NASA - MAVEN - updates and discussion

[djellison]

As a member of the public, I appreciate seeing the raw data, even if the interpretation is wrong.

What if there was some mythical third option........AMSAT DL stream their downlink, but don't offer rushed, inaccurate interpretations.

The group with flaky data goes public, and the group that is solidly technically competent stays silent.

This isn't staying silent. https://science.nasa.gov/blogs/maven/2025/12/15/nasa-continues-maven-spacecraft-recontact-efforts/

If there was meaningful news to be shared - they would share it.

[djellison]

But there is, there must be, meaningful news to share.

What you want is more insight.  Not news.  Pointing fingers at AMSAT DL would be really rather vulgar and unnecessary.

I would also consider it an inappropriate distraction for a mission ops team trying to recover a spacecraft to have to liaise with a media office to publish a play by play.  Moreover - the lesson learned of death by a thousand media paper cuts in 1999 is still remembered by many.

Would I love to know more about MVN?  Yup.   I work MSL and we've used it for hundreds of gigabits of downlink.  We're gonna miss it massively if it's not recovered.

But if there were meaningful news to be told....they would tell it.   

[catdlr]

As a member of the public, I appreciate seeing the raw data, even if the interpretation is wrong.

What if there was some mythical third option........AMSAT DL stream their downlink, but don't offer rushed, inaccurate interpretations.

The group with flaky data goes public, and the group that is solidly technically competent stays silent.

This isn't staying silent. https://science.nasa.gov/blogs/maven/2025/12/15/nasa-continues-maven-spacecraft-recontact-efforts/

If there was meaningful news to be shared - they would share it.

But there is, there must be, meaningful news to share.  It's one of:  (a) Oops, we both made the same mistake.  There is no evidence of MAVEN surviving, or (b) Here is what we saw and why we think it's really MAVEN.

Both of these are meaningful, and one of them must be true.   And of course what does "brief" mean, what is the evidence for rotation, what is the changed orbit and how different is it from the one that MAVEN was last seen in.  All meaningful.

Of course it would be even more embarrassing for JPL to have made the same mistake that AMSAT did.  But that's the price of doing hard science.  I wish I could say I never published anything that in retrospect is clearly wrong and I should have known it and not rushed to print.  But I have, and all you can say is "Yup, that was a mistake.  Here's how I should have caught it" and move on.  Just ignoring it does not help, and in fact makes it worse, since it looks like you are dumb enough not the see, or too proud to admit, your own obvious error.

LouScheffer
It is evident that you did not contribute to this thread and directed political and targeted comments to degrade both a well-known organization and a project, and dragged JPL for a degrading remark. Do you really think that is what the NSF forum is here for? You should review your own comment and adhere to it: "I should have known it and not rushed to print. But I have, and all you can say is "Yup, that was a mistake.'".

If I were you, I would delete that post, or let me do it; otherwise, I will send it to Policy, better yet, the "dead thread".

Tony

[LouScheffer]

It is evident that you [...] directed political and targeted comments to degrade both a well-known organization and a project, and dragged JPL for a degrading remark. [...]

If I were you, I would delete that post, or let me do it; otherwise, I will send it to Policy, better yet, the "dead thread".

Tony

I respect both JPL and AMSAT; both are doing the best they can on a difficult problem.  I don't believe it degrades anyone to suggest they may have made a mistake.  But I believe it hurts science when folks could clarify speculation and misinformation fail to do so.

However, it is your forum and not mine.  I have deleted my post.

[catdlr]

It is evident that you [...] directed political and targeted comments to degrade both a well-known organization and a project, and dragged JPL for a degrading remark. [...]

If I were you, I would delete that post, or let me do it; otherwise, I will send it to Policy, better yet, the "dead thread".

Tony

I respect both JPL and AMSAT; both are doing the best they can on a difficult problem.  I don't believe it degrades anyone to suggest they may have made a mistake.  But I believe it hurts science when folks could clarify speculation and misinformation fail to do so.

However, it is your forum and not mine.  I have deleted my post.

Although I am not the owner of the forum, Chris Bergin, the managing editor, is. After many years of being a well-behaved member, I have been graciously granted moderator privileges. I adhere to his fundamental rules, which, if you have not read them, are posted on his rules thread. A simple one-post thread of a 2-minute read.

NSF Forum Rules, TOS, moderation, and content removal requests - BASELINE
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36479.msg1309796#msg1309796

[djellison]

  But I believe it hurts science when folks could clarify speculation and misinformation fail to do so.

