tanstaafl76 · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nuclear power to dig in an area the size of a sandbox for a year or two??? What’s the point? A lander without wheels will be a tough sell for long time to come. Posted by samkent</DIV>Perhaps, but there would also be ample power and time for something like a drill that could go deeper than the little shovel could.  Rovers are neat, but if they can only scratch the surface there is also a limitation to what info they can provide.  The true secrets of Mars may not be discovered by roaming around north, south, east, and west, but instead straight down!    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

samkent · Nov 12, 2008

The majority of the tax payers are laypeople. If you want billion after billion to go into one planet, you had better produce more than soil reports of carbonates and clay minerals. Don’t forget the lessons of Apollo.Tourism pictures is exactly what you need. Assuming you want to keep interests up and the money flowing. I don’t think NASA is going to be part of the TARP program so their budget is going to be prime steak for the cutting.

samkent · Nov 12, 2008

Why are my posts changing font size? I just copy and paste from word.

bobble_bob · Nov 12, 2008

"Yes Phoenix was able to get some scientists excited, but it did little for the majority of us"Unfortunately not much excites the average person now regarding space and space science. Look at some of the amazing hubble pictures over the years, the many shuttle launches, the ISS being constructed. All these are amazing engineering accomplishments but the average person probably knows or cares little about them.For the people that are interested, Phoenix provided alot of useful data. The rest, well they are more concerned about what Paris Hilton or Britney are up to <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  No big discoveries = no public interest = no money = no missions   Since NASA is funded by the government, the money goes where the public interest is at the given point in time. With the entire world experiencing financial issues, IPosted by samkent</DIV> Since the first reports of scientific discoveries haven't come out yet, your assertion that there will be no big discoveries is quite premature. Besides, the different soil ph, perchlorates, etc are actually pretty areshattering!. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it possible on future Mars missions, for them to attach some kind of wiper to the solar panels to clear some of the dust off? Posted by bobble_bob</DIV> Sure, but what scientific instrument would you have removed to keep the weight the same? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When they state how long they believe a mission will last for, is that their honest prediction or just something they say to the media?Saying "Pheonix will last 90 days" and then the mission lasts a good few months longer, sounds alot better than predicting a mission will last for x days and it dies early Posted by bobble_bob</DIV> That is the design specifications to justify the cost and effort for the mission. In other words, if it lasts x long, the investment will be worth it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Was Phoenix a Waste?

JonClarke

Guest

oscar1

Guest

Smersh

Guest

silylene old

Guest

oscar1

Guest

samkent

Guest

bobble_bob

Guest

bobble_bob

Guest

samkent

Guest

Zipi

Guest

bobble_bob

Guest

silylene old

Guest

samkent

Guest

tanstaafl76

Guest

silylene old

Guest

samkent

Guest

silylene old

Guest

tanstaafl76

Guest

tanstaafl76

Guest

samkent

Guest

samkent

Guest

bobble_bob

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page