Mars Rovers Have Incorrect Instruments Installed 294
Christopher Reimer writes "The New Scientist is reporting that the twin Mars rovers, Opportunity and Spirit, has instruments installed in the wrong rovers. From the article: 'While the bungle does not undermine the main scientific conclusions drawn from the data collected by the rovers, it is an embarrassing slip-up for a space agency that once lost a Mars spacecraft because engineers mixed up metric and imperial units.'"
Confusion...Why differing configurations? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If... (Score:3, Interesting)
Cat calls from the cheap seats (Score:5, Interesting)
Let the New Scientist criticize from the cheap seats. It is hard to argue that the rovers have been anything other than a resounding success for over 400 days. I would have hoped /. would
instead print the recent story of the Spirit Rover
discovering
salty soil. [spaceflightnow.com]
Re:nah... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Confusion...Why differing configurations? (Score:5, Interesting)
This doesn't work for +/-5% and the next grade (+/-1%) because the parts are built differently.
Re:No big deal... (Score:5, Interesting)
Except for the fact that the same organization that made this error is designing other spacecraft. If they don't get to the root causes of the problem, like the failure of the technicians to properly follow the correct procedure to install the instrument and the failure of any other engineer or management to catch their failure to follow procedure, much larger problems could occur. Lets examine a couple of JPL's problem's in the last couple of years:
Galileo: High power antenna failed to deploy resulting in a much lower data transfer rate. This was due to technical specifications in the lubrication of the antenna not being reviewed when the project was delayed.
Mars Climate Orbiter: Burned up because the technical requirements were not met (converting from BES to metric).
Mars Polar Lander: Lost on landing. Cause is not known. Project team was rushed in accordance with faster, better, cheaper plan.
Genesis: Failed to deploy parachute and crashed on landing due to technical requirements not being met (backwards specification for G-force meters).
Mars Exploration Rovers: Software glitch early in mission due to failure to test software for its entire expected lifespan. Instruments swapped due to failure to follow procedure.
Some things we can get out of this analysis are that the QA was unsatisfactory. Procedures were not followed. Technical specifications were not verified. The culture was rushed (go-fever or product push environment). None of these are small problems, but they also point to much bigger problems: failure of the leadership to properly plan the project so that rushed timelines would not occur. This same culture is building new spacecraft. While JPL is a great agency and they do tremendous and incredible feats, they are not perfect and have lost several spacecraft and have had severe faults in others. These problems did not have to occur and more importantly these problems do not have to occur again in the future.
Re:No big deal... (Score:2, Interesting)
The Trashy Fucking File System (TFFS) has bitten many projects, and the response from WindRiver is "We can't fix it." Which they can't. They bought TFFS from someone else. And they can't fix it.. for some reason. It's really a pain in the ass and the "loss of a flash file system" happens infrequently enough that it is possible for it to pass QA.
They should have... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Root Cause (Score:2, Interesting)
A more complicated mission? Landing two rovers utilizing air bags on another planet isn't complicated enough for you?
He was the PI but he cannot be expected to observe everyone's work personally. This sort of thing should not need supervising.
I agree this should have been caught with better testing of full rovers, but the launch windows cannot be merely pushed back. It was a time crunch the rovers and instruments performed well, the analysis was wrong.
Re:Confusion...Why differing configurations? (Score:2, Interesting)
Makes you wonder what happened to scientific methods, where the results drive the conclusions. I thought the case of fudging the measured data to fit the desired conclusions was limited to 'fixing' high school labs gone awry. I didn't realize it continues all the way up the food chain to researchers gathering raw data from sensors on mars.
With examples like this, as a high school teacher, you will likely have to adjust how you teach/mark the class. With a prestigious outfit like nasa blessing the idea of fudging the data to fit the desired results, you surely cant mark down students for that concept anymore...