Waspie_Dwarf Posted September 5, 2014 #1 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Reviewers say Curiosity rover 'lacks scientific focus' An independent panel of scientists slammed the $2.5 billion Curiosity Mars rover's management team in a report released Wednesday, saying the mission's plan "lacked scientific focus and detail."The review board accused the rover's ground team of inadequately using the rover for science and ranked Curiosity's scientific merit near the bottom of a list of missions under consideration for extensions. Read more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted September 5, 2014 #2 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Okay... so here's the question: why do none of the sources seem to link to an original document. And who are these reviewers, anyway? Were they appointed by an administrative group to review NASA, or are they just a "bunch of guys" who decided they're unhappy with NASA? As far as I can tell, Neal is just a planetary geologist not affiliated with NASA, and I can't find any documentation about his review board or who asked them to comment. http://news.nd.edu/news/32398-notre-dame-researcher-clive-neal-comments-on-the-curiosity-rover/ Anyone? Bueller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-C Posted September 5, 2014 #3 Share Posted September 5, 2014 What is your opinion, Waspie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted September 5, 2014 Author #4 Share Posted September 5, 2014 What is your opinion, Waspie? To be honest I'm not expert enough to really have one. The criticism is not of the rover itself but rather of the way that the mission is being managed. I'm certainly no expert in mission management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted September 5, 2014 #5 Share Posted September 5, 2014 My bad. I didn't read his profile enough. Neal is a member and former chair of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Analysis Group, which is responsible for analyzing scientific, technical, commercial and operational issues associated with lunar exploration. The group provides findings from these analyses to NASA through the NASA Advisory Council. So... seems legit after all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted September 5, 2014 #6 Share Posted September 5, 2014 Original report here, MSL see page 4: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/pss/sep2014/Senior-Review-2014-Report.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taniwha Posted September 5, 2014 #7 Share Posted September 5, 2014 I agree. On average the rover has been travelling at a miserable 45 cm per hour over 2yrs. Maybe the handbrake is stuck on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted September 6, 2014 Author #8 Share Posted September 6, 2014 I agree.Oh dear. Something tells me you don't know what you are agreeing with On average the rover has been travelling at a miserable 45 cm per hour over 2yrs. Maybe the handbrake is stuck on? Bingo! You don't know what you are agreeing with. Maybe the handbrake is stuck on? Maybe the reason Curiosity has travelled at that speed is because it is a machine designed to travel slowly, stop frequently and do science, NOT win the Indy 500. The criticism is not about it's speed, it is about the lack of focus of the science it is carrying out. If it were to travel more quickly it would be doing LESS science. Hence you are agreeing with the exact opposite of what the board is saying. By anyone's definition agreeing with the exact opposite of something is disagreeing with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted September 6, 2014 Author #9 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Were they appointed by an administrative group to review NASA, or are they just a "bunch of guys" who decided they're unhappy with NASA? These are most certainly not people that are unhappy with NASA. This is a committee that reviews NASA missions that are due for extension and reports on whether they should receive continued funding. They recommended the continuation of every single mission up for review including Curiosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now