[ Sandy/NASAChatHost - 3 - 07:53:56 ]
Hello! Today's Mars Millennium QuestChat with Rich Hogen will begin at 11 am, PDT (2 pm, EDT). Rich is the Mission Operations Design Engineer in the Mars Surveyor Program. Be sure to read Rich's very interesting bio BEFORE coming to the chat -- http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/sso/team/hogen.html

[ Sandy/NASAChatHost - 6 - 10:58:53 ]
RE: [NoReality] "We are all little bits of stardust."-Dr. Fraknoi
One of my favorite quotes! Good Morning! We'll begin in just a moment. Have your questions ready!

[ Sandy/NASAChatHost - 8 - 11:02:57 ]
RE: [Ted] hello, How many people are on today?
Hi Ted. So far, there are only two of you signed on. We'll wait another few minutes and then Rich will begin answering questions. I hope you have your list ready :-)

[ Sandy/NASAChatHost - 9 - 11:05:19 ]
Ok, we're ready to get going here today. Rich Hogen is in the chat room and ready to answer your questions....

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 10 - 11:05:28 ]
Hello participants!

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 12 - 11:07:34 ]
RE: [NoReality] "In your bio you state that no amount of data stuffed into your memory can prepare you for the world of the future, because information is always outdated. But the tool, critical thinking, can always be used." So does that mean you went to school for 8 years to learn critical thinking skills?
It sounds crazy, but the answer is yes. Much of the factual information we learn in higher education is material that can be looked up. In fact, you learn much of it by repetition, when practicing your critical thinking skills (which includes various mathematical processes).

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 14 - 11:08:27 ]
RE: [NoReality] "In your bio you state that no amount of data stuffed into your memory can prepare you for the world of the future, because information is always outdated. But the tool, critical thinking, can always be used." So does that mean you went to school for 8 years to learn critical thinking skills?
I'd like to point out that this only applies to higher education. In K-12 there are many things that simply must be memorized, at least partially.

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 15 - 11:08:56 ]
RE: [NoReality] On March 28th a new office devoted to management of future Mars missions wass being formed at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, along with another new office that will oversee the implementation of space science flight projects. Was this because of the Mars Polar Lander crash?
Yes it was, and it remains to be seen if it's the right response.

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 18 - 11:14:06 ]
RE: [NoReality] What emotional impact did the loss of MPL have on you and the other staff?
The impact cannot be underestimated. The reality is that so many people are involved at all levels that trust is a huge factor. When something that bad happens it tends to erode everybody's trust, in themselves, in collaborative organizations, in other team members. Then all the changes levied on the existing programs put an additional burden on the work. It's huge.

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 20 - 11:14:52 ]
RE: [Ted] What type of missions(long term) does nasa have planned for mars
Sorry, Ted, but you may know more about that than I do. It's not like we get regular reports on NASA's plans. The NASA web sites and press releases are where you'll find that information.

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 21 - 11:16:51 ]
RE: [NoReality] This might seem like a silly question, but what does the surface of Mars sound like? I can't seem to find any astronomical sound files on the internet, such as what the Comet Hale-Bopp sounded like as it flew past.
The Hale-Bopp thing was a "false sound", I believe. They took the electromagnetic radiation and mapped wavelengths to sound wavelengths within the range of human hearing. Kinda like "false color images" where you assign a color to a light intensity value. If you got ahold of spectrographic data from Mars you could do this yourself.

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 24 - 11:21:41 ]
RE: [Ted] i was wondering, probally along with a few others, With the MPl how did a mistake like that happen, using the wrong units
The short answer is that this is rocket science. Spacecraft design and operation is incredibly complex. To do it nearly perfectly you have to document and review EVERYTHING, down to why this one particular nut was chosen to attach to this one particular bolt. Now imagine a faster, better, cheaper world where companies bid for such work. They push the limits of what can get done "right" and the project buys off on "accepted risk". What was discovered was that NASA didn't have the stomach for the risk it accepted, and allowed itself to become less aware of exactly what corners were cut in the process.

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 25 - 11:23:15 ]
RE: [Ted] i was wondering, probally along with a few others, With the MPl how did a mistake like that happen, using the wrong units
And corners were cut. Documentation is the first thing to go when you have to build and launch 2 spacecraft within 2 years, and documentation is where you catch mistakes. With the units thing, you have one piece of software that generates a number and another that uses a number. The software knows nothing of units, only the documentation. And so it goes...

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 26 - 11:23:52 ]
RE: [NoReality] Does JPL and other aerospace agencies require male and female input in all projects or is it still a male dominated field?
In my experience JPL is very gender balanced. Lockheed Martin, on the other hand, is not. I should probably stop there.

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 28 - 11:27:13 ]
RE: [NoReality] "An expert is someone who knows some of the worst mistakes that can be made in his subject and how to avoid them." - Werner Heisenberg If you learn from the mistakes made with the MPL then you have all the more knowledge to do greater things in the future.
I agree, but capturing mistakes AND FIXING THEM is the challenge, and it requires strong decisionmaking at the highest levels. I'm confident that the lessons were captured from Mars '98, but I'm not at all confident that acting on those lessons has been implemented. Again, I should stop there. These organizations and projects are like the Titanic. Even if you see the iceberg, you still have to be able to turn quickly enough...

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 31 - 11:32:16 ]
RE: [NoReality] "An expert is someone who knows some of the worst mistakes that can be made in his subject and how to avoid them." - Werner Heisenberg If you learn from the mistakes made with the MPL then you have all the more knowledge to do greater things in the future.
Part of the problem is that process is a study all its own, and people generally don't have a handle on process. Simple example: do you assume that your plan and your procedures are broken until it's proven that they're fixed, or do you assume they're working until it's proven that they're broken? And how do you prove that they're broken? The complexity on the technical side just makes matters even more difficult than that.

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 32 - 11:35:11 ]
RE: [Ted] im a mechanical engineering student with the aerospace option, and i was wondering what your typical day is like at nasa
Ted, I work for Lockheed Martin Astronautics, not NASA. LMA is a contractor for NASA. That said, I believe I can safely say that the work environment and the typical day changes week to week, it will change from one area in a company to another, it will change from one project to another, it will change when management changes, and of course based on your specialty. On a day to day basis it's very much like other jobs. But when the special events happen, then you are reminded that you're working with spacecraft.

[ Sandy/NASAChatHost - 34 - 11:35:54 ]
RE: [Stephanie/Edmonton] Hi Sandy, Rich!
Hey Stephanie! So glad you could join us today :-) Start typing those questions that I know you have :-)

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 36 - 11:38:51 ]
RE: [NoReality] There are currently some arguments about the samples to be brought back from Mars and their containment and their possible contamination to Earth. What is your take on this?
It's been shown that the planets exchange materials constantly throughout geological history. Earth experiences a constant rain of micrometeorites from space, some of which undoubtedly came from Mars. And to a lesser extent Mars has probably seen material from Earth fairly regularly over geological time. It's also been shown that the manner in which these materials is lifted does not always kill microorganisms. So, if they exist we're probably already subjected to Martian microorganisms. Furthermore, such microorganisms would not stand a chance against the local microorganisms and environment. To me it's not a safety issue. What's MOST important is making sure nothing from Earth gets in the samples and makes ambiguous the analytical results.

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 37 - 11:39:13 ]
RE: [NoReality] Are you currently working on the Orbiter that will be launched in 2003?
I've been working on the Orbiter that will be launched in 2001.

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 39 - 11:42:26 ]
RE: [NoReality] One of Mars 2001 goals is to understand the potential for life elsewhere in the universe. Is that both intelligent and non-intelligent?
I'm certain that the goals of Mars 2001 do not begin to consider the issue of intelligent life. If you can't prove that life is abundant in the universe then it's hardly worth your time to discuss intelligence. Besides, it's tough enough to define "life" let alone "intelligence". Baby steps.

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 42 - 11:45:50 ]
RE: [Stephanie/Edmonton] What do you think might be the "best" or most used propulsion system to Mars in the future?
That's tough. "Always in motion is the future" -- Yoda. :) Seriously, the future depends on advances in technology that are unknown at present. So the best anyone can do is to extrapolate the refinement of known technologies until the new ones come along, then everything changes. I'm no propulsion expert, so I can't even do that. Please clarify: did you have something specific in mind? And did you specifically mean landing technology?

[ Sandy/NASAChatHost - 43 - 11:47:54 ]
EVERYONE: There are abouot 15 minutes left in our chat with Rich today. When the chat is over, please let us know how we did by filling out the short chat survey at-- http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/qchats/qchat-surveys -- Thank you :-)

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 44 - 11:47:59 ]
RE: [RichHogen/Mars2001] I'm certain that the goals of Mars 2001 do not begin to consider the issue of intelligent life. If you can't prove that life is abundant in the universe then it's hardly worth your time to discuss intelligence. Besides, it's tough enough to define "life" let alone "intelligence". Baby steps.
I would like to clarify that I was NOT being sarcastic when I said it's tough to define intelligence. Try it! I mean, do we really know if dolphins are "intelligent"? Is it possible to be intelligent without language? What is language? (I love these questions)

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 46 - 11:49:55 ]
RE: [NoReality] The Senate Armed Services Committee ended its FY2001 authorizations by boosting spending on military space programs and technologies by $98.2 million, what is your take on spending for space weaponry and spy satellites vs. exploration?
I know nothing about such programs but I can guess. Space is the ultimate high ground. If you control space you control communications and transportation at the regional and global scales. I do not expect military use of space to ever decrease, and I wouldn't be surprised if the military develop a working spaceplane before any civilian organizations.

