Why Did NASA SMD Sit on This MSL Science Document?
Mission to Mt. Sharp – Habitability, Preservation of Organics, and Environmental Transitions
Senior Review Proposal Sections 1 and 2 April 2014
Keith’s note: Jim Green just made a point of spelling out the URL for this report. He did so rather defensively in an effort to show that there was a science plan in place for MSL. In the process he sought to minimize the comments made by NASA’s own NASA Planetary Senior Review Panel Report wherien the MSL science plan was bluntly criticized. If Green thinks that the Review Panel was wrong on their MSL criticism, then does that not call into question everything else they said? If so why did NASA make funding decisions based on the committee’s report?
Looking at the report there are no ITAR or SBU notations. Of course they were removed – or were they? Looking at the document properties [image] it is clear that this document was created on 10 April 2014 and modified on 9 September 2014. Why is it that NASA only voluntarily releases documents like this to defend their actions but they don’t just publish them – for all to see – simply because they are interesting? Why didn’t NASA release this document when the review committee report first came out? Why wasn’t this report mentioned in yesterday’s hearing where Green testified – when this topic came up?
Oh yes … by voluntarily releasing this document NASA SMD has set a new precedent for things that a FOIA request can obtain. They have nulified any “predecisional” claims that they might have once been able to make. Oops.
First line from that report:
“Executive Summary
The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) prime mission has been a tremendous success and the rover is in excellent health.”
Then two paragraphs later ….
“Curiosity’s progress toward Mt. Sharp has been impeded by hazardous terrain, damaging its wheels at an unanticipated high rate.”
Well good health except it’s wheels are falling apart.
the wheels are not falling apart.
the damage is mostly superficial punctures and tears in the “skin” on the wheels. it looks a lot worse than it is. the wheels are in no structural danger; the cleats (the tread), the rims, and the hub are perfectly fine.
I think we can safely say when chunks are popping out two inches across that falling apart is apt. They have stated more than once that the rover had to take extra time to scout out softer terrain. If you are having to take your rover off the planned course because of damage to the wheels you can not then say the rover is in excellent health. It isn’t. If it was in excellant health they would not be taking those precautions. All six wheels had holes in them. I am not saying that the rover is out of action, am just saying that the two statements do not line up.
chunks are not popping out. there is just one hole like that. you are overstating the amount of damage the wheels have. it is not as bad as you make it out to be.
they encountered some unexpectedly rough terrain with very sharp rocks (described as shark teeth embedded in concrete), which caused most of the damage. they have since avoided similar rough terrain.
if you avoided driving over roads with nails and broken glass scattered all over, would you say that your wheels no longer work?
no. so that doesn’t mean the wheels don’t work. it’s simply a desire to be cautious on their part. its a prudent course to take. avoiding unnecessary damage is wise, not stupid.
it’s worthwhile to note that since they have avoided terribly rough terrain, the rate of damage to the wheels has dramatically decreased. traversing easier terrain has paid off.
*edit* recommend you read this excellent article on the damage to Curiosity’s wheels: http://www.planetary.org/bl…
Doug, my first automobile was a functioning junk pile. Just because something maybe falling apart, does automatically equate non functioning. You seem to be missing the point I was trying to make. Excellent health and having to change your course to protect damaged wheels do not carry the same meaning. No matter how you spin it.
the “point” you want to make is wrong. Curiosity is indeed in excellent health.
again i’ll ask: if you avoided driving over roads with nails and broken glass scattered all over, would you say that your wheels no longer work?
again i’ll recommend you read the article i linked to.
If my wheels had chunks of rubber torn out and I had to change the roads I had previously planned driving on because the wheels were getting torn up faster than I had antisapated I would not then tell you my wheels are in excellent health, then are not. If they WERE in excellent health, I would not have had to change my path.
Is that what you are saying Doug? That the wheels on the rover are in excellent health?
what you say is not true. even if you had brand-new tires, you would still avoid driving on roads that were covered with nails and shards of broken glass.
this is the exact same situation, except on Mars. this sort of terrain causes damage to the wheels. had they known the amount of damage it causes, they would have avoided it from the beginning. now that they do know, they are able to avoid it, and in fact, they are now doing so during drive planning.
yes, the wheels have some damage. they are, however, still 100% functional. in that regard, yes, they are in excellent health. the rims and hub are perfectly fine and there are no broken treads, only the skin of the wheels is damaged. if it were necessary to risk some damage to reach a very desirable science site, they can still drive over even the roughest terrain.
for a third time – i recommend you read that article i linked to. i will link to it again for your convenience. http://www.planetary.org/bl…
Doug I have read it …
” The holes in Curiosity’s wheels have become a major concern to the mission, affecting every day of mission operations and the choice of path to Mount Sharp.”
“But within a few months, the mission started becoming more alarmed by a sudden increase in the rate of damage. They had to form a “Tiger Team” to understand what was causing the more-than-anticipated damage and to determine how best to address the problem.”
“The short version of the story: wheel damage is a serious issue”
“The mission now understands the problem and can partially mitigate it.”
“In some places, punctures and rips have coalesced to open very large holes.”
“”When we saw these images, we saw a hole that was much larger than we had expected. This did not match anything we had seen in our tests. We didn’t know what was causing it. We didn’t know if it was going to continue.” That was the moment, he said, that he knew that their driving was going to have to change radically”
“Both of the causes of wheel damage are exacerbated by driving over hard bedrock with pointy protrusions. Erickson told me that when they tested the lifetime of the wheels over this kind of substrate, the news wasn’t good. “The really bad stuff, it only takes 8 kilometers or so and you can destroy the wheel.” “
“By not traveling as fast, and by having to limit their path choices, the amount of exploration that they can do is necessarily less than if they could go gallivanting across the bedrock outcrops at will.”
No where did I find “excellent health” … AGAIN .. if your rover was in excellent health they would not be MITAGATING a problem.
Last comment on this Doug, my argument is over word choice.
“No where did I find “excellent health””
do not use straw man fallacies.
i never said that they said the wheels were in excellent health. i said they are still 100% functional and are still capable of traversing any terrain, including the sharp and embedded rocks. should it be necessary to do so, they would accept damage to the wheels. in this regard, yes, they are in excellent health, as they are completely functional. this is clearly explained in that article.
“if your rover was in excellent health they would not be MITAGATING a problem.”
this is not the case. even if you had a car that was brand new – you would NOT deliberately drive over terrain that you knew would destroy your wheels. they encountered a new type of terrain on Mars, discovered that it damaged the wheels to an unexpected degree, and decided to avoid driving on it in the future, unless there was no other choice but to do so. this does not in any way mean the rover is not in excellent health.
“my argument is over word choice.”
i agree, and the words you have chosen to use are words that make you a liar… you have said that the wheels are “falling apart” and this is FALSE. you have said that chunks are popping off of it, and this is FALSE. you have said that they would not take precautions if the rover were in perfect health. this is FALSE. you have said that they would not change their course if the wheels were undamaged. this is FALSE.
you continue to mischaracterize the problem and blow your conclusions out of proportion to the problem.
Keith: Off topic – Did you see this:
http://io9.com/congressiona…
“The most detailed testimony at the hearing was also the most skeptical. Mark Sykes, the Director of the Planetary Science Institute and a co-investigator on the NASA Dawn mission to Vesta and Ceres, bluntly stated that, “The development of an NEO ISRU infrastructure is beyond the scope of private enterprise.”
Mark is sharp and makes some rather crisp points.
That seems about right, at least looking at the issue from 2014. The development of a space economy will be a huge uphill climb, sucking up a lot of investment. And it’s not really clear how it can be done privately with government help- the air mail scenario doesn’t appear to apply.
At this point what is needed is some very creative thinking on how to involve private enterprise in the development of infrastructure.
Assuming they can manage the wheels, the really interesting terrain is just beginning. One of the downsides of robotic exploration is that it happens really slowly, but interesting discoveries do happen periodically. I am really excited to see what happens in the next phase after listening to today’s preview.
the wheel damage is currently being managed. as it is, the current damage will have no effect on mission operations in the future. http://www.planetary.org/bl…
Perhaps they delayed as a sort of celebration for the vehicle reaching Mt. Sharp?
A Senior Review is both an exercise to keep OMB happy and a source of advice (not marching orders) for the senior NASA SMD employees who issue funding guidance for missions. There’s not always a one-to-one mapping between the panel’s recommendations and the budget guidance because the members of the review panel – scientists – are not asked to review programmatic issues.