Slashdot Mirror


NASA Panel Finds Fault WIth Curiosity Rover Project's Focus

The Curiosity Rover that's been exploring the surface of Mars for more than two years now has a lot of fans (and quite a few headlines here on Slashdot), but not everyone feels positively toward the project. Tech Times reports that NASA revealed on Wednesday that it has renewed the funding of seven ongoing planetary exploration missions but of these, the space agency's Planetary Mission Senior Review panel, which reviewed and rated these planetary missions, was particularly critical of the Curiosity, which also happens to be the newest and the second costliest of the seven missions. The panel is disappointed that given the capabilities of the Curiosity rover, the team behind it only intends to take and analyze eight samples in two years, which translates to two samples from each of the four units it will visit during its extended mission. The Curiosity is the only NASA tool with the capabilities to detect carbon, do in situ age analysis, and measure ionizing particle flux.

51 comments

  1. Focus by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Funny

    NASA Panel Finds Fault WIth Curiosity Rover Project's Focus

    This happened with Hubble too.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Focus by Adriax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course. A review panel that can't find a fault gets disbanded, because they obviously aren't performing their function properly.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    2. Re:Focus by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      Lets set up a review panel to review review panel reviews!

    3. Re:Focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woosh

    4. Re:Focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

      Lets set up a review panel to review review panel reviews!

      I think that's how Congress works.

    5. Re:Focus by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      and then they complain that too much tax money is spent on panel review panels.

    6. Re:Focus by Nimey · · Score: 1
      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    7. Re:Focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is NASA, they've got you covered.

    8. Re:Focus by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      That should be reviewed.

    9. Re:Focus by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      we will put it under consideration to review your request to put it under review

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    10. Re:Focus by jafac · · Score: 2

      MOOOOOOM!!! The curiosity team won't share their awesome rover with me!!!!

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    11. Re:Focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      we will put it under consideration to review your request to put it under review

      We're reviewing whether we should review considering a review of your request to put it under review.

      Oh, we're gonna vote ourselves a raise though, no need to review that.

    12. Re:Focus by davester666 · · Score: 1

      no, because only Congressmen sit on the 'review of review panel reviews' panel

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    13. Re: Focus by sandertje · · Score: 2

      And the 2012 Ignobel literature prize went to: LITERATURE PRIZE: The US Government General Accountability Office, for issuing a report about reports about reports that recommends the preparation of a report about the report about reports about reports.

    14. Re:Focus by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Yo, Dawg ... I hear you like review panels ...

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  2. To Dwell or Not To Dwell by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought they haven't arrived at the primary target yet. Sampling secondary targets slows down progress toward the primary target.

    I can see rationale for "not dwelling" at secondary targets. If these secondary targets are somehow deemed primary or prime targets (not stated), that's a different matter, but doing so detracts from the original primary target.

    It seems somebody is using "bean counter" logic whereby you judge quantity instead of quality.

    1. Re:To Dwell or Not To Dwell by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      By the way, here's a somewhat more detailed article:

      http://spaceflightnow.com/news...

      It seems the complaining panel may be trying to "force science" when it's really an exploration or survey mission. Example:

      "The proposal lacked specific scientific questions to be answered, testable hypotheses, and proposed measurements and assessment of uncertainties and limitations," Neal wrote.

      You don't "prove hypotheses", you collect evidence first. If you find something really interesting, then either spend more time at that place, or drive back to it if oddities are found after-the-fact and are big enough to justify it.

      It seems they are asking for premature regimentation. You have to react to circumstances. Essentially, its mission plan should be "drive around and sniff at interesting or odd things".

    2. Re:To Dwell or Not To Dwell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Essentially, its mission plan should be "drive around and sniff at interesting or odd things".

      It's a 3-trillion-dollar dog!
       

    3. Re:To Dwell or Not To Dwell by Urkki · · Score: 4, Funny

      Essentially, its mission plan should be "drive around and sniff at interesting or odd things".

      It's a 3-trillion-dollar dog!

      Not just any dog through, it's a space-dog. And it has lasers, that has to count for something, too.

  3. NASA bureaucracy at it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Curiosity has spent two years on Mars taking samples and making surface measurements -- and guess what? It's nowhere near completing its actual primary science goal: getting to Mt. Sharp. The geologists are, pun completely intended, running this mission into the ground.

    1. Re:NASA bureaucracy at it again by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's nowhere near completing its actual primary science goal: getting to Mt. Sharp

      Part of the problem is that particular area of Mars is rough on the rover's wheels (different than seen by other probes), so they have to be more cautious than expected.

    2. Re:NASA bureaucracy at it again by lgw · · Score: 4, Informative

      For those who don't follow this stuff: the rover has tin-foil wheels, and they're getting chewed up fast (many holes and tears in them already). The problem is sharp rocks that are embedded firmly in the ground, or perhaps part of the bedrock like a'a lava - a geological feature that wasn't expected or designed for. The rover can handle sharp rocks in soil just fine, but now they're going really slowly trying to find a better path.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:NASA bureaucracy at it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is Mt. SHARP. Why didn't they expect sharp rocks?

    4. Re:NASA bureaucracy at it again by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      Tin foil wheels? Did they ever, I dunno, make one and test it?

      I wonder what the design spec was like. "Make a wheel out of some of the flimsiest stuff possible and make it travel over extremely aggressive terrain in an extreme environment" Sounds like a great plan. At least they didn't choose tissue paper -THAT might have been worse.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    5. Re:NASA bureaucracy at it again by lgw · · Score: 1

      As with anything on Slashdot that starts with armchair experts asking "didn't they think of X?", well, of course they thought of X. Weight of the probe is the primary cost of the mission - nothing's heavier than in must be.

      These wheels were tested extensively, and work just fine in normal rocky soil - they're more robust than car tires. But glue a spike to the ground pointing up and it goes right through the wheel. There was no reason to expect Martian Caltrops, but that's what was found: sharp spikes of rock that aren't merely stuck in the soil, but seemingly extruded from the bedrock (like you can get with a'a lava).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:NASA bureaucracy at it again by petsounds · · Score: 1

      I've seen this kind of argument here on slashdot since Curiosity landed. Talking about the weight of wheels is a misdirection. This is about weight, but the crux of this issue is about priorities: choosing to load up the rover with more scientific instruments instead of making the rover more durable. In effect, the committee that designed Curiosity chose to subvert the primary mission (traveling to Mt. Sharp) before was even built by choosing short-term scientific goals over a long-term exploration ability. They designed the wheels optimistically ("hmm, well surely we'll just find some loose rock and dirt there like we always have, so let's just design around that assumption") and put the primary mission in jeopardy.

    7. Re:NASA bureaucracy at it again by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well, to the engineers' defense, the wheels were designed to handle the terrain that was found by the previous 2 rovers. Going beyond that probably gets into internal NASA politics, but your claim wouldn't surprise me at all - sexy features seem to trump infrastructure in every field.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  4. Follow the Money by Princeofcups · · Score: 0

    So which multinational conglomerate is making the over priced pork barrel replacement?

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  5. no multi conglomerates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just a bunch of techs, engineers, and scientists at JPL, which is part of CalTech, and a few dozen instruments and stuff from other universities.

  6. Re:Yes or noes by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    you mean like go where no one has gone before, like Europa?

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  7. eunuchs by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

    the team behind it only intends to take and analyze eight samples in two years, which translates to two samples from each of the four units it will visit during its extended mission.

    editing fail; I think they met eunuchs. maybe there aren't as many eunuchs on mars as NASA first expected.

  8. Managers by Puls4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can we please retitle this story to "Armchair Quarterbacks Randomly Decide They Don't Like Curiosity"? Because, in all seriousness, do you think a that a bunch of rocket-scientists and engineers are like "nah.... let's just point the camera at clouds and do nothing with this huge multi-million dollar rover". Far more likely that the engineers behind the project are doing everything they physically can with curiosity, but this review panel doesn't like the reality of what can be done. I can think of a great Dilbert comic or two that cover this.

  9. explorers vs accountants by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    dorks don't want anyone else to play with their expensive toys...that's one way to look at this...

    NASA is awesome...because they are the institution that goes to space...their **task** is awesome

    **execution** has always been an area for improvement...NASA can be awesome and still have major problems!!!

    it comes down to bean counters vs explorers...aka ***risk analysis***

    the prototypical example of this is the Mercury astronauts and their crusade to include the human in the mission

    the old saying goes "paralysis by analysis"

    however you contextualize the problem, the root cause is faulty risk assessment...the entire notion of risk assessment in project management has become a clusterfuck of cause/effect errors & voodoo quantification of non-quant factors

    NASA isn't alone in this, of course...**every beauracracy** tends to have these problems...

    i'm not anti-NASA...I'm pro human spaceflight and human space exploration...i love these rovers too...let's put them to work and not be afraid to break them!

