Denial or Ignorance Amongst NASA Scientists?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by xterrester</i>
<br />It is my understanding that not only does JPL have control of robotic missions, they also have oversight over the images taken by the Orbiters and Rovers. I recall reading that when the first Orbiter images were received, JPL was holding onto them for approx six months for review before releasing them to the public.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is standard in all contracts between NASA and its contractors. The instrument teams get six months of exclusive use of the data before they are required to place it in the National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Considering the vested interest JPL has to keep the robotic missions going it seems to me that the control they have over the images is improper and is clearly a conflict of interests.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Nonetheless, they do have complete and total control. When NASA wanted three photos taken by MGS of the Cydonia region in 1998, JPL at first refused. The two agencies negotiated, and NASA had to pay JPL $400,000 for just those three images. JPL then took the images from a poor viewing angle with bad lighting conditions on a day when thin clouds covered the site. And JPL's Public Information Office released the double-filtered, averaged "catbox" image to the waiting media with the intent to kill any further interest in Cydonia.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Is JPL going to release Mars images that clearly show artifacts of civilization and surface water if it means the loss of lucrative contracts for further robotic missions?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I sharply disagree with you that any released raw images have ever been doctored or modified. However, it would be very difficult for us to know if images that we might find of interest are being withheld. I have noticed that about 0.1% of the images released in the first few years contained anomalies of high interest; whereas almost none of the images released in the past few years have had these.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Does JPL still exercise the same degree of control over the Mars images that they did 5-6 years ago?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, nothing has changed. PI Mike Malin is a JPL contractor, not a JPL employee. But he gets his paycheck from JPL and reports to JPL all the same.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How closely is NASA involved in the release of these images to the public?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">NASA is completely out of the loop. Individial NASA scientists can now request images the way any of us can. But they have no direct control. Only when JPL screws up and embarrasses NASA, as with the failed missions, does NASA step in and threaten to alter its sponsorship of JPL.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It never occurred to me until I read Tom's statement that JPL would be sabotaging themselves financially by releasing images showing surface water or artifacts of civilization.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">A wise person once said about understanding motives: "Follow the money."

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am not going to accusing JPL of misbehavior but I think it is very unwise to leave control of the images in the hands of a company whose financial fortunes are tied to what might be found in those images.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Fortunately for all of us, ESA and other space programs are now embarrassing JPL and therefore NASA by announcing findings from <i>Mars Express</i> such as surface water-ice and methane (a bio marker). JPL can no longer control the discovery schedule. And MRO (the new mission launched Friday) will have a camera with another order of magnitude in resolution. It will have the potential to bring the artificiality controversy to a swift conclusion. We will have to wait and see what this new instrument team does with those images. But if they delay releasing major discoveries too long, that will hurt JPL more than releasing them would because other space agencies will eventually do this and make JPL look bad. -|Tom|-

[xterrester] "It never occurred to me until I read Tom’s statement ... "

This is off topic, but I'm curious to know how you typed the apostrophy in the above sentence (from your 13 Aug post just above). It shows up as the letter combination " ’ " instead of an apostrophy.

I edited another instance of an apostrophy-turned-garbage in the first sentence of your post just to see if it would "take" (it did). There are at least two other places in your post where similar data anomalies exist.

Your posts normally do not exhibit such data "defects", and I'm curious.


???,
LB

Larry,

I didn't notice the botched apostrophes in my original post. I checked the post after it had posted to the board and I am sure I would have noticed the problem. I have no idea why my apostrophes didn't turn out. Possibly it's a glitch having something to do with HTML?

Metamars,
I like your idea of three ropes instead of a ribbon. I'm sure there's a reason they don't make power lines out of ribbons? What genius thought of using a ribbon, anyway? Duh!

"Perhaps if they stiffened/relaxed these spanners..."
That implies that each rung of the ladder is active---therefore complex, undependable and expensive. I'd simply make them out of a rubbery material which absorbs vibrational energy, like a cheap shock absorber.

Stiff rods to hold the ropes apart might be too heavy. I wonder if they could make the top and bottom of the elevator wider apart than the middle, so that all the rungs in between are in tension. In other words, shape the elevator like a triangular hourglass.

Another half-baked idea just popped into my head this minute! Once a satellite gets above the height of geosynchronous orbit, maybe it's centrifugal force could be harnessed to help pull the next satellite up the ladder on a carbon fiber tether. Conceivably, after the first satellite gets beyond a certain height, an endless chain of satellites could hitch free rides, with the Earth's angular momentum doing all the work. I'm not sure what you'd do with the top portion of the tether after releasing each satellite, though. The cost of the tether might be greater than the value of the energy it saved. Perhaps someone could find a good use for all that leftover carbon-fiber rope, conveniently already in orbit.

