the only thing they could have done better is control their staff. i'm sure there's group emails going round there to that effect now.
the problem is, when they have a big robot looking for life on Mars, everyone's going to assume that when they call a press conference, they'll announce that they've found life on Mars.
Grotzinger is not NASA staff - he is a Caltech professor. And Curiosity is equipped to look for organic chemistry, not current life.
And NASA guy *did* say it was going to be the one for the history books. People hear than and don't assume he means "History Of Martian Soil Chemistry, Volume 3".
Not NASA guy. Caltech professor, lead investigator, not a NASA spokesman!
NASA can't keep up being the "boy who cried wolf." People will just stop listening if every little thing is "breakthrough" and something "earth-shattering!" My goodness.
You know that Grotzinger probably does not even work for NASA right? He is a Caltech professor, likely that Caltech pays his salary. He is not a NASA employee or spokesman.
You really have not gotten your facts straight, but do not fret you might have an excellent career as a science reporter
We would never know...
Sure we would - we just watch "The City on the Edge of Forever".
All problems have their solutions in the original series....hardly any need for time travel beyond 1972.
Perhaps this is typical NASA contractor testing overkill.
My guess is contractor PR overkill - need to get as much press as SpaceX you know.
By Jim Carson Subscription Term Name:1 year By nature, this is a very depressing publication: Peter Garrison reviews aviation accidents that usually resulted in someone dying. One subscribes NTSB reporter in hopes of avoiding similar mistakes. A shorter version of Peter Garrison's NTSB columns appear in Flying Magazine. NTSB Reporter's trademark is a *much* more thorough analysis of a specific accident. It's immensely thoughtful, but I would not leave copies lying around on the coffee table for non-pilots or spouses. to see them.
I suppose that the average recreational pilot takes more care than average car driver, yet the NTSB reporter can be summed up as follows - 1) forgot to gas up the plane 2) did not check the weather report 3) was in a hurry 4) the other 1% of accidents.
I do not think any driver is good enough to always pay attention - unless they simply turn the robot off.
The system just needs a rapid manual override and a little common sense from the driver.
See the results of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 AF447 flight for the odds of this working. As a one time private pilot I am totally baffled as to how a professional pilot could hold a plane in a stall from 35,000 ft to the ground. I think there were several issues including human factors in the design of the interfaces; but I really think that these guys got used to being along for the ride and it was not conceivable to them that the plane had decided to stop flying itself.
After a week of having an auto-car drive me to work everyday I can not imagine I'd be ready in 1/2 second to suddenly take over for the computer and expect a good result.
Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek
