Slashdot Mirror
Mars Rovers Have Incorrect Instruments Installed
Christopher Reimer writes "The New Scientist is reporting that the twin Mars rovers, Opportunity and Spirit, has instruments installed in the wrong rovers. From the article: 'While the bungle does not undermine the main scientific conclusions drawn from the data collected by the rovers, it is an embarrassing slip-up for a space agency that once lost a Mars spacecraft because engineers mixed up metric and imperial units.'"
It annoys me that so much is made of this problem. This in no way compares to the lost spacecraft error, it's simply a calibration adjustment to a sensor. I think the fact that they have two rovers that have performed extremely well under harsh conditions 4x over their rated life is an incredible accomplishment. This just sounds like someone looking for sensationalism in a non-issue.
Why is it hard to support them when they're in the middle of a hugely successful Mars mission?
No one outside the community even noticed this until recently, and in the end it really made no difference. So where's the beef?
While the lead scientist says that it wasn't a big deal and no investigation will be held, I think he isn't analyzing the significance of this event. While scientists are more focused on the validity of data, engineers have to analyze not just events that occur (like loss of a rover), but also events that could occur. Putting the wrong instrument into a rover is due to "failure to follow procedure". This is a big deal. Failure to follow procedures could have been caught by a better QA system, better monitoring of the installation, and better training (including walkthroughs on the installation of the instruments).
Even though this minor event that has had no impact on the mission, it has shown that there are holes in JPL's QA system, their monitoring system, and their training program for building these rovers. If you want to dig further you might find that all of these problems were caused by an unnecessary sense of urgency which may have been caused by poor project planning. These exact problems have caused the loss of spacecraft before (and many of them were cited for the loss of Challenger and Columbia).
No investigation? The lead scientist really needs to take a look at his project management priorities. Having experience working in nuclear power I have learned and have been trained that small problems are many times the only symptoms of much larger problems. The lead scientist's attitude on the problem gives me no confidence in his ability to run a more complicated mission. Like in gambling, one or two successes doesn't mean that you are going to win on the next roll.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
So, let me get this straight: NASA has managed to successfully send two completely functional rovers to the planet Mars 45 million miles away. Since they have arrived, the two rovers have expanded our understanding of the planet greatly and have had few and mostly correctable errors. They are now way, way past their expected mission time and are still running, and a few people have the nerve around to here to bash NASA for their horrible, numerous mistakes?
This stuff isn't easy. Just because you reap the benefits of the entire space program from your living room couch via the TV without actually contributing one bit does not mean you have any understanding of how complex and spectacular these great accomplishments are.
To the NASA / JPL engineers and scientists: Thanks.
What I don't understand is why this is a big deal.
It isn't a big deal. Instead of "Mars Rovers Have Incorrect Instruments Installed", a better headline would have been "Mars Rover Data Analyzed With Incorrect Calibration Data Files". But the editors would have rejected a headline like that.
It's true that the swap occurred when the instruments were installed. But it's really just a matter of semantics whether you consider the instruments to be swapped in the rovers on Mars, or their calibration files to be swapped in a computer's filesystem on Earth. Once the swap is discovered, it's over.
Small problems lead to medium sized problems which lead to big problems. Example: In the 1970's the NRC was similar to the Department of Transportation or FAA (pre 9/11) in that their job was to help facilitate the nuclear economy, not to beat down offenders. In the early 70's plant managers at a nuclear power plant in Alabamba, Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, received reports that their insulation connecting to a cable room was not in accordance with fire specifications (small problem). Since this was not a significant problem, managers ignored it. Later workers testing the air-tightness of the room failed to follow the correct procedures by using candles to check the air tightness (if the flame is deflected, air is moving in that direction--small problem). Managers were aware but dismissed the problem. During testing for air leaks the flame of a candle was sucked into insulation and a fire erupted. The cable run that caught on fire was non-redundant and carried all of the control features for two nuclear reactors. Control of the reactors was lost and reactor safety was severly compromised. Problems that occured included that the operators of the reactors did not know how to properly respond to this casuality (including attempts to put out a large class A fire with portable CO2 extinguishers). Over $100 million in damages occured, but the reactors narrowly escaped tragedy (medium sized problem). This occured in 1975 and the NRC mostly covered up the problem. No congressional hearing were held. No significant corrective actions were issued and review of the ability of the operators to fight a casuality at a nuclear power plant was not reviewed. Fast forward four years and we arrive at Three Mile Island (big problem), where many of the shortcomings of the Brown's Ferry Plant and of the NRC being able to regulate and control the nuclear industry were exposed.
The lesson to learn here: if small problems exist, dig at them to see how far you can get and then fix *all* of the problems that you uncover. There are many other examples (including the 9/11 incident) but I think the point is obvious: there are problems at JPL that are not being looked at because *nothing* happened. They should be examined and corrected prior to a medium or large problem occuring.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Had either of the Mars Rovers crashed or broken in some way, this mistake would never have been discovered. With only 1 rover's data, there would be no mysterious discrepency to solve and this mistake would have never been resolved.
So scientists would have spent the next 10 years developing their theories of martian geology based on incorrect data if either one of those rovers hadn't deployed and you call this a minor issue?!
This kind of error is inexcusable. But of course, it'll get brushed over because NASA was lucky enough to be in a position to fix it.
No, small problems lead to no serious consequences. That's why they're called small problems. If they can lead to serious consequences then by definition they are not small problems. The magnitude of the problem is determined by the worst case scenario (Murphy's Law being what it is and all). Let's look at your example:
In the early 70's plant managers at a nuclear power plant in Alabamba, Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, received reports that their insulation connecting to a cable room was not in accordance with fire specifications (small problem).
What is the worst case scenario if there should be a fire and the cables fail? If this is the cabling to the coffee pot, not much (small problem). If this is the cabling to the non-redundant control features of the nuclear reactor then this is a BIG problem and should have been treated as such.
Later workers testing the air-tightness of the room failed to follow the correct procedures by using candles to check the air tightness
What is the worst case of using this alternate procedure? In this case, there is an increased likelihood of fire. Even if the cabling was not faulty ANY fire is bad, so this should have been flagged as a BIG problem as well.
Both of these should have been recognized as big problems and not ignored. The fault is not that small problems were ignored, it was that they were not properly classified and prioritized. It sounds like there may have been many other problems as well, but they are not related to your main point.
The lesson to learn here: if small problems exist, dig at them to see how far you can get and then fix *all* of the problems that you uncover.
This sounds very profound but it is a fallacy. The lesson to learn from your example is to properly classify and prioritize potential problems. It is a major waste of time and effort to address every single tiny problem which creeps up, especially in highly complex systems it is close to impossible. There are only a limited amount of resources available. You must prioritize the truly important vs the trivial or you will never accomplish anything. BTW, way to pull out the nuclear bogeyman to help make your case.
Of course, this really has nothing to do with the NASA screw up since it really is a small problem. I doubt that the sensors were really that far off to begin with, and now that the problem has been discovered it can be 100% fixed with no loss of data. No harm no foul. Problems like this will continue to happen because everything NASA builds is a prototype! These are not mass produced items. When you build something (or write code) for the first time, is it perfect? I am also suspect of your conclusion that this problem indicates that "there are problems at JPL that are not being looked at." There may very well be problems in the bureaucracy, however this problem is indicative of nothing more than "shit happens." Of course, don't let this get in the way of a good NASA/JPL bashing.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx