What if MPL had been a success?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JonClarke

Guest
<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Now that the very fruitful Phoenix mission is over, perhaps we can play some hypotheticals!</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Phoenix</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial"> was based on the failed Mars Polar lander mission and deployed many of the same tools and instruments. Based on Phoenix&rsquo;s experience we can ask the question:</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">How would MPL have fared if it had landed successfully and what might it have found?<span>&nbsp; </span>Let&rsquo;s leave the Deep Space 2 penetrators out of the picture for the moment, they were really a separate mission.</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">MPL was equipped with the following:</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black;font-family:Arial">1) MVACS Mars volatile and climate surveyor instrument package</span> <ul><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm0cm0pt;color:black;tab-stops:list36.0pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">a) SSI stereo surface imager (backup flown on Phoenix)</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm0cm0pt;color:black;tab-stops:list36.0pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">b) RA robotic arm (similar arm flown on Phoenix)</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm0cm0pt;color:black;tab-stops:list36.0pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">c) MET meteorology package (similar package flown on Phoenix)</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm0cm0pt;color:black;tab-stops:list36.0pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">d) TEGA thermal and evolved gas analyzer (backup flown on Phoenix)</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0cm0cm0pt;color:black;tab-stops:list36.0pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">e) RAC robotic arm camera</span></li></ul><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black;font-family:Arial">2) MARDI Mars descent imager (similar package flown on Phoenix)<br />3) LIDAR light detection and ranging instrument (A Russian instrument, similar in principle to the Canadian one flown by Phoenix)</span><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black;font-family:Arial">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black;font-family:Arial">Compared to the Phoenix site MPL would have landed on layered terrain (probably wind deposited snow and dust), rather than the northern plains.<span>&nbsp; </span>It was at higher latitude (76 degrees S) and higher elevation (above rather than below Mars datum).<span>&nbsp; </span>Like the Phoenix site it was flat and largely crater free. http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast25aug99_1.htm </span><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black;font-family:Arial">&nbsp;</span> <p style="margin:0cm0cm0pt" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black;font-family:Arial">So, what might MPL have seen and discovered with its instruments, compared to Phoenix? </span></p><p style="margin:0cm0cm0pt" class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p><span style="font-size:10pt;color:black;font-family:Arial">Jon</span><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">&nbsp;</span> <p>http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast25aug99_1.htm</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p>And, since I forgot, here is a labelled picture of MPL.</p><p>Jon</p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/11/11/cb51ab83-6207-4de6-bb7e-b4e03cba5d03.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
M

MarkStanaway

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And, since I forgot, here is a labelled picture of MPL.Jon <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>I see that MPL had a tilted solar array. Why was this not incorporated into the Phoenix design? We might have got an extra month or so of life out of the probe if this had been adopted.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
F