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 47 - 11:53:09 ]
RE: [Stephanie/Edmonton] It's interesting to hear about the possibilities of missions in 2003. I think that the rover ought to go then because there's already many orbiters. I think we need to learn more about the surface. Anyway, there is more public interest in a rover. What do you think?
What flies in '03 is dependent on the politics of the relationship between JPL and NASA HQ, and between JPL and LMA. It depends on what's realistically doable. It depends on public support of space exploration in the face of difficulties and losses. Unfortunately, the situation is such that the science is not as much of a driver as it should be. I really don't know what the next step in the Mars program should be, and I think a lot of work and soul-searching and taking action regarding lessons learned needs to take place before anyone can know.

[ Sandy/NASAChatHost - 50 - 11:56:31 ]
EVERYONE: We've got 5 minutes left and then we'll have to wrap this chat up...

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 51 - 11:56:41 ]
RE: [Ted] when searching for signs of life, wouldnt our efforts be better spent on europa instrad of mars. Because we already determined that europa has water.
Actually it's been determined that Mars has water with more certainty than Europa. Europa's liquid, if it really has liquid, may be some kind of hydrocarbon or alcohol or some such. Every time we get closer to a planet we learn that our assumptions were naive. We're closer to understanding Mars than Europa.

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 53 - 11:58:16 ]
RE: [Ted] when searching for signs of life, wouldnt our efforts be better spent on europa instrad of mars. Because we already determined that europa has water.
See if you can dig up some of the latest results from the MOLA instrument (Mars Global Surveyor). The case for water continues to get stronger.

[ Stephanie/Edmonton - 54 - 11:58:16 ]
Very true! Main thing: people need the desire to go.

[ NoReality - 55 - 11:58:51 ]
Rich, thanks for taking the time to chat with this spectator :-)

[ Sandy/NASAChatHost - 56 - 11:59:45 ]
Ok everyone, it's time to let Rich get back to his real job! Thank you so much for your fantastic questions today! You really did your homework and made this an interesting chat for everyone!

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 57 - 12:00:08 ]
RE: [NoReality] NASA is testing an experimental device inside a Mars environment chamber that selectively absorbs carbon dioxide from a simulated Martian atmosphere - called "Mars mix" -- and converts it to oxygen. This leads me to believe that NASA has intentions of one day colonizing Mars, true or false?
I think it's true that NASA has finally learned that you can't colonize Mars with a government program, you colonize Mars by developing the technology. They have continued to identify and develop "necessary technologies" for various tasks, like the ultratelescopes required to image planets around other stars, or to send humans to Mars. And they develop that technology incrementally with all the smaller programs that happen at a faster pace.

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 58 - 12:00:45 ]
RE: [NoReality] Rich, thanks for taking the time to chat with this spectator :-)
Thanks for participating.

[ Sandy/NASAChatHost - 59 - 12:01:10 ]
There are two chats left in our Mars Millennium QuestChat series: Tuesday, May 23 at 11 am <PDT with Planetary Scientist Peter Thomas and on Wed., May 31 with Planetary Scientist Mike Mellon. To register, go to: http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/sso.chats -- these will probably be our last Mars chats for the summer!!!

[ Ted - 60 - 12:01:25 ]
thanks Rich, it has been a very informative session.

[ Sandy/NASAChatHost - 61 - 12:02:15 ]
And please fill out the short chat survey for today -- Thanks! http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/qchats/qchat-surveys

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 62 - 12:02:36 ]
RE: [Ted] thanks Rich, it has been a very informative session.
You're very welcome.

[ Sandy/NASAChatHost - 63 - 12:02:58 ]
Today's chat will be archived and available for viewing later this afternoon. We look forward to chatting with you again soon (so how about next Tuesday :-)

[ RichHogen/Mars2001 - 65 - 12:03:45 ]
RE: [Stephanie/Edmonton] Thanks Rich! Good luck!
Thank you very much. I think I'll need it.