Reversing your points for convenience...
Quote:
|
Interloper is perhaps the wrong word - MARSIS and SHARAD are both European lead instruments - so SHARAD doesn't fit in the same mould as the other, US based instruments onboard MRO w.r.t. results, publishing and outreach. Guest, foreigner, odd one out, oddball - it's 'different'. You're clearly trying to read too much into what I wrote.
|
Most space probes, regardless of the flag they are carrying, are multi-national. SHARAD is no more an interloper than the Canadian Lidar is on Phoenix, or SIR-2 and M3 are on Chandrayaan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djellison
We've been down this road before - several years ago. I'm not having that debate again. It's improving, but only in some areas and a long way still to go. Clearly there is a problem when a thread like this has cause to exist.
|
There does not have to be problem for untruths to persist. The Apollo Hoax believers and Richard Hoagland are evidence for that. They persist because people refuse to listen to the truth or have their own agendas for pushing falsehoods.
There is no truth whatsoever in the misconception held by a few people that ESA is slow in publishing results. And I will keep pointing this out until this falsehood wherever I see it until it is consigned to the rubbish bin where it belongs.
To illustrate, an hour or so on Google scholar identified at least 75 primary, peer reviewed papers on the results of Mars Express published in the past four years. I make no claim that this is exhaustive. Judging by the number of conference abstracts there are probably twice as many papers due to come out in the next few years. And the mission is still ongoing. In the face of these facts the belief by some that ESA is somehow slow in publishing results is risible, ignorant, untrue, and downright slanderous on the integrity of the organisations and the scientists involved.
I am sorry to be so blunt, Doug, but this really gets my goat.
Jon