Tom,

Your statement about who controls images and data left me somewhat amazed.

Tom said:

"That is standard in all contracts between NASA and its contractors. The instrument teams get six months of exclusive use of the data before they are required to place it in the National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC)."

I am shocked that data and images from Mars, which might be construed as having information of great significance, even information affecting national security interests, would not immediately be placed under the supervision and control of a government agency such as NASA instead of being under the complete control of and for the exclusive use of a private corporation for six months. I believe you but I am incredulous.

Tom said:

"When NASA wanted three photos taken by MGS of the Cydonia region in 1998, JPL at first refused. The two agencies negotiated, and NASA had to pay JPL $400,000 for just those three images. JPL then took the images from a poor viewing angle with bad lighting conditions on a day when thin clouds covered the site. And JPL's Public Information Office released the double-filtered, averaged "catbox" image to the waiting media with the intent to kill any further interest in Cydonia."

I am further amazed. JPL refusing to shoot what NASA asked them to shoot and then peevishly demanding an additional 400,000 to take the requested images? I think the NASA scientists should be specifying the areas they want imaged first, the areas that look most promising for further scientific research. Wasn't JPL hired just to provide the mechanics to get to Mars or are they also involved in formulating policy re scientific research of Mars?

The catbox image was ridiculous. Besides being double filtered and shot from a poor angle on a cloudy day I believe the image was also skewed. The press bought it hook, line and sinker with no questions asked. I believe NASA should get a refund on that deal. What JPL provided for 400,000 was deliberately useless.

Certain aspects of how the power and control are delineated between JPL and Nasa strike me as being so wrong headed I can't help wondering if there are other unseen factors at play here. JPL has always seemed generally grumpy and condescending in relation to the release of Mars images. The possibility of a secret space program comes to mind. If more exciting clandestine space exploration is going on JPL may find generating Mars images as part of a charade, strictly for public consumption, to be a boring, onerous and thankless chore, grudgingly provided.

Tom said:

"I sharply disagree with you that any released raw images have ever been doctored or modified. However, it would be very difficult for us to know if images that we might find of interest are being withheld. I have noticed that about 0.1% of the images released in the first few years contained anomalies of high interest; whereas almost none of the images released in the past few years have had these

I agree that we disagree on the question of image sanitizing (but wouldn't double filtering qualify as image doctoring?) I am in complete agreement with your statement, "I have noticed that about 0.1% of the images released in the first few years contained anomalies of high interest; whereas almost none of the images released in the past few years have had these." This is one reason I work almost exclusively with the early images. I find little of interest in the newer images. Additionally, the general quality of the newer images is inferior.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by xterrester</i>
<br />I am shocked that data and images from Mars, which might be construed as having information of great significance, even information affecting national security interests, would not immediately be placed under the supervision and control of a government agency such as NASA instead of being under the complete control of and for the exclusive use of a private corporation for six months.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">NASA awards control to the instrument teams themselves as an incentive for them to dedicate years of their scientific lives designing, building, and testing the instruments to be flown on spacecraft. NASA expects them all to be competent professionals interested in the data acquired, and generally having more expertise in interpreting that data than anyone else at NASA. So as long as they do not bring any grief to NASA, they are entirely on their own.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I think the NASA scientists should be specifying the areas they want imaged first, the areas that look most promising for further scientific research. Wasn't JPL hired just to provide the mechanics to get to Mars or are they also involved in formulating policy re scientific research of Mars?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">NASA expects the instrument teams to contain the most qualified scientists. (Team members can be any qualified scientist.) They therefore never second-guess a team unless their work brings grief to NASA.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Certain aspects of how the power and control are delineated between JPL and Nasa strike me as being so wrong headed I can't help wondering if there are other unseen factors at play here. ... The possibility of a secret space program comes to mind.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Such speculations with no data to support them are not helpful because they are easily dismissed as "conspiracy thinking", and because they turn off everyone, friend and foe alike. There must be some credible evidence before calling apparently self-interested actions a conspiracy.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I agree that we disagree on the question of image sanitizing (but wouldn't double filtering qualify as image doctoring?)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I said "raw inages". We all sometimes use filters while processing images and trying to bring out subtle details.

Moreover, JPL created a public web site showing the actual spacecraft data, the catbox image, and the precise recipe to get from one to the other so that they could not be accused of doctoring. -|Tom|-