Curiosity Rover Science Plan Slammed by NASA Review Panel

[PakledHostage]

I heard about this while listening to the latest "Quirks and Quarks" podcast on my way home from work yesterday: Curiosity Rover Science Plan Slammed by NASA Review Panel. I thought I'd share the story here because I haven't seen it mentioned on these forums yet.

See pages 5 and 6 of the NASA Senior Review Panel Report for their specific comments about the MSL "Curiosity" mission.

[Dkmdlb]

Of the seven missions examined under the 2014 Planetary Science Senior Review, four have significant problems: LRO,

Mars Express, Mars Odyssey, and Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity). The panel has suggested a number of measures to

mitigate these problems, some of which will require NASA-HQ action in restructuring/refocusing the scientific

leadership/emphasis.

Ouch. That burns.

[Streetwind]

They're basically saying "Curiosity is spending all its time driving". Upon which NASA replied "Well duh! It hasn't arrived at its science destination yet! Of course it is still driving!"

And ironically, a few days later, Curiosity did officially arrive at its science destination, where it can now spend a whole lot less time driving and a whole lot more time drilling for results. So this is basically a pointless report, made by people who either didn't understand the mission or were actively looking for something to complain about, published in a hurry so they could get it out before their entire point was invalidated. I'd say we can safely ignore this thing.

[TranceaddicT]

Yeah, I read that report. Six bullet points that are right out of a S&W.

Til now, Curiosity has been "too big to fail". Dump the Kerbals $$$ in. Get the science out.

[PakledHostage]

They're basically saying "Curiosity is spending all its time driving". Upon which NASA replied "Well duh! It hasn't arrived at its science destination yet! Of course it is still driving!"

While I agree that the report does sound a bit biased, I don't think you're being completely fair either. I would encourage people to read the report (I linked to it above) and form their own opinions. The report's authors focused specifically on MSL's first extended mission plan (EM1). They did not focus on the primary mission. They felt that more scientific activities should have been planned for the current phase of the mission. They were also critical of the way in which the science was/is being done. Specifically:

Despite identification of two EM1 science objectives, the proposal lacked specific scientific questions to be answered, testable hypotheses, and proposed measurements and assessment of uncertainties and limitations.