[X] My Assistant

[RNeuhaus]

This topic is for posts concerning to any preparation of Phoenix Lander Mission to Mars programmed to launch on August 2007 (less than 2 years... but the time will fly)

http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/future/phoenix.html

Overview

The Phoenix mission is the first chosen for NASA's Scout program, an initiative for smaller, lower-cost, competed spacecraft. Named for the resilient mythological bird, Phoenix uses a lander that was intended for use by 2001's Mars Surveyor lander prior to its cancellation. It also carries a complex suite of instruments that are improved variations of those that flew on the lost Mars Polar Lander.

Canada Will Land Instrument On Mars To Study Weather

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-future-05t.html

Rodolfo

[Bob Shaw]

I couldn't find it either but there there is a nice gallery including several watch cams...

...And a possible landing site...

They call *that* flat? Bloody hell!

I had assumed that 'flat' was going to really mean, er, flat...

Bob Shaw

[helvick]

Interesting performance anecdote. I downloaded the HD version (all 102.9MB of it) and I find that I can play it back without any noticable problem with IRFANVIEW on my IBM T43P (1600x1200 monitor, ATI FireGL TV3200 video card, 1.8Ghz Centrino) . However my Quicktime player (V7.something I have to admit) seems to stutter noticably and VLC Media Player has major continuity problems playing back this HD version.

I'd happily upload this somewhere if I was confident that doing so was compatible with whatever license that might govern the media but for the moment I think we need to just continue to search for the link on the new Phoenix site - it is substantially better than the "HQ" version that is the best I have been able to find on the new site layout.

[OWW]

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...s/PHOE01107.xml

Another possible cause of MPL's crash?
I hope it will work properly for Phoenix.

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...s/PHOE01107.xml

Here's the real interesting (and disturbing) portion:

Doug McCuistion, NASA's head of Mars exploration, told The DAILY he expects the overrun to be in the double-digit millions of dollars, all of which must be offset by cutting the budgets of other Mars exploration efforts. [Emphasis added]

It might be a good thing that Ed Weiler is no longer running space science at NASA HQ. He might have swung his axe (as he came within a whisker of doing when MESSENGER faced smaller overruns) and cancelled Phoenix outright.

[Jim from NSF.com]

Here's the real interesting (and disturbing) portion:

[indent][/indent]
It might be a good thing that Ed Weiler is no longer running space science at NASA HQ. He might have swung his axe (as he came within a whisker of doing when MESSENGER faced smaller overruns) and cancelled Phoenix outright.

Isn't that one of the tentants of the Discovery program? Live within your budget or get cancelled. I think that has been one of the good things out of FBC, cost caps.

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

Isn't that one of the ten[ets] of the Discovery program? Live within your budget or get cancelled.

Yes, and Mars Scout is supposed to be patterned on the Discovery model. On the other hand, this is, after all, Mars we're talking about. Given its high visibility and attendant PR value, maybe NASA HQ is bending over backwards to ensure Phoenix flies.

[Spacecadet]

It would take a lot to cancel Phoenix because of a budget overrun. Remember that hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent on the project and to cancel it would waste everything. The DAWN project had a similar review and was put on hold for months but was eventually reinstated.

Cost capped missions are both good and bad. It has made NASA pay more attention to cost but one of the problems is that NASA still likes to pick aggressive - high value missions. Deep Impact, Phoenix, Messenger, Dawn are all not simple - MGS like missions (i.e. orbiter). This rewards proposers who make "aggressive" assumptions about what a mission will cost... which then leads to overruns.

While MCO failed due to the infamous english to metric mix up one of the core issues that contributed to the failure was lack of funding. When you lack funding, you lack people, and then things start slipping through the cracks. Who is to say if MCO or even MPL had more appropriate funding if they would have failed. Perhaps testing or analysis that they probably had to cut for budgetary reasons would have found the problems that caused their loss.

The core problem is that the funding available for cost capped missions does not allow for most projects if everyone was sufficiently conservative with their cost estimates so as to not overrun. The projects that it does allow are often of lower scientific value than the more expensive ones... and the selection is heavily based on science.

NASA might be learning it's lesson however. If you notice the Scout proposals selected to go to the next round do not include any landers.

All in all it is pointless to can a mission that is in ATLO because of a cost overrun. The money has already been spent. If cost is a concern... do not select the risky missions in the first place.

Here's the real interesting (and disturbing) portion:

[indent][/indent]
It might be a good thing that Ed Weiler is no longer running space science at NASA HQ. He might have swung his axe (as he came within a whisker of doing when MESSENGER faced smaller overruns) and cancelled Phoenix outright.

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

NASA might be learning it's lesson however. If you notice the Scout proposals selected to go to the next round do not include any landers.

Perhaps, but it could also be due as much to the science review panels giving a high value to proposals addressing martian atmospheric science (a high-level MEPAG objective and best addressed globally by orbiters) as it was to the TMC panels rating landers vs. orbiters.

[Stu]

Not sure if there's anything new in this, but worth a look...

"Phoenix budget problems"

[nprev]

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/chan...s/PHOE01107.xml

Another possible cause of MPL's crash?

Did MPL fly the same radar altimeter as Phoenix will? For a variety of reasons (many of which I disagree with, but that horse has been beaten into its constituent atoms on other threads), a lot of basic avionics like RAs & inertial reference units seem to get re-invented for new missions.

[EDIT]..sorry...I should actually read instead of partially skim these articles. It is indeed a re-fly of the MPL RA.

[Bob Shaw]

Did MPL fly the same radar altimeter as Phoenix will? For a variety of reasons (many of which I disagree with, but that horse has been beaten into its constituent atoms on other threads), a lot of basic avionics like RAs & inertial reference units seem to get re-invented for new missions.

I think, given the problems with MPL's descent, that a new radar might have been a prudent move!


Bob Shaw

[nprev]

Point taken... , but what I was trying to say is that given the fact we've successfully landed on Mars five times, why not fly a proven instrument? For Phoenix, I'd say that the MER RA would have been ideal...though the project timeline may not have made that evident in time for CDR.

Understand the issues of technological advancement, obsolescence, vanishing vendors, etc., but I suggest that for Mars landings it would be wise to procure something like a 10-year suite of critical flight avionics that have been 'combat tested' for use on all missions during that period. Kind of a larger infrastructure investment than a given project could foot on its own, but IMHO a less risky approach.

"Better is the enemy of good"...especially when talking about equipment designed to perform similar functions used in high-risk endevours, like UMSF!

[djellison]

The requirements for the MER Radar and Phoneix Radar would be a little different I would have thought - the Phoenix radar would be required to do a bit more than just altitude.

Doug

[Jim from NSF.com]

Point taken... , but what I was trying to say is that given the fact we've successfully landed on Mars five times, why not fly a proven instrument? For Phoenix, I'd say that the MER RA would have been ideal...though the project timeline may not have made that evident in time for CDR.

Understand the issues of technological advancement, obsolescence, vanishing vendors, etc., but I suggest that for Mars landings it would be wise to procure something like a 10-year suite of critical flight avionics that have been 'combat tested' for use on all missions during that period. Kind of a larger infrastructure investment than a given project could foot on its own, but IMHO a less risky approach.

Phoenix is different from MER which is different than MSL. How many missions does this 10 years cover? And who is building the landers, JPL, LM, or someone else?
Like you said, "issues of technological advancement, obsolescence, vanishing vendors" this would be th problem.

[stevesliva]

Remember that hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent on the project and to cancel it would waste everything. The DAWN project had a similar review and was put on hold for months but was eventually reinstated.

Sunk cost... the decision shouldn't be to justify past expenditure, but to justify additional future expenditure. You stop and ask, given what it will cost me to finish this hardware and complete the mission, is it worth it? Unless you have grossly awful hardware like the composite LH2 tank on the VentureStar--when you actually are throwing a lot away and starting from scratch--the answer is usually yes. But, then again, the superconducting supercollider proved that sunk construction costs don't commit the government to finishing their projects!

(yes, oversimplified discussion of VentureStar's woes, but the point is that sunk costs don't guarantee that problem programs get the green light to spend more, especially given political climate changes.)