It is not NASA's job to correct AMSAT DL.   AMSAT DL themselves have already done so.

[daedalus1]

My previous comment was sarcasm.
Remove the 'updates' part of the title if everyone is just going to chat.

[LouScheffer]

I respectfully disagree.  As a member of the public, I appreciate seeing the raw data, even if the interpretation is wrong.

That's not how any science or technical organization works.

My last comment here, since as you noted this is getting off topic.

I completely agree that this is how most organizations work.  I don't think it how science SHOULD work.  The public, or at least the subset of the public that matters, understands how science is done and the difference between raw data and conclusions.  They also have the time, the energy, and the enthusiasm to process the data in ways the originator cannot.  See Kepler (the mission, but coincidentally the scientist) for great examples of this.  Full disclosure also helps tamp down conspiracy theories when anyone is allowed to see the raw data, even among those who have no interest in analyzing it themselves.

Next, not even all space organizations subscribe to the "analysis first" model.  Mike Malin, the PI for many of the Mars cameras, arranged for the raw images to go straight to the public web site.  I recall him saying "If I'm asleep, you see the images before I do", though I can't find the exact quote.  I've seen no problems resulting from this, and it's been ongoing for years.  See Mars Science Laboratory: Curiosity Raw Images as an example.

I can see only one legit reason for holding raw data back.  If a grad student spends years building an instrument, or a PI spends a decade of their career on a mission, then a dump of the initial raw data might allow someone to skim the cream of the conclusions, and publish first.  I don't think this is as likely as most researchers think, but I understand the worry.  I recall being very relieved after I first presented my thesis work at a conference, as that meant I had claimed priority on the topic.

Anyway, here's hoping we soon have some raw data about MAVEN, and/or some analysis of that data, so we can get back to arguing about science and engineering as opposed bickering over the philosophy of science.

[djellison]

Mike Malin, the PI for many of the Mars cameras, arranged for the raw images to go straight to the public web site.  I recall him saying "If I'm asleep, you see the images before I do", though I can't find the exact quote.  I've seen no problems resulting from this, and it's been ongoing for years.

That - I guarantee you - is NOT a quote from Mike Malin. That quote is from either Steve Squyres and/or Jim Bell - and it was the Mars Exploration Rover mission ( which did not have a Malin PI camera ) that started this pattern of rapid release of raw imagery in 2004 since followed by MSL and Mars 2020.   Malin has traditionally been quite resistive to raw image releases...it is telling that of all the cameras on MSL, it is MCAM alone ( for which he is the PI ) that has a 24 hour lag before the images are released.   The quote is from Squyres - and you'll see it in a talk I gave at JPL talking about my career path. 



In that talk you'll see the direct line between the rapid release of raw imagery from MER and me getting a job at JPL in 2010.   While I was MSL ECAM lead - I've made sure that pipeline of raw imagery continued to flow - and I'm working with others to make sure the flow of raw imagery continue to flow while HQ mandates 'modernization' of all public facing websites.

Full disclosure also helps tamp down conspiracy theories when anyone is allowed to see the raw data, even among those who have no interest in analyzing it themselves.

You clearly don't pay attention to what many of the public do with the raw imagery from MSL and others.  There are thousands and thousands and thousands of articles, YouTube videos, Instagram post etc etc - taking that raw imagery and amplifying conspiracy theories or coming up with whole new ones.  Every rock is a skull, every cliff contains a door, every shadow contains a creature and every compression artifact is evidence of the massive conspiracy hide 'the truth' ^TM

But it's still worth it because the public get to come along for the rise of the exploratory missions.   


And all of that has nothing to do with what's being discussed here.

The rapid release of uncalibrated imagery is a million miles from some 'raw' data you want from the DSN so you can conduct a cross examination of their MVN analysis.     That sort of data has never been released.    What HAS been released.......is DSN status via DSN now....a project I worked on not long after starting at JPL.   DSN Now is to radio science data as uncalibrated JPGs are to calibrated camera PDS releases.

[ccdengr]

Anyway, here's hoping we soon have some raw data about MAVEN...

The "raw data" you are asking for would be similar to that described in this 138-page document https://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/messenger/mess-v_h-rss-1-edr-rawdata-v1/messrs_0xxx/document/dsn_trk_2_34_tnf_sis.pdf and would require a lot of effort to do anything with.

One imagines that you really want a plot of some kind and some interpretation more numerical than what the NASA update says, but I think the team has better things to do with their time than mess with public releases.

[LouScheffer]

Anyway, here's hoping we soon have some raw data about MAVEN...

The "raw data" you are asking for would be similar to that described in this 138-page document https://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/messenger/mess-v_h-rss-1-edr-rawdata-v1/messrs_0xxx/document/dsn_trk_2_34_tnf_sis.pdf and would require a lot of effort to do anything with.

One imagines that you really want a plot of some kind and some interpretation more numerical than what the NASA update says, but I think the team has better things to do with their time than mess with public releases.

The complexity contained in that document is not needed here.  The JPL press release says "the team recovered a brief fragment of tracking data from Dec. 6 as part of an ongoing radio science campaign."  Radio science data is kept in much simpler format, see JPL document 209: Open-Loop Radio Science.  They down-convert the signal from the antenna, sample it, divide it into bands, creating a time series of complex voltages.  Then they divide it into 1 second chunks and write it out as files.

Finding a sinusoidal signal in a noisy time series, and estimating its frequency and phase, is an easy (undergrad level) exercise for anyone with a EE or physics background. There are literally millions of people (IEEE alone has 500,000 members) with the required expertise.  There are entire communities of radio amateurs doing exactly this for weak signal communication, see WSJT Home Page.  The software for this is open source.  If the data were available, I'm sure someone would try it. 

[vjkane]

Finding a sinusoidal signal in a noisy time series, and estimating its frequency and phase, is an easy (undergrad level) exercise for anyone with a EE or physics background. There are literally millions of people (IEEE alone has 500,000 members) with the required expertise.  There are entire communities of radio amateurs doing exactly this for weak signal communication, see WSJT Home Page.  The software for this is open source.  If the data were available, I'm sure someone would try it.

The team trying to save MAVEN doesn't need pressure or noise from thousands of people all publishing their own interpretations and theories. They are likely overworked already and are experts.

[ChrisC]

Remove the 'updates' part of the title if everyone is just going to chat.

Indeed.  Title updated.

LouS, take a break please. They're working the problem, as Doug explained in his two posts above, and this veteran IEEE member appreciates their efforts and respects their intelligence.

[meekGee]

AmSat DL has confirmed that what they saw was MRO, not MVN.

This is a fine example of why organizations should triple-check their stuff before making a sensationalist post on social media. How the h@ll did they think they were able to "hear" MAVEN while NASA couldn't? AMSAT DL just made themselves look like a bunch of clowns.

Literal amateurs.

In the bright side, it wasn't aliens.

[MickQ]

But do we know that for sure ??

[vjkane]

But do we know that for sure ??

Didn't some spot a Klingon battle cruiser near Mars?

[MickQ]

Well, no one saw what happened so I think it more likely to be a Romulan stealth Bird of Prey  😁😁

[StraumliBlight]

NASA Works MAVEN Spacecraft Issue Ahead of Solar Conjunction [Dec 23]

NASA is continuing efforts to recontact its MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN) spacecraft, which was last heard from on Dec. 6. In partnership with NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN), the MAVEN team has sent commands for spacecraft recovery and is monitoring the network for a spacecraft signal.

The MAVEN team also continues to analyze tracking data fragments recovered from a Dec. 6 radio science campaign. This information is being used to create a timeline of possible events and identify likely root cause of the issue. As part of that effort, on Dec. 16 and 20, NASA’s Curiosity team used the rover’s Mastcam instrument in an attempt to image MAVEN’s reference orbit, but MAVEN was not detected. Additional analysis will continue, but planned monitoring will be affected by the upcoming solar conjunction.

Mars solar conjunction – a period when Mars and Earth are on opposite sides of the Sun – begins Monday, Dec. 29, and NASA will not have contact with any Mars missions until Friday, Jan. 16. Once the solar conjunction window is over, NASA plans to resume its efforts to reestablish communications with MAVEN.

[Kaputnik]

I'm not a rocket scientist but trying to image the spacecraft directly does not give me confidence that they have received much tracking data 🙁

[djellison]

I'm not a rocket scientist but trying to image the spacecraft directly does not give me confidence that they have received much tracking data 🙁

The JPL update today makes it clear that they've not received any since Dec 6th. 

The update before that said "Further, the frequency of the tracking signal suggests MAVEN’s orbit trajectory may have changed."

Let's say the spacecraft changed velocity by 0.5m/sec - that would put it more than 600 km out of place after 2 weeks.  It's not a significant leap to infer it could be 10 minutes out of place in its orbit - and that has an impact on when it goes in and out of occultation, when uplink attempts might or might not be blocked by Mars etc etc.