freya

Guest
<p>Good question Mark. Was the design meant for an equatorial mission?</p><p>Tilted arrays may reduced the dust build up problem.</p><p>All in all, we have learnt alot from Phoenix, with lots more to come.</p><p>Many thanks to all the contributors to this forum for making the Phoenix experience informative, exciting and 'lively'.</p><p>Cheers, Gary.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see that MPL had a tilted solar array. Why was this not incorporated into the Phoenix design? We might have got an extra month or so of life out of the probe if this had been adopted.&nbsp; <br />Posted by MarkStanaway</DIV></p><p>Interesting question.</p><p>I think, but don't know for sure, that the reason that MPL had the canted solar panels was to collect more light.&nbsp; Remember it was optimised for polar operations, whereas the Phoenix power system was originall designed for the equator.&nbsp; Perhaps this is why MPL was able to targeted 7 degrees closer to the pole than Phoenix?<br /><br />Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">Interesting question.I think, but don't know for sure, that the reason that MPL had the canted solar panels was to collect more light.&nbsp; Remember it was optimised for polar operations, whereas the Phoenix power system was originall designed for the equator.&nbsp; Perhaps this is why MPL was able to targeted 7 degrees closer to the pole than Phoenix?Jon <br />Posted by jonclarke</font></DIV></p><p><strong><font size="2">Hi Jon</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">That's correct. MPL IIRC could have landed as far south as 82 degrees S. Obviously the site 'near' Jeans Crater @ approx 76 S was considered safe by the engineers, as was on a polar plain&nbsp;& also was within an area&nbsp;of polar layered terrain.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Phoenix Mars Lander formally Mars Surveyor 2001 was certainly an equatorial, at least tropical&nbsp;mission, with one potential landing site being only about 150 KM north of where MER B Opportunity landed.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Regarding science result assuming a successful MPL landing? I think in many respects very similar to Phoenix, but perhaps a greater diurnal temperature range, as you have also correctly pointed out, MPL was to be well above the Datum Line, hence thinner atmosphere, unlike Phoenix at nearly 4 KM BELOW the Datum Line.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Regolith, IMO similar to Phoenix, but perhaps even more alkaline. Phoenix landed not too far from the NW flanks of the giant volcano Alba Patera & also NNE of Olympus Mons (which was approx 2,400 KM away). The relative proximity of Scandia Colles to Tharsis, may had reduced some of the buffering by the&nbsp;Calcium Carbonates???? &nbsp;</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">IIRC MPL was to have landed nowhere near any volcanic province, though I do not really know that much about&nbsp;that region of Mars. To me MPL's site looked older than Phoenix's from orbit, regarding the cratering of the surrounding area. But of course I could be wrong & most possibly am.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">It would be wonderful if another lander could be sent to MPL's site.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Andrew Brown.</font></strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"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".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Good question Mark. Was the design meant for an equatorial mission?Tilted arrays may reduced the dust build up problem.All in all, we have learnt alot from Phoenix, with lots more to come.Many thanks to all the contributors to this forum for making the Phoenix experience informative, exciting and 'lively'.Cheers, Gary.&nbsp; <br />Posted by freya</DIV><br /><br />I doubt the tilted arrays would have helped much with dust considering how sticky it seems to be.</p><p>Andrew, any pictures you are aware of showing dust accumulations on tilted surfaces? No rush, I don't want to take up too much time on a Shuttle launch day. Just over 10 hours to launch :)</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">I doubt the tilted arrays would have helped much with dust considering how sticky it seems to be.Andrew, any pictures you are aware of showing dust accumulations on tilted surfaces? No rush, I don't want to take up too much time on a Shuttle launch day. Just over 10 hours to launch :) <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</font></DIV></p><p><strong><font size="2">Thanks Wayne,</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">I will try & watch the STS 126 Endeavour launch tonight (should be able to). I will also try & find some images of dusty tilted surfaces. An interesting engineering question.</font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Of course there's this <strong><font size="2">Sols 708 - 710 Eldorado on Husband Hill, in Gusev Crater. MER A Spirit.</font></strong></font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="2">Andrew Brown.</font></strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"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".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><font size="2"><font face="Courier New">This is my take on how MPL might have panned out.</font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font><font size="2"><font face="Courier New">I will assume it might of lasted for ~150 sols, as did Phoenix, the canted solar panels counteracting for the higher latitude landing site.</font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong><font size="2"><font face="Courier New">1) MVACS Mars volatile and climate surveyor instrument package </font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font></strong></p><p><font size="2"><font face="Courier New"><strong>a) SSI stereo surface imager</strong></font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font></p><p><font size="2"><font face="Courier New">It would have work as well as the one on Phoenix, returning similar quality images of the terrain and obtaining basic spectral information on features of interest including the trenches.<span>&nbsp; </span>The landscape would have been smooth, possibly stepped and polygon free, but perhaps slightly more cratered.<span>&nbsp; </span>Because it was closer to the pole and higher up there may been more frost and show visible at the start and finish to the mission.</font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2"><font face="Courier New"><strong>b) RA robotic arm</strong></font></font></p><p><font size="2"><font face="Courier New">Like the one of Phoenix this would have worked well.<span>&nbsp; </span>However, it may have had similar problems digging deep into the icy subsurface, which would have been colder and therefore harder than that at the Phoenix site.<span>&nbsp; </span>The thermal and conductivity probes would likewise have given useful results.</font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><strong><font size="2"><font face="Courier New">c) MET meteorology package </font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font></strong></p><p><font size="2"><font face="Courier New">Likewise would have functioned similar to that on Phoenix.</font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font></p><p><strong><font size="2"><font face="Courier New">d) TEGA thermal and evolved gas analyzer </font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font></strong></p><p><font size="2"><font face="Courier New">I suspect it would have worked better than the one on Phoenix.<span>&nbsp; </span>Possibly the sticking doors was due to the length of time the Phoenix unit had been in storage, if so the MPL TEFA doors might have opened OK.<span>&nbsp; </span>The mostly likely cause for the stickiness that made getting samples into the ovens so difficult would to have been a problem for MPL.<span>&nbsp; </span>The sight was higher and colder, moisture films would not have been present.<span>&nbsp; </span>As with Phoenix, the MPL Phoenix would have been able to characterise the volatile containg phases, and (unlike Phoenix) may have been able to measure the D/H ratio.<span>&nbsp; </span>Because of the lower temperature it may have detected CO2 ices.</font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2"><font face="Courier New"><strong>e) RAC robotic arm camera</strong></font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font></p><p><font size="2"><font face="Courier New">It is quite possible that MPL would also have excavated its substrate, in which case the robot arm camera would have been able to see subsurface ices and regolith layering.</font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2"><font face="Courier New"><strong>2) MARDI Mars descent imager</strong> </font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font></p><p><font size="2"><font face="Courier New">There was no hint of problems with the MPL instrument, so this should have returned a couple of images, as designed.</font></font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font><font face="Courier New" size="2">&nbsp;</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2"><font face="Courier New"><strong>3) LIDAR </strong></font></font></p><p><font size="2"><font face="Courier New">I see no reason why this Russian instrument should not have worked as well as the Canadian one on Phoenix.<span>&nbsp; </span>Like the Phoenix lidar it would have provided useful information on atmospheric aerosols, clouds, and precipitation.</font></font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
F

franontanaya

Guest
Given that the Phoenix landing site was probably more habitable 5 million years ago than the higher latitudes for MPL, I think Phoenix has been in a more favorable place for new findings than MPL would have been. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given that the Phoenix landing site was probably more habitable 5 million years ago than the higher latitudes for MPL, I think Phoenix has been in a more favorable place for new findings than MPL would have been. <br />Posted by franontanaya</DIV></p><p>But remember that the layered terrain records global climate changes and, just as the Antarctic and Greenland icecaps tell us about conditions in more clement regions, so would invesigating the the martian polar layers.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
<p><font size="2"><strong>Hi Jon,</strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>I think our evaluations are remarkably similar & this gives me more confidence in what I post.</strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Regarding the layering, IYO, would the landing site have looked like very broad shallow steps? How deep would those steps have been. A few CM, half a metre, 1 metre?<br /></strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>I intended to participate with the MRO HiRISE MPL search, buit the software never worked & kept crashing my computer, so I could never participate. </strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>I agree about the possibility of more small craters & no tundra polygons as MPL's site did appear older than Phoenix's.</strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Andrew Brown.&nbsp;</strong></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"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".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
<p><font size="2"><strong>Hi Jon,</strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Talking of the MPL search campaign, here is the link from the HiRISE site. </strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Forgot to link to it earlier.<br /></strong></font></p><p><font size="3">Search for Mars Polar Lander.&nbsp;</font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Shows the area within the landing ellipse extremely well.</strong></font></p><p><font size="3">Also found this.</font> <font size="2"><strong>From Javier on the HiBlog thread concerning the search for MPL.</strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Andrew Brown.&nbsp;</strong></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"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".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
F

franontanaya

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>so would invesigating the the martian polar layers.</DIV></p><p>Yup, but not with a static lander and a scoop that can only rasp a bit of rock-frozen permafrost. Phoenix made sense for the uniform, young Northern Plains, but to the MPLs I'd rather bring a drill or something on wheels. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

JonClarke

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yup, but not with a static lander and a scoop that can only rasp a bit of rock-frozen permafrost. Phoenix made sense for the uniform, young Northern Plains, but to the MPLs I'd rather bring a drill or something on wheels. &nbsp; <br />Posted by franontanaya</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;A rover would have been too expensive.&nbsp; Remember they cost roughly twice what a stationary lander dpes per kg.&nbsp; Plus the main surface&nbsp;science instrument on MPL was TEGA.&nbsp; The entire surface mission would have been needed to investiagte what was in reach of the arm.&nbsp; As with Phoenix, a rover was not needed.</p><p>Jon<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>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</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>
 
N

neuvik

Guest
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>I don't understand why there must be "flash" with science. &nbsp; The research MPL performed was amazing, too bad if some people can't wrap their heads around the significance of it. &nbsp;&nbsp; Guess what, it would still have been a success if it didn't find water! Meeting perceived goals does not have to be defined as success; with good old scientific method, finding the opposite of what we hypothesised is just as good.&nbsp; With that knowledge then we can proceed with further studies, proofs what not. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p>It is completely pretentious to think that every mission has to be collage of jaw dropping images.&nbsp; I can only guess the reason everyone seems to want rovers is because they seem to give drastically different pictures than a static object.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yes it would be wicked if everything we sent to Mars was a rover and still had all the scientific equipment aboard. &nbsp; Asides from the obvious budget issue though, why use a chain saw when a butter knife will do.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The MPL will not help me afford SolidWorks, it won't help me pass my naval architecture exam it will however help someone else now or later help pave the way for something I hold dear.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>edit:&nbsp; For the record I thought the MPLs photos were awesome, and some of those sun set photos were mesmerizing.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>
 
M

MarkStanaway

Guest
<p>&nbsp;For the record I thought the MPLs photos were awesome, and some of those sun set photos were mesmerizing.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by neuvik[/QUOTE]</p><p>For the record all contact with MPL (Mars Polar Lander) was lost just prior to atmospheric entry and it never made it intact to the Mars surface. It was Phoenix which gaves us those awesome images of the sun sets.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;For the record I thought the MPLs photos were awesome, and some of those sun set photos were mesmerizing.&nbsp;&nbsp; Posted by neuvik</DIV>For the record all contact with MPL (Mars Polar Lander) was lost just prior to atmospheric entry and it never made it intact to the Mars surface. It was Phoenix which gaves us those awesome images of the sun sets.&nbsp; <br />Posted by MarkStanaway</DIV><br /><br />The acronym MPL (Mars Phoenix Lander) was also used for Phoenix, but never became too popular. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">The acronym MPL (Mars Phoenix Lander) was also used for Phoenix, but never became too popular. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</font></DIV></p><p><font size="2"><strong>Very true Wayne & Phoenix acronym became PHX instead & that was seldom used outside of NASA / JPL / JHU & APL.</strong></font></p><p><font size="2"><strong>&nbsp;Andrew Brown.&nbsp;</strong></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"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".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
N

neuvik

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>For the record all contact with MPL (Mars Polar Lander) was lost just prior to atmospheric entry and it never made it intact to the Mars surface. It was Phoenix which gaves us those awesome images of the sun sets.&nbsp; Posted by MarkStanaway</DIV>The acronym MPL (Mars Phoenix Lander) was also used for Phoenix, but never became too popular. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Whoops, prolly should had read a bit closer. &nbsp;&nbsp; My bad, I read Clarks thread "<span class="Forums_CurrentPageCrumb"> Was Phoenix a Waste?" great defense from all you,&nbsp; and I read those exact same posts on the news articles and it irritated me just as much. &nbsp; For some strange reason...lack of sleep haha, I thought this was another thread but caving more to the types of people he wanted to debate in his first thread.&nbsp; </span></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"</font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff">SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck</font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts