Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Curiosity rover 'lacks scientific focus'


Waspie_Dwarf

Recommended Posts

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.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 8
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Waspie_Dwarf

    4

  • Kenemet

    2

  • Q-C

    1

  • toast

    1

Popular Days

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

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

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.