[X] My Assistant

[djellison]

I'd like to see peoples thoughts regarding ESA's website, it's press 'accesability', it's image release protocol etc.

What does ESA do that's good?

What does ESA do that's bad?

What does NASA do that ESA SHOULD do?

What does NASA do that ESA SHOULDNT do?

What benefits might there be etc etc

I'm trying to gauge the 'educated' public opinion on the matter. Please say, if you reply, which country you're from.

Im going to add a poll as well.

Also - please comment on specific features of NASA public relations and press activity that you find superb, and htose that you find terrible.

Doug

[The Messenger]

Ok...this is not the ESA, but close enough:
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/

British researchers said on Wednesday they had uncovered the first proof of teaching in non-human animals -- ants showing each other the way to food.

So the 'dance of the honeybee' is not teaching? Birds teaching their young how to find food? Very odd assertion.

[ljk4-1]

Ok...this is not the ESA, but close enough:
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/
So the 'dance of the honeybee' is not teaching? Birds teaching their young how to find food? Very odd assertion.

While reading the article about ants educating themselves to improve their lots in life, I noticed another CNN news item that makes me wonder which Earth species is getting dumber while the other is getting smarter:


NASA chief: Money will be tight for astronomy

Wednesday, January 11, 2006; Posted: 9:12 a.m. EST (14:12 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- NASA chief Michael Griffin warned astronomers on Tuesday that funds for their programs will be tighter than they have been in the past decade as NASA focuses more on manned space missions.

"The growth of science within NASA has been in the 5 to 7 percent range, annualized over the last decade or so, and that's been great," Griffin told members of the American Astronomical Society.

"We're in a budget environment right now when that level of growth can't be maintained, although science at NASA will still have growth. But we are all hurting."

Astronomers have voiced persistent concerns that the Bush administration's vision for space exploration -- which calls for human missions to the moon and eventually Mars -- unduly concentrates on human exploration to the detriment of robotic space missions.

Roughly two-thirds of NASA's $16.4 billion budget for fiscal 2006 goes to support the space shuttle, the international space station and the development of a new system to get people into space. Space science programs will be getting about $5.4 billion this year, compared to $5.5 billion in 2005.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/01/11/s...reut/index.html

[The Messenger]

Roughly two-thirds of NASA's $16.4 billion budget for fiscal 2006 goes to support the space shuttle, the international space station and the development of a new system to get people into space. Space science programs will be getting about $5.4 billion this year, compared to $5.5 billion in 2005.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/01/11/s...reut/index.html

Returning to topic, does anyone know what % of the ESA 's budget is dedicated to science? To preparing a report on why Huygens' 'A' channel failed to return any data?

[ugordan]

To preparing a report on why Huygens' 'A' channel failed to return any data?

Apparently, channel A data was lost not due to a fault onboard Huygens, but due to someone failing to issue Cassini a command to turn the channel A receiver in addition to sending a command for turning channel B receiver on.
A software glitch similar to the "read-only" bit being set on one of Cassini's SSRs during T7 flyby that resulted in half the acquired data being lost.

In short -- human error.

[The Messenger]

Apparently, channel A data was lost not due to a fault onboard Huygens, but due to someone failing to issue Cassini a command to turn the channel A receiver in addition to sending a command for turning channel B receiver on.
A software glitch similar to the "read-only" bit being set on one of Cassini's SSRs during T7 flyby that resulted in half the acquired data being lost.

In short -- human error.

An error in transcription? Programming sequence? Test code inserted instead of operational version? Flag bit? Execution statement?

What quality control measures where in place? Who validated the code? Was NASA or the ESA responsible for the sequencing? What validation checks were run, and why was the error overlooked? Was the code reexamined after the Beagle failure report? Was the command dropped as a result of mission changes due to the bandwidth problem?

In an eight year mission, this is arguably the WORST coding error in history. (I welcome nominations for a bigger one). This error certainly deserves a detailed investigation, as promised and a detailed set of recommendations for future missions, including those which have already been launched since Huygens landing.

Glossing over mistakes only dooms us to repeat them. Hell, I repeat them enough already. Hell I repeat them enoguh already.

[djellison]

(I welcome nominations for a bigger one).

MPL? That was a coding error that resulted in loss of the entire mission. MRO? That was a communications problem ( between people ) that again, resulted in the loss of the entire mission. Huygens still returned almost all of it's science - yes we lost a lot of images, but we also GOT a lot of images. We lost the wind data, but we rescued a fair ammount of it via ground based observations. A big mistake, yes. But there have been bigger ones. Much MUCH bigger ones.

It was a big error, and I'm sure a thorough investigation is / was underway. Much like the B2 investigation, it's clear ESA doesnt like to release the results of these things, but it will at some point I am sure.

Doug

[Rakhir]

MPL? That was a coding error that resulted in loss of the entire mission. MRO? That was a communications problem ( between people ) that again, resulted in the loss of the entire mission.

Doug

Doug,

please don't do again the kind of slip of the pen you did between MCO and MRO just a few days before orbit insertion !

-- Rakhir

[djellison]

Doug,

please don't do again the kind of slip of the pen you did between MCO and MRO just a few days before orbit insertion !

-- Rakhir

LOL - you knew what I meant

Doug