Was Phoenix a Waste?

thor06 · Nov 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Does Billy Mays use stills to sell you Oxyclean? Posted by samkent</DIV>    Sorry, but I really hate that guy.  his voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard.on topic:  I think you (and the public) will be getting more of what your looking for with the larger rover, and finally with manned missions.  Trust me samkent I completely understand where you are coming from(hence my push for a better NASA TV), even though I disagree(about Phoenix being a waste).  The science must be done first, ensuring the best most productive missions on down the road.  Missions that will hopefully captivate the entire world. P.S. The navy spends NASA's entire budget on corrosion protection 18-20 bill per year.  That 475 mill would only buy 4 f-22's and would get you 1/4 of a stealth bomber.           think about it..... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> www.watchnasatv.com ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </div>

JonClarke · 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.</DIV>So you keep aying, but you have not given the slightest indication you actually understand why the rest of us think it was.  So I challenge you.  Set your self the task of finding out why the rest of us think it was a very worthwhile mission.  Find out why soil chemistry is so important.  Then  come back and say whether or now you think it was worthwhile.  And if not, how you would have not the same information for cheaper.  Otherwise you are just Scrooge crying "Bah! Humbug!" why everyone else enjoys the party.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 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! </DIV>Now you are being selfish.  Space missions are not planned round what tugs at people's heart springs.  A mission does not have to appeal to someone's emotions to be important.  Frankly, MAVEN does not do anything for me.  But it is a good mission which will answer important questions.  By your critera it would be a waste.  It it won't be (if it actually flies) And emotional responses are so subjective.  I was really excited to see that beautiful polygonal terrain and the ice under the lander.  I found the midnight sun image very evocative.  I was delighted by the disappearig ice clods in the trench. And as HiRISE image of Phoeni decending.... WOW! So there were plenty of JLAT images for me. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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>By these criteria every Mars lander has been a failure.  So let's hear you bag Viking, Pathfinder, the MERs.  No water erosion, no unexplored caves, no unclaimed clifss (except very small ones).  As for building a house, do you realise that the Phoenix landing site is in many respects the best place we have seen for building a settlement?  Good quality water, arable soil, safe landing site. And I have aa little surprise for you, every Mars lander currently planned will also be a failure by your  criteria.  So you have a whoice before, master Samkent.  You can continue looking in from the outside at the party shouting "Bah! Humbug!" Or you can learn what Mars mission are really about and join the party.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>

MeteorWayne · Nov 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> 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. Posted by samkent</DIV> Wait, you are saying that NASA should air cheesy infomercials at 3AM on tuesday mornings to justify their missions.I have no hope of reaching you.... <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>

thor06 · Nov 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wait, you are saying that NASA should air cheesy infomercials at 3AM on tuesday mornings to justify their missions.I have no hope of reaching you.... Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>    Hehe MW!       "hi I'm billy mays here to talk to you about NASA"   Ahhhhhhhh dear god no!!!  seriously I would disown NASA, and shove an ice pick into each ear.  Great post jon,  I agree samkent join the party!  The science is what it is all about.P.S. check out what you get for NASA's piddly 18 bill per year:All current missions   give it a minute, takes a while to load that giant list.    How many of these have you heard of?  Yet all are providing the world with excellent science data. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> www.watchnasatv.com ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 14, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>    P.S. check out what you get for NASA's piddly 18 bill per year:All current missions   give it a minute, takes a while to load that giant list.    How many of these have you heard of?  Yet all are providing the world with excellent science data. Posted by thor06</DIV> Thanx for posting that. It really is amazing how much science we do get out of that relatively small amount of money. When you look at it that way, NASA really does deliver a LOT of bang for the buck. I urge everyone to take the time to look at that list!! <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>

tanstaafl76 · Nov 14, 2008

Not need to bag on Billy Mays, that dude gets prime time commercial spots these days!I mean, if Mighty Putty can pull the weight of a semi-trailer, maybe they should use it to hold together Ares I?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Philotas · Nov 14, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanx for posting that. It really is amazing how much science we do get out of that relatively small amount of money. When you look at it that way, NASA really does deliver a LOT of bang for the buck. I urge everyone to take the time to look at that list!! Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV> Digression: missions like XMM Newton, Mars Express, Hayabusa and SMART-1 are listed there; are/were NASA involved in all of these? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

thor06 · Nov 14, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not need to bag on Billy Mays, that dude gets prime time commercial spots these days!I mean, if Mighty Putty can pull the weight of a semi-trailer, maybe they should use it to hold together Ares I?  Posted by tanstaafl76</DIV>lol mighty putty......still laughing.  New NASA cost cutting measure

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> www.watchnasatv.com ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </div>

3488 · Nov 14, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>    Hehe MW!       "hi I'm billy mays here to talk to you about NASA"   Ahhhhhhhh dear god no!!!  seriously I would disown NASA, and shove an ice pick into each ear.  Great post jon,  I agree samkent join the party!  The science is what it is all about.P.S. check out what you get for NASA's piddly 18 bill per year:All current missions   give it a minute, takes a while to load that giant list.    How many of these have you heard of?  Yet all are providing the world with excellent science data. Posted by thor06</DIV>Excellent post thor06.We get a huge amount of the highest calibre science from the NASA missions, really for so little money. As far as my opinion of Phoenix being a waste? NO.Back on topic. I have defended this mission to the hilt from the word go. Was Phoenix successful in using the on board labs TEGA & MECA? YES.Did Phoenix successfully use the Optical & Atomic Force microscopes, revealing the form of INDIVIDUAL particles for the first time on the Forth Rock from the Sun? YES. Did TEGA & MECA produce results that have overturned many preconceived ideas generated from landings closer to the equator? YES. Did Phoenix provide quality weather data on most sols? YES.Did the LIDAR, measure dust, ice particles & even precipitation in the polar martian atmosphere from ground level for the first time? YES. Did Phoenix uding the SSI return high resolution images of the surrounding area, creating a high resolution 360 degree colour panorama, clearly showing the terrain around herself & the science from said panorama will help understand the tundra areas on Mars in general, this location in particular, rock distribution, sizes & clues to type, shape & form of hills on the horizon, polygon distribution & sizes? YES.Disd Phoenix using the SSI successfully monitor cloud formation / dissipation & general weather for the first time from ground level in a polar region on Mars? YES.  Did Phoenix carry out other observations only really possible from the polar region for the first time on Mars, such as Midnight Sun obs, frost development over time, tundra sampling? YES. Did Phoenix perform all primary mission objectives within the first 90 Sols? YES.Did Phoenix continue to perform extremely well, long after 90 sols had passed? YES. Was Phoenix a costly mission? NO.Did Phoenix complete her primary mission objectives & very much more on top on a shoestring budget? YES.Did Phoenix provide results that will help plan future missions, both Manned & Unmanned? YES. Do I think Phoenix was a waste? Take a guess. It does'nt take a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 14, 2008

What he said ---^^^---

<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>

kelvinzero · Nov 14, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wait, you are saying that NASA should air cheesy infomercials at 3AM on tuesday mornings to justify their Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV> But wait! There's more!

I wonder how many space missions could have been bought with all those bow-flexes and butt blasters sitting unused right now. I also wonder what the 'pimp my ride' people could have done with the Phoenix. A good stereo system and low rider cabability could have been useful for shaking things up and accessing a whole new demographic.But seriously,What is the process through which the american government (or any other) decides on the value of any space mission in terms of tax dollars? Or to put it another way, how does a politician damage themselves by not supporting money on space science?Secondly, suppose if at some governmental level all mars missions were dedicated explicitly to the eventual goal of living there (though still at say 0.5 of a percent per year investment),  how would this affect the science we choose to do right now?

JonClarke · Nov 15, 2008

Obviously Popular Science does not think Phoenix was a waste.They recognised it as an innovation worthy of the publication's "Best of What's New" Grand Award in the aviation and space category. http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/11_14_pr.php  <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 17, 2008

Hi,Just wanted to say (in response to the original question) that I certainly do not expect Phoenix was a waste. I havent really been following the science but I will be looking forward to explanations on this site as progress is made interpreting the data.As someone here (was it Meteorwayne?) said, nasa certainly gives the best bang for its buck.

michaelmozina · Nov 17, 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 think that's the key point that the "critics" seem to be missing IMO.Most "missions" are given specific "objectives" and price ranges that will be considered.   This mission was highly "successful" at meeting it's "objectives" on a budget that fit within the specified parameters.  NASA doesn't have the luxury of an unlimited budget and it juggles many "objectives" at a time and many programs at a time.  I personally am extremely pleased with the tax money I have spent on NASA over my lifetime.  I wish I could say that for every goverment program, particularly thoae that failed to meet their "objectives" or come in close to budget.  I can just imagine NASA coming to congress in desparate need of a 700B bailout.

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

MeteorWayne · Nov 17, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think that's the key point that the "critics" seem to be missing IMO.Most "missions" are given specific "objectives" and price ranges that will be considered.   This mission was highly "successful" at meeting it's "objectives" on a budget that fit within the specified parameters.  NASA doesn't have the luxury of an unlimited budget and it juggles many "objectives" at a time and many programs at a time.  I personally am extremely pleased with the tax money I have spent on NASA over my lifetime.  I wish I could say that for every goverment program, particularly thoae that failed to meet their "objectives" or come in close to budget.  I can just imagine NASA coming to congress in desparate need of a 700B bailout.

Posted by michaelmozina</DIV> Good point mm!! Can you imagine what could be done with 700 billion? We could be on our way to Mars within a decade, have interstellar spacecraft, missions to all the planets and moons, and who know what else.NASA does a heck of a lot with it's puny 17 billion a year. <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>

michaelmozina · Nov 18, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Good point mm!! Can you imagine what could be done with 700 billion? We could be on our way to Mars within a decade, have interstellar spacecraft, missions to all the planets and moons, and who know what else.NASA does a heck of a lot with it's puny 17 billion a year. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>I'm especially pleased with the *different* missions NASA takes on, and the fact they never put all their eggs in a single basket.  They do a magnificent job IMO of juggling a lot of scientific missions simultaneously and producing a wide range of scientific data.    I'm absolutely sure in a"perfect" world, of unlimited budgets, NASA could indeed produce "better' scientific missions.  What they are able to accomplish however on a relatively modest budget is nothing short of miraculous IMO.I can just imagine what NASA might do with just the money we've already blown on AIG.

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

dragon04 · Nov 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm especially pleased with the *different* missions NASA takes on, and the fact they never put all their eggs in a single basket.  They do a magnificent job IMO of juggling a lot of scientific missions simultaneously and producing a wide range of scientific data.    I'm absolutely sure in a"perfect" world, of unlimited budgets, NASA could indeed produce "better' scientific missions.  What they are able to accomplish however on a relatively modest budget is nothing short of miraculous IMO.I can just imagine what NASA might do with just the money we've already blown on AIG.

Posted by michaelmozina</DIV>I think to some degree, Phoenix was a "victim" of the Rovers' incredible successes. Certainly to the casual viewer, Phoenix was a pretty boring machine, while sexy Spirit and awesome Opportunity crawled around, made some clever escapes, and provided views of Mars and its skies and its weather phenomena from every possible angle.Poor old Phoenix just did its Journeyman Job of dgging and melting some ice. If Spirit and Opportunity are star Quarterbacks, Phoenix was a big old offensive lineman down in the trenches doing the work that never gets the glory.It wasn't a waste. Not at all. Perhaps a little anticlimactic, but not a waste. From our Rovers, we were already "sure" there had been water there and we "knew" that there was water ice. Honestly, anything short of some wiggling little microbe smiling up at Phoenix from newly melted ice wasn't going to be cause for any Award nominations.Phoenix, however, did a lot of important stuff and not all of it had to do with science experiments. Just landing in one piece was a great accomplishment, to me. NASA has really done to GOOD a job. We've come to expect "stunning results". Phoenix did light me on fire, either, but it was a solid, journeyman mission that was done and done well. Hats off to the folks at the U of Arizona, NASA and JPL for getting the job done even when it's not glamorous. Or perhaps BECAUSE it's not glamorous. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

silylene old · Nov 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>........It does'nt take a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Andrew Brown. Posted by 3488</DIV>Andrew, you are an amazingly effective proponent for space missions.  And a 100% accurate summary.NASA or ESA should hire you as a publicist.  I really mean it.  Over and over in this forum (and others) you always post accurate, interesting and timely results, beautiful panoramas, great explanations, helpful answers, and clear descriptions.  And your love and enthusiasm for this subject and your friendly patience permeates everything your write.  I thank you! <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>

JonClarke · Nov 20, 2008

I'll second thaat comment aabout Andrew! <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 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think to some degree, Phoenix was a "victim" of the Rovers' incredible successes. Certainly to the casual viewer, Phoenix was a pretty boring machine, while sexy Spirit and awesome Opportunity crawled around, made some clever escapes, and provided views of Mars and its skies and its weather phenomena from every possible angle.Poor old Phoenix just did its Journeyman Job of dgging and melting some ice. If Spirit and Opportunity are star Quarterbacks, Phoenix was a big old offensive lineman down in the trenches doing the work that never gets the glory.It wasn't a waste. Not at all. Perhaps a little anticlimactic, but not a waste. From our Rovers, we were already "sure" there had been water there and we "knew" that there was water ice. Honestly, anything short of some wiggling little microbe smiling up at Phoenix from newly melted ice wasn't going to be cause for any Award nominations.Phoenix, however, did a lot of important stuff and not all of it had to do with science experiments. Just landing in one piece was a great accomplishment, to me. NASA has really done to GOOD a job. We've come to expect "stunning results". Phoenix did light me on fire, either, but it was a solid, journeyman mission that was done and done well. Hats off to the folks at the U of Arizona, NASA and JPL for getting the job done even when it's not glamorous. Or perhaps BECAUSE it's not glamorous. Posted by dragon04</DIV>You may be right. That and the fact that it had a finite life too was a common thread in the complaints.The fact that there was no point  to Phoenix being a rover seems to have escaped the critics.How would they react to something "boring" but essential like a network of meteorology and geophysical statios?  Or a penetrator mission that runs for only a few days?It does show that, while PR is important, it should not drive missions, IMHO.  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>

3488 · Nov 20, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Andrew, you are an amazingly effective proponent for space missions.  And a 100% accurate summary.NASA or ESA should hire you as a publicist.  I really mean it.  Over and over in this forum (and others) you always post accurate, interesting and timely results, beautiful panoramas, great explanations, helpful answers, and clear descriptions.  And your love and enthusiasm for this subject and your friendly patience permeates everything your write.  I thank you! Posted by silylene</DIV>Dunno what to say silylene??? This is not the first time that someone who is vastly more qualified than me has put me on a pedestal due to my own insights. This mission has really raised the bar on so many levels in many respects. IMO, much of what Phoenix returned is of Flagship Mission quality. Look at what we got for a pathetic 450 mil?? Phoenix was certainly worth, vastly more than the money spent. By Sol 7 (in fact after EDL really) I knew the campaign that I was a part of to save the mission from cancellation, was well worth it. I have followed this mission from the moment of the cancellation of the Mars Surveyor 2001 Lander, preparation, launch, cruise & EDL (stayed up all night following that & the reception of the first images on Sol 0, from then I knew she was OK), right up to now & will continue to follow the science from the mission as it is released over the years to come. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You may be right. That and the fact that it had a finite life too was a common thread in the complaints.The fact that there was no point  to Phoenix being a rover seems to have escaped the critics.How would they react to something "boring" but essential like a network of meteorology and geophysical statios?  Or a penetrator mission that runs for only a few days?It does show that, while PR is important, it should not drive missions, IMHO.  Jon  Posted by jonclarke</DIV> Hi Jon, you too, I thank you for your support.Very true about the meterology & geophysical stations that will be eventually sent. They are vital in understanding Mars globally, a series of seismometers & MET Stations would be wonderful. True these like Phoenix, will not be mobile, once the original panoramas are taken there will be no change in views, but then the other intruments will come into their own. I can  just imagine the moaning & trolling now from it. Don't know if this is still happenning? ESA Mars NetLanders. Powerpoint presentation. 3 identical landers equipped with Cameras, Seismometers & MET Stations. Perhaps similar craft, although customised could also be sent to the Moon & Mercury, obviously without MET stations?Andrew Brown.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

michaelmozina · Nov 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think to some degree, Phoenix was a "victim" of the Rovers' incredible successes. Certainly to the casual viewer, Phoenix was a pretty boring machine, while sexy Spirit and awesome Opportunity crawled around, made some clever escapes, and provided views of Mars and its skies and its weather phenomena from every possible angle.Poor old Phoenix just did its Journeyman Job of dgging and melting some ice. </DIV>I think you're probably right about that point.  The rovers far outlived their design parameters, and most of the recent missions to Mars have been "long life" sort of missions.    The perception of the Pheonix misson is most likely skewed and judged by the phenominal success of past few missions, not the successes or failures of the current one.  Even though this mission achieved all of it's primary goals, it wasn't very "sexy", and the longevity of the mission was very limited.  Perhaps that is why the perception does not match with the complete sucess of the Pheonix mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

BrianSlee · Nov 25, 2008

No way.  Given the percentages of succesful landings and Mars missions any mission that gets there and performs it's mission is a huge success. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I am therefore I think" "The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee </div>

CalliArcale · Nov 25, 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>As I see this comment didn't get a reply, I'll reply.  ;-)The expected duration is the primary mission duration.  That's the time they've planned to use for satisfying all of the primary mission objectives (and usually the secondary ones too), and it's also the time the spacecraft was designed to definitely last -- so 90 days was in the specs.  The contractor or agency who builds it is required to deliver a vehicle which will definitely run for 90 days (barring the unforseen, of course; nothing is flawless). Realistically, of course, making it operate reliably at full specs for 90 days means you have to make it robust enough to last a lot longer than that.  So this is why most spacecraft outlast their original design parameters.  Unless something goes horribly wrong in the beginning, they usually last well past the end of the primary mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

CalliArcale · Nov 25, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Digression: missions like XMM Newton, Mars Express, Hayabusa and SMART-1 are listed there; are/were NASA involved in all of these? Posted by Philotas</DIV>NASA is involved with a lot of foreign projects, including India's Chandrayaan-1 which has recently arrived in orbit around the Moon.  Usually this amounts to a few instrument suites on board the other country's spacecraft.  By the same token, a lot of foreign space agencies end up flying payloads on NASA spacecraft too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Was Phoenix a Waste?

thor06

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

thor06

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

tanstaafl76

Guest

Philotas

Guest

thor06

Guest

3488

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

kelvinzero

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

kelvinzero

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

dragon04

Guest

silylene old

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

3488

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

BrianSlee

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page