Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
qxcontinuum

Never a straight answer ... 2

35 posts in this topic

This time is official. Exactly as many of us noticed the curiosity rover was not curious enough and did not make itself useful under a poor management. There is no scientific data published that can help science much and to justify a such astronomical cost of production and operations. Basically in a funny way it was ordered to stop being a Remote Controlled toy Racing from point A to point B without adding more values between these trips and take detailed pics of its findings.

"The Curiosity rover's continued mission to explore Gale Crater was singled out as "lack[ing] specific scientific questions to be answered, testable hypotheses, and proposed measurements" in a harsh report by a recent NASA review panel [download the PDF of the full report]."

I love in special this fragment;

The report also criticized the Curiosity mission's leadership for perceived hubris, calling out Project Scientist John Grotzinger for failing to appear in person to answer the panel's inquiries. That, combined with a lack of clarity on the science goals of the extended mission, left the panel "with the impression that the team felt they were too big to fail."

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2014/0903-planetary-missions-survive-senior-review.html

A big thank you for valuing our money invested in this 2mega pixels 3 billion dollars walking camera, that refuses to take detailed pictures or to get closer to mysterious sightings when the public is asking for it, under the pretext of rushing to whatever obscure goals planners might have

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This time is official. Exactly as many of us noticed the curiosity rover was not curious enough and did not make itself useful under a poor management. There is no scientific data published that can help science much and to justify a such astronomical cost of production and operations. Basically in a funny way it was ordered to stop being a Remote Controlled toy Racing from point A to point B without adding more values between these trips and take detailed pics of its findings.

"The Curiosity rover's continued mission to explore Gale Crater was singled out as "lack[ing] specific scientific questions to be answered, testable hypotheses, and proposed measurements" in a harsh report by a recent NASA review panel [download the PDF of the full report]."

I love in special this fragment;

The report also criticized the Curiosity mission's leadership for perceived hubris, calling out Project Scientist John Grotzinger for failing to appear in person to answer the panel's inquiries. That, combined with a lack of clarity on the science goals of the extended mission, left the panel "with the impression that the team felt they were too big to fail."

http://www.planetary...ior-review.html

A big thank you for valuing our money invested in this 2mega pixels 3 billion dollars walking camera, that refuses to take detailed pictures or to get closer to mysterious sightings when the public is asking for it, under the pretext of rushing to whatever obscure goals planners might have

You failed to read actual report: it talks about extended mission, not a primary. Another thing, panel may not be aware of all details about remaining MSL reserves/capabilities.

And yeah, chasing after every "discovery" of internet-sofa-woowoo-researchers, Curiosity would have been a pile of scrap metal long time ago...

Edited by bmk1245
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This time is official. Exactly as many of us noticed the

curiosity rover was not curious enough and did not make itself useful under a poor management. There is no scientific data

published that can help science much and to justify a such astronomical cost of production and operations.

This is incorrect and unsubstantial gibberish. The MSL mission targets and the still by the MSL generated results, so the

scientific data, are published and all future results will be published as well.

"The Curiosity rover's continued mission to explore Gale Crater was singled out as "lack[ing] specific scientific questions to be

answered, testable hypotheses, and proposed measurements" in a harsh report by a recent NASA review panel [download the

PDF of the full report]. The report also criticized the Curiosity mission's leadership for perceived hubris, calling out Project Scientist

John Grotzinger for failing to appear in person to answer the panel's inquiries. That, combined with a lack of clarity on the science

goals of the extended mission, left the panel "with the impression that the team felt they were too big to fail."

This is the statement of a blogger, simply just that. But also on multi billion USD space missions there are always various and different

opinions about the to be conducted mission targets, during the phase of planning the full and final mission set up and it is normal that

not all parties will get satisfied. Well yes, it think the report can be discussed but it should not be used just as a basis to put a general,

and a causeless one as well, blame on the MSL mission development responsible persons and/or department/s.

Basically in a funny way it was ordered to stop being a Remote

Controlled toy Racing from point A to point B without adding more values between these trips and take detailed pics of its findings.

(...) A big thank you for valuing our money invested in this 2mega pixels 3 billion dollars walking camera, that refuses to take detailed

pictures or to get closer to mysterious sightings when the public is asking for it, under the pretext of rushing to whatever obscure

goals planners might have

What a "finding" is and what not is (fortunately) rated by the missions responsible scientists and not by the GPSC (Global Pareidolia

Suffering Community). And, the MSL is an over years planned and developed planetary exploration mission with a defined schedule

and not a device to be just used as a public accessible remote web cam for the GPSC.

And BTW, I cannot see a connection in between the thread title and yr first post here.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a fact Jack ! get off MSL`s back . They are great people !!!! Doing great research,and for penny`s compaired to the total waist in out other hair brained missions here on earth !AKA Wars :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we could fake an alien invasion too bump up spending on space missions. Maybe then we could have decent pictures http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/exopolitica/esp_exopolitics_ZZE.htm

Thats a fact Jack ! get off MSL`s back . They are great people !!!! Doing great research,and for penny`s compaired to the total waist in out other hair brained missions here on earth !AKA Wars :tu:

Edited by kitco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary target for Curiosity is Mount Sharp and they are still several months away from getting there so, in actuality, the "real" mission really hasn't even started yet. As it states in the piece you linked:

The report made a series of recommendations for ways in which Curiosity could improve its science return, including reducing its time spent driving so the team could spend more time on science operations. This would necessarily delay the rover's arrival at the upper layers of Mt. Sharp, one of the stated goals of the mission.

Your personal assessment seems to be at odds with the Very Good/Good rating the mission received by the review board (if only the rest of government could get a very good/good rating, right?).

As for not stopping and investigating every thigh bone, squirrel, or whatever some arm chair UFO nut thought they saw in a photograph, remember, Curiosity only has a limited number of sample cups (74 I believe) and once they've been used, they're done. And given that the main goal is to get to the top of Mt. Sharp, then you really can't use your expendable resources up before you get there.

Regarding scientific impact, here's a piece also from the Planetary Society about the Curiosity presentation at last December's AGU meeting in San Francisco about all of the good science coming out of the mission. http://www.planetary...age-dating.html

Edited by Rafterman
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it wonderful that Curiosity is as transparent a process as we see and that it is not subject to every pointless whim by those that have little to no idea what is happening.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps we could fake an alien invasion too bump up spending on space missions. Maybe then we could have decent pictures

Perhaps you can fake one, just only one, comment per month that contains something meaningful and constructive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just frustration building up because no life or overwhelming evidence of once life existed on mars. With so many robots and satellites and studies IMO the time may soon come when we conclude that mars is and was a dead planet. Of course of course there are other things to learn about mars but that won't be catching the attention of general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just frustration building up because no life or overwhelming evidence of once life existed on mars. With so many robots and satellites and studies IMO the time may soon come when we conclude that mars is and was a dead planet. Of course of course there are other things to learn about mars but that won't be catching the attention of general public.

Actually, to the best of my knowledge neither NASA nor anybody else is currently looking for life on Mars. They are looking for life enabling conditions for life as we know it, i.e. water and so on.

Cheers,

Badeskov

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, to the best of my knowledge neither NASA nor anybody else is currently looking for life on Mars. They are looking for life enabling conditions for life as we know it, i.e. water and so on.

Cheers,

Badeskov

They are Looking for that little spider monkey still,! :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, to the best of my knowledge neither NASA nor anybody else is currently looking for life on Mars. They are looking for life enabling conditions for life as we know it, i.e. water and so on.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Indeed ...

post-141791-0-27138400-1410234709_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The primary target for Curiosity is Mount Sharp and they are still several months away from getting there so, in actuality, the "real" mission really hasn't even started yet. As it states in the piece you linked:

The report made a series of recommendations for ways in which Curiosity could improve its science return, including reducing its time spent driving so the team could spend more time on science operations. This would necessarily delay the rover's arrival at the upper layers of Mt. Sharp, one of the stated goals of the mission.

Your personal assessment seems to be at odds with the Very Good/Good rating the mission received by the review board (if only the rest of government could get a very good/good rating, right?).

As for not stopping and investigating every thigh bone, squirrel, or whatever some arm chair UFO nut thought they saw in a photograph, remember, Curiosity only has a limited number of sample cups (74 I believe) and once they've been used, they're done. And given that the main goal is to get to the top of Mt. Sharp, then you really can't use your expendable resources up before you get there.

Regarding scientific impact, here's a piece also from the Planetary Society about the Curiosity presentation at last December's AGU meeting in San Francisco about all of the good science coming out of the mission. http://www.planetary...age-dating.html

Great post Rafterman :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA will host a telecon at 10 a.m. PDT (1 p.m. EDT) Thursday, Sept. 11, to discuss mission status and the future

science campaign for the Mars rover Curiosity mission.

Participants in the teleconference will be:

-- Jim Green, director, Planetary Science Division, NASA Headquarters, Washington

-- John Grotzinger, Curiosity project scientist, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

-- Kathryn Stack, Curiosity Rover mission scientist, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena. California

Audio of the teleconference will be streamed live at:http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2014-305&1&utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NASAJPL&utm_content=daily%2Fbreaking20140909

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA will host a telecon at 10 a.m. PDT (1 p.m. EDT) Thursday, Sept. 11, to discuss mission status and the future

science campaign for the Mars rover Curiosity mission.

Participants in the teleconference will be:

-- Jim Green, director, Planetary Science Division, NASA Headquarters, Washington

-- John Grotzinger, Curiosity project scientist, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

-- Kathryn Stack, Curiosity Rover mission scientist, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena. California

Audio of the teleconference will be streamed live at:http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio

http://www.jpl.nasa....reaking20140909

Now!

Edited by toast
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite interesting ! I Love NASA`s work ! Keep looking Up ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend Tom Jones from the STS-80 crew opened his blog last week for a discussion of the notorious "ufo circle" video. We posted the URL all over the ufo websites and youtube postings -- and to date, NOT ONE VISIT TO ASK ANY QUESTION. Do you need a more graphic demonstration that UFO enthusiasts are deliberately reality-averse? What other explanation is there?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This time is official. Exactly as many of us noticed the curiosity rover was not curious enough and did not make itself useful under a poor management. There is no scientific data published that can help science much and to justify a such astronomical cost of production and operations. Basically in a funny way it was ordered to stop being a Remote Controlled toy Racing from point A to point B without adding more values between these trips and take detailed pics of its findings.

"The Curiosity rover's continued mission to explore Gale Crater was singled out as "lack[ing] specific scientific questions to be answered, testable hypotheses, and proposed measurements" in a harsh report by a recent NASA review panel [download the PDF of the full report]."

I love in special this fragment;

The report also criticized the Curiosity mission's leadership for perceived hubris, calling out Project Scientist John Grotzinger for failing to appear in person to answer the panel's inquiries. That, combined with a lack of clarity on the science goals of the extended mission, left the panel "with the impression that the team felt they were too big to fail."

http://www.planetary...ior-review.html

A big thank you for valuing our money invested in this 2mega pixels 3 billion dollars walking camera, that refuses to take detailed pictures or to get closer to mysterious sightings when the public is asking for it, under the pretext of rushing to whatever obscure goals planners might have

Wrong again. Guess you didn't really read the article as it was about future funding and a lack of detailed planning. I'm curious, is english a second language for you? No slur intended just wanted to know.

BTW, they still won't be chasing shiny objects, that remains ridiculous.

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do know this, All the UFO nuts out there will never open the minds to actual research and factual evidence. Maybe this is why we have them in our world?

To Keep the ones that do follow a logic based train of thought, and not get run over all the time by the , I know what I saw,and IT was E.T. ! Right?

Well not exactly, theres always room for one really unknown thing in our world. It gives us hope of something New to crunch the numbers !

Edited by DONTEATUS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong again. Guess you didn't really read the article as it was about future funding and a lack of detailed planning. I'm curious, is english a second language for you? No slur intended just wanted to know.

BTW, they still won't be chasing shiny objects, that remains ridiculous.

Well that is too bad , because they are loosing measurable credibility year by year. While most of its missions were very successful in the past, the most recent ones are certainly lacking enthusiasm and the premises of the targeted discoveries planned and data extraction is already known being mentioned ahead of time so there is much less level of response from public. Even more criticized on their costs, management, poor data extraction and novelty discoveries. What the heck is the point to send another rover if everything is known of Mars already? I a

And guess who is paying for this missions . So they should start to be looking to be more receptive to our wishes and to entertain us more in the future ...

Edited by qxcontinuum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is too bad , because they are loosing measurable credibility year by year. While most of its missions were very successful in the past, the most recent ones are certainly lacking enthusiasm and the premises of the targeted discoveries planned and data extraction is already known being mentioned ahead of time so there is much less level of response from public. Even more criticized on their costs, management, poor data extraction and novelty discoveries. What the heck is the point to send another rover if everything is known of Mars already? I a

And guess who is paying for this missions . So they should start to be looking to be more receptive to our wishes and to entertain us more in the future ...

Wow, you couldn't be more wrong. Let's look at some recent missions:

Cassini Huygens - Blown us all away with new discoveries in the Saturnian system and still going strong.

Kepler - Has changed our view on how prolific planet formation is in our galaxy and how many habitable planets may possibly exist.

Spirit & Opportunity - What can you say about these troopers.

Curiosity - Definitively determined that early Mars was very earth like with seas full of fresh water

MRO - Unparalleled images of Mars and a great communication satellite for all the missions visiting the red planet.

LRO - Images of the Moon never seen before and still going strong.

Grail - Redefined what we know about the Moon and its creation

Smarter folks than I can relay more but you want to chase sun glints and mineral deposits on rocks so what is the point. There are no extraterrestrials hanging around in our solar system and we have a lot to learn so let's get on with the science.

Edited by Merc14
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is too bad , because they are loosing measurable credibility year by year. While most of its missions were very successful in the past, the most recent ones are certainly lacking enthusiasm and the premises of the targeted discoveries planned and data extraction is already known being mentioned ahead of time so there is much less level of response from public. Even more criticized on their costs, management, poor data extraction and novelty discoveries. What the heck is the point to send another rover if everything is known of Mars already? I a

And guess who is paying for this missions . So they should start to be looking to be more receptive to our wishes and to entertain us more in the future ...

Frankly, if NASA listened to "the people paying for it", they'd never have gone to the moon.

And if it's "entertainment" you're after, read a book. This is SCIENCE not KEEPING UP WITH THE CARDASSIANS.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is too bad , because they are loosing measurable credibility year by year.

I will not ask you for data to back this claim as it would be insignificant in general. Research and science always, means since

the beginning on humans touched these fields, had advocacies and opponents as well. There will never be a 100% endorsement

in the public but this fact will not influence the track. Research and science was on the track in the past, is on track in the present

and will be on the track in future, including research and science in relation to space exploration.

While most of its missions were very successful in the past,

the most recent ones are certainly lacking enthusiasm and the premises of the targeted discoveries planned and data extraction is

already known being mentioned ahead of time so there is much less level of response from public.

Lacking enthusiasm? What do you you wanna see, dancing mission managers?

Even more criticized on their costs, management, poor data

extraction and novelty discoveries.

The key question is, who criticize. Is it ppl who are involved in projects, is it ppl who do have the needed level of knowlege or is it ppl

who think the Pythagorean theorem is a greek restaurant. I would bet the most criticism is from the last named group.

What the heck is the point to send another rover if everything

is known of Mars already?

No, it isn`t.

And guess who is paying for this missions .

This is the standard nonsense argument of the stupids. Did you ever calculated yr individual annual due from the taxes you are

paying (if so), that are invested in space exploration science and technology by the country you are living in? No? Do it! If done,

pls investigate the percentage of the GDP in yr country thats generated by the space exploration industry, including suppliers and

services. If you have these figures on hands, you will see that the tax argument is a very stupid one.

So they should start to be looking to be more receptive to our wishes and to entertain us more in the future ...

This thread is about NASA and not about Warner Bros./Disney World/Sony Entertainment and similar companies but nevertheless

the work and the publications of space agencies like NASA, ESA, JAXA and others are entertaining very much but to get entertained

it requires at least a level of intelligence to know that the Pythagorean theorem is not a greek restaurant.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is too bad , because they are loosing measurable credibility year by year. While most of its missions were very successful in the past, the most recent ones are certainly lacking enthusiasm and the premises of the targeted discoveries planned and data extraction is already known being mentioned ahead of time so there is much less level of response from public. Even more criticized on their costs, management, poor data extraction and novelty discoveries. What the heck is the point to send another rover if everything is known of Mars already? I a

And guess who is paying for this missions . So they should start to be looking to be more receptive to our wishes and to entertain us more in the future ...

I still remember the protests in which people protested going to the Moon. They wanted to stop the space program and keep money on Earth. Bet those same people now expect satellites to track storms and prevent disasters from hurricanes. That's just one example of the benefit of the space program. Now that we made it to the Moon there is the real possibility of powering the world for more than a thousand years if we can begin to mine the Helium 3 that lies on the surface. Need any more examples?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.