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:explorers vs accountants by Cthulhu's+Physicist · · Score: 1

      "however you contextualize the problem, the root cause is faulty risk assessment...the entire notion of risk assessment in project management has become a clusterfuck of cause/effect errors & voodoo quantification of non-quant factors"

      Indeed!

      It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly ask "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the machinery?"

      Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle, by R.P. Feynman

  10. The problem is its focus is SCARED. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The biggest problem the scientific community has had is that the Rover does only science that has been done all before; It could easily be detecting life or past life or dead life from a thousand years ago.. but they refuse to do that sort of science even when they have outfitted the rover with the tools to do it, due in part to various political factions putting pressure on them NOT to do the science; Science is literately being censored and hats the most terrible thing.

    1. Re:The problem is its focus is SCARED. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Are you saying they are scared to detect life? That's a rather odd claim I hope would come with more evidence. And Curiosity is not designed to directly detect life anyhow. Even if they find life-like signs, most likely it would require a follow-up mission(s) to verify it really is life. Thus deflecting the life issue is built into the mission already by not having that ability to begin with.

      A more fitting question may be why we haven't sent a direct life-detecting mission since the mid 1970's. But that's a different issue than what is being done with the existing rover. (UK launched a more recent direct-life mission, but it failed to survive landing, unfortunately. They skimped on testing to save money, and "paid for it".)

      Granted, detecting life has proven a problem more difficult than originally imagined. Experience from Viking and Mars meteorites is that it's nearly impossible to rule out "funny soil chemistry" until you directly see the little buggers squirming under a microscope.

      A sample-return mission is probably the only way to know for sure, and that carries the risk of Mars-to-Earth contamination.

  11. Re:Failz30rs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God you're predictable and boring.

  12. Re:NASA Wasting Time and Money by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let's face facts that NASA is wasting a lot of earth's resources for little in exchange, considering that the earth is quickly using up valuable energy that is in the non-renewable form. With all of NASA's s scientific and technical savvy, they could be working on much more effective projects that would benefit Planet Earth's burdoned and disappearing resources.

    Right you are. A governmental department that spends three quarters of one percent of the US Federal budget is 'wasting a lot of earth's resources". Sorry guy, go whine at the Department of Defense, the Homeland Security Department or the Bureau of Land Mismanagement if you want to chip away at wasted resources.

    And, in point of fact, NASA does spend a lot of it's money on earth observation. Of all of those nifty satellites that catalog said resources, most of them come from NASA.

    Go tilt at some other windmill.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  13. Re:Easy Fix by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

    Tie their pay to productivity and provide bonuses to exceeding explicit, ambitious goals.

    ... to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

    Good idea. Maybe we could make a reality TV show about that.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  14. Mis-read the title by PPH · · Score: 1, Funny

    Thought it was about projector focus.

    Never mind.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  15. After Touch Down They Should Have Powered Off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The landing manuiver was the real selling point to NASA; remember JPL is NOT NASA; JPL is CalTech!

    So it is not to anyones wonder that the rover is a dud; that was a design feature from the start!

    So long 'Curiosity'.

    FY15 here we come.

  16. well, well, well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many of them are women ? Only if there were enough women....

  17. Internal NASA bickering by Squidlips · · Score: 2

    This seems like the manned spaceflight directorate (i.e the pork Directorate) whining about the science directorate (i.e. real science and exploration) because the planetary science guys are getting all the publicity and excitement while they cannot get anyone interested in their pork manned projects like the ISS, SLS, Orion, or their ludicrous asteroid capture missions.

  18. Curiosity is an exception.... by Shadowmist · · Score: 2

    .... in that it's extended mission is coming before the primary mission. However if they don't do something about the wear and tear on the rover's tire treads, it may never get to the primary mission.

  19. Re:NASA Wasting Time and Money by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

    Money is not the only resource. Start again, please.

  20. Re:NASA Wasting Time and Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, but all those other resources are paid for with...money! Thus, it is a useful measure for comparing the resources used by various departments/projects.

  21. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why give it those abilities if they never intend to use them? Are they afraid they may discover something they didn't want to know?