Was Phoenix a Waste?

MeteorWayne · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV> If it had cost twice as much, it never would have flown. I don't think that would have been better. <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>

DrRocket · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... So, who thinks  Phoenix was a waste? Jon  Posted by jonclarke</DIV>People who have no understanding of or appreciation for science.One might argue that the money might have been better spent elsewhere, depending on your particular and specific tastes.  But that is a matter of personal interests and perspective on priorities.Phoenix produced new and potentially important knowledge.  Therefore there was a return on the investment.  That return might of more importance to some than to others.  But there was clearly a return on the investment and a concommitant advancement of knowledge.  That is not a waste, even if one's priorities lie elsewhere.So who thinks Phoenix was a waste?  Idiots. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So who thinks Phoenix was a waste?  Idiots. Posted by DrRocket</DIV> Or perhaps ignorant ones. However, there was (and is) plenty of information out there, so if one is ignorant, it is by choice...And as a preemptive strike before somone considers that term offensive, let me post the definition. It is not offensive, if you look at the definitions ignorant<div class="lunatext">Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This <div class="luna-Ent"><div class="body">–adjective <table border="0" class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dnindex">1.

silylene old · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.......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. ............Posted by samkent</DIV>*sigh*     <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>

DrRocket · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Or perhaps ignorant ones. However, there was (and is) plenty of information out there, so if one is ignorant, it is by choice... Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>Ignorance by choice is idiocy.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ignorance by choice is idiocy.  Posted by DrRocket</DIV> I can't argue much with that <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> <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>

earth_bound_misfit · Nov 12, 2008

I see none of the trolls from the SDC article have bothered to participate down here.I'm sure JPL (and the all the rest concerned) learnt alot from this mission and in such it can not called a failure. I'm my personal opinion, I think all static lander's should have a mechanism to gimble the panels, even if only once to get them tilted and orientated towards towards a max mean collection zenith. This tilt could help gravity remove dust build up too.Would wind generation be viable? I've no idea what the wind conditions are on Mars except that it does indeed have some wind (and dust devils). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?Go here to see how: SDC Eye saver </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 12, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see none of the trolls from the SDC article have bothered to participate down here.I'm sure JPL (and the all the rest concerned) learnt alot from this mission and in such it can not called a failure. I'm my personal opinion, I think all static lander's should have a mechanism to gimble the panels, even if only once to get them tilted and orientated towards towards a max mean collection zenith. This tilt could help gravity remove dust build up too.Would wind generation be viable? I've no idea what the wind conditions are on Mars except that it does indeed have some wind (and dust devils). Posted by earth_bound_misfit</DIV> Unfortunately, in this case this was a recycled spacecraft that was originally designed for an equatorial mission, so nothing was in there to rotate the pamels. If they had been added, it would have delayed and made the mission more expensive, so it never would have flown.... Rinse and repeat

<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>

earth_bound_misfit · Nov 12, 2008

True that Wayne. Well under the circonstances, she operated extremely well then. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?Go here to see how: SDC Eye saver </div>

JonClarke · Nov 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see none of the trolls from the SDC article have bothered to participate down here.I'm sure JPL (and the all the rest concerned) learnt alot from this mission and in such it can not called a failure. </DIV>Yep, the trolls are conspiculous by their absence, despite being invited here.  They are typical of the mentality that posts comments on Youtube but can't sand the pace of a forum discussionReplying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm my personal opinion, I think all static lander's should have a mechanism to gimble the panels, even if only once to get them tilted and orientated towards towards a max mean collection zenith. This tilt could help gravity remove dust build up too.Would wind generation be viable? I've no idea what the wind conditions are on Mars except that it does indeed have some wind (and dust devils). Posted by earth_bound_misfit</DIV>Gimballing is an option, but it gets heavy and compex.  And what happens if it jams in an award position? Flat panels are probably best for landers, at least until you have astronauts to fix things (and maybe not even then).cheersJon <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>

JonClarke · Nov 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unfortunately, in this case this was a recycled spacecraft that was originally designed for an equatorial mission, so nothing was in there to rotate the pamels. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>True, but in the end they provided enough power for the required period and more.MPL had a rather interesting array, fixed panels on either side up with the half of each nearest the main body canted at an obtuse angle.  I assume this was intended to better collect low angle morning and afternoon sun. Jon <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/15/f70500d8-34ef-4a6d-af7f-96e11246adff.Medium.jpg" alt="" /> <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>

JonClarke · Nov 13, 2008

With the successful end of the Phoenix mission we can now ask the hypothetical questions:  What if MPL had worked - what would we have learned?  And What if Mars Surveyor 2001 had been sent - what would we have learned from it?  I will start some threads on this, it could be fun!Jon <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>

kelvinzero · Nov 13, 2008

Ok, first yes it is very silly for someone to call a space mission badly designed when they have apparently not done any serious research into it but lets not worry about them. I suspect several are bright and emotionally neglected ten year olds just seeking attention from adults.On the other hand dismissing the many people who are not interested in space (and therefore sensibly do NOT post here) as merely ignorant misses an important point. Calling those people ignorant implies it is their problem. It isnt. It is still the problem of scientists who wish to be funded by taxpayer money.I actually have very little knowlege of what science the rovers performed but they were very entertaining. Just the notion of looking over that next hill and seeing something no one has ever seen before is deep in our psyche. It is why we stand upright. Their durability was also impressive. We were not just learning about mars we were also asserting our influence. We actually did things on mars. This has value in itself even if tomorrow we discover ways of doing all the same science without landing anything.With phoenix I felt a little let down when the discovery of water was hailed as important because I had thought this was already established. People were already saying there was water at the poles, not that there might be. Im still unclear exactly how our knowledge shifted at that point. Was there a chance that the detection of water previously was going to prove flawed? If that had been made clear then I would have been waiting with much greater interest for confirmation.One thing I think scientists could do to increase interest (and get more funding) is to establish a clearer connection between science being done and goals that interest nonscientists in a way that nonscientists can actually feel the progress towards them. For the Phoenix mission a large amount of outside interest concerned the possibility of discovering life though as I understand it the tests were not designed to directly answer this.I imagine that there is some sort of decision tree based on outcomes of experiments that will affect our next choice of missions and somewhere  on the other end of this tree is the answer to whether there is life on mars and other such world changing discoveries. Explaining these experiments in terms of where they take us to next if positive or negative would give more anticipation of the results. Science is always more interesting when you understand what The competing theories are and what the odds are. It is a bit like a horse race that way and that is the level at which most people will understand it.

JonClarke · Nov 13, 2008

Going back through the responses to stories on SDC there seems to have been a change in attitude round about the 90 sol mark.Prior top then the overwhelming majority of comments were positive.  After 90 sols the negativity began to flow.  Clearly the travils of getting a sample into TERGA had an influence, but clearly too very few people had any idea how difficult it was to do onboard experiments as opposed to the simple sensors on the MERs.Also the negativity has come from a handful of people who decided to infest every Phoenix story and winge.  None of these people have any presence on the forums.It is note worthy that the only person who has really complained in this thread is samkent, who has also made his hostility to Phoenix known on at least one other board (again about at the 90-sol mark) and, as here roundly corrected.Jon <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>

efron_24 · Nov 13, 2008

a waste is a BIG statementbut yes.. it would have been better if it had been a Flying Rover with a jet-propultion.. grin  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

l3p3r · Nov 13, 2008

How can anyone possibly construe this mission to be a failure?!  The Mars Polar Lander was a failure.The Mars Climate Orbiter was a failure.Phoenix was a glowing success. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

samkent · Nov 13, 2008

It's not that we think it's a failure, but it just wasn't worth the money.Give me something that pull at my heart strings and I along with millions of others will support more trips with more money. Soil reports just doesn't do that! Show me grand vistas.Show me valleys where I can see the erosion from water. Show me the openings to unexplored caves. Show me the base of cliffs unclimbed.Show me a spot where I would want to build a house.Then you will see the money pour in.

MeteorWayne · Nov 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not that we think it's a failure, but it just wasn't worth the money.Give me something that pull at my heart strings and I along with millions of others will support more trips with more money. Soil reports just doesn't do that! Show me grand vistas.Show me valleys where I can see the erosion from water. Show me the openings to unexplored caves. Show me the base of cliffs unclimbed.Show me a spot where I would want to build a house.Then you will see the money pour in. Posted by samkent</DIV> I guess you never looked at too many of the thousands of images Phoenix returned.You want fun stuff, science isn't always like that. If you want fun stuff, come up with your own 500 million, and send your own craft. Science people want science. <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>

centsworth_II · Nov 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Show me the base of cliffs unclimbed.Show me a spot where I would want to build a house.Then you will see the money pour in. Posted by samkent</DIV> Huh?  Money pour in from where?  NASA is not funded from private donations.  The reason the government sponsors NASA with taxpayer dollars is to maintain scientific and technological superiority and to spur scientific education and research.  Phoenix has more than payed for itself on all those counts.  Phoenix has written a whole new chapter on our understanding of Mars.  And I do think there are plenty of pretty pictures to illustrate that chapter with as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

samkent · Nov 13, 2008

There are three sources of science.  Individual   One person with a burning desire who uses his own cash.Private         Corporations looking to make a profit from the results. Scientists work on                     projects that their employer see potential profit in, but nothing else. Public          Government pays the tab. Scientists work at the whim of the current elected                     officials who in turn answer to the masses and their short whimsical memories.  NASA is clearly in the last category. When the public interest runs out so does the money. Do you think Johnson would have canceled the last Apollo missions if the public had continued to show great interest? Sure we got a lot of nice soil samples and reports but the tax payers didn’t feel it inside.If you want to see a well run scientific project just look at Egypt and their ancient ruins. Have you ever noticed how every 6-9 months the minister of antiquities releases a new and wonderful discovery? It keeps up interest and it keeps up tourism and it keeps his job secure. A static weather station with a shovel will garner the level of interest needed to keep the money flowing.But if you drive a rover up to the entrance of a cave and shine a light inside and find the cave is deep, the money for a cave explorer will show up post haste. If you find something green in the crevices of some deep gorge you get an algae explorer mission. And if you roll across a fossil you will most likely get a manned mission. You won’t find any of this sitting in one spot for a few months. Show me drivers eye video while crusing across the surface. Show me video of the sand blowing over the dunes. Show me video of a dust devil. Not a few still frames stitched into a movie. A panoramic at noon another at sunset, with a couple of digs in the same sandbox is not what Americans think of  when we think “Exploration”. We even have an Suv named Explorer, it has wheels. It’s meant to take you off road to the places you have never seen.No one would support another Surveyor type mission on the Moon. Aren’t we past that on Mars?

MeteorWayne · Nov 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Public          Government pays the tab. Scientists work at the whim of the current elected                     officials who in turn answer to the masses and their short whimsical memories.  NASA is clearly in the last category. Posted by samkent</DIV> I would hope our representatives are not that shortsighted most of the time.It's not whims, it is toward established goals, given the available budget.NASA has returned much more bang for the buck than almost anywhere else in the US government.Just because it doesn't make pretty pictures it should be trashed? No, Science is the real goal, and those in Congress with an IQ greater than 100 get that (~ 48%?) . The financial pressures don't always allow us to always get what we want. But pretty pictures are not the real goal. <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>

trailrider · Nov 13, 2008

I guess Capt. Colon's expeditions weren't worth the money!  After all, he didn't find what he was looking for...a whole hemisphere got in the way!  Lewis & Clark were supposed to find navigable passage to the Pacific Ocean from the Missouri River.  Didn't accomplish that, either!  (Lewis did discover a LOT of scientific stuff, but it wasn't even published until after his untimely death.)Scientific investigation and human exploration is seldom "worth the money" in the beginning.  But you never know what you'll find until the money is spent and the results come in. And the results may take awhile to evaluate!  Short of finding the cure to cancer under a rock on the Moon or Mars, or somewhere else, or gold or some other stuff worth mining, you will have a tough sell to the American public!  Best those of us that believe in the Dream can do is keep educating others, in informal conversations, in formal presentations, and by lobbying the new President and Congress, AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, if our so-called advocacy groups won't do it!Ad LEO! Ad Luna! Ad Ares! Ad Astra!

thor06 · Nov 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not that we think it's a failure, but it just wasn't worth the money.Give me something that pull at my heart strings and I along with millions of others will support more trips with more money. Soil reports just doesn't do that! Show me grand vistas.Show me valleys where I can see the erosion from water. Show me the openings to unexplored caves. Show me the base of cliffs unclimbed.Show me a spot where I would want to build a house.Then you will see the money pour in. Posted by samkent</DIV>    Hehe, a fair post, many people have said to me "eh more pictures of rocks".   I do of course agree with the others, the science gained was well worth the cost.  Phoenix was a major success and should also be commended for it's exposure.   I think it got more news/airtime in 4 months than Cassini has had in 4 years. Kudos to NASA, JPL, NASA PAO, and the whole Phoenix team at UofA.    Hey samkent try this:Mars Phoenix (Ken Burns style with music)   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> www.watchnasatv.com ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </div>

samkent · Nov 13, 2008

More stills and CGI. I'm not saying NASA didn't do an exceptional job controlling the mission. I just think the results returned were not worth $475 million.Remember NASA has to sell these missions to congress. Does Billy Mays use stills to sell you Oxyclean? You may be able to justify half a billion dollars for rusty dirt reports but it's a hard sell to the people with the money. One big reason congress gave its ok was that we already had a bunch of leftover parts on the shelf. They were told it would be quick and cheap.  The results certainly not cheap nor Earth shattering. If you want more Mars money you had better come up with more razzle dazzle in these lean years ahead.

centsworth_II · Nov 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Public          Government pays the tab. Scientists work at the whim of the current elected                     officials who in turn answer to the masses and their short whimsical memories. Posted by samkent</DIV> I think your perception of the situation is off:  The government relies on organizations of scientists to plot out priorities and strategies for exploration.  Of course the government provides the budget and money is tight, but flashy photo op missions would not help that situation.  The fact is, the option for a lander mission to Mars between the MERs and MSL was Phoenix or nothing.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Was Phoenix a Waste?

MeteorWayne

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

silylene old

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

earth_bound_misfit

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

earth_bound_misfit

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

kelvinzero

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

efron_24

Guest

l3p3r

Guest

samkent

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

samkent

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

trailrider

Guest

thor06

Guest

samkent

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page