I have worked on algorithms and system analysis in very similar projects and it's highly doubtful that these results are worth anything.
The radar sounder design and the numerical studies are flawed due to the used simulation methods. Numerical simulations are computationally expensive (in time and in space). Therefore many approximations are made (e.g. no real antenna pattern, no influence of the rover, thin slices of ground that is being simulated and than put together, ...)
Reading such radargrams is like reading tea leaves. I am pretty sure that most of the echos in the radargram are surface clutter from bigger rocks or hilly areas in the distance. In one of our simulation works for a very similar project we have actually shown that this has a heavy influence on the radargram and is never considered in any of the works analyzing the results from Mars (or any other space object).
These projects are extremely political even though they shouldn't be. Groups that have had instruments on previous missions will be part of the next mission, too, because they have flown instruments already. So, any study or inclination that the instrument as it is does not work is buried quickly and often unknown to many of the people in the science teams, too.
I know, it's quite cynic but it's my experience and I know that I am not the only one feeling that way. So, while the rover and the measurements themselves are impressive, the analysis is wonky at best.
This surprises me, I have seen ground penetrating radar results that have shown buried items which have then been dug up, why is this result different?
What does it matter if it's calibrated on earth? If the problem is the antenna pattern, influence of the rover itself, etc, why can't it be calibrated with the exact duplicate of the rover we have?
Radio waves propagate at different speeds through different mediums so the GPR gain and time window have to be calibrated for each soil type and other environmental factors like how wet the ground is. Once calibrated, then any deviations become interesting. Otherwise it’s just a bunch of sensor noise.
Correct. The easiest way to calibrate a GPR is to stick a metal plate in the ground and cover it with a few feet of earth dug up on location. Can’t do that with some awkward rovers and an experimental helicopter.
NASA can do some fancy signal processing to get some useful data but until its properly calibrated, any interpretation of that data especially visual should be taken with a Phobos sized grain of salt.
I still don't understand. Even if you are off about density, aren't you studying the differences in density, so that the image you generate would still be showing where those differences are located relative to each other -- even if scale might be somewhat off if you have your base density off? It doesn't seem like it would be abject failure, but more like incrementally less useful. It sounds like you are saying it is almost at abject failure on the scale of usefulness.
Yes and no. The radar isn’t only looking down into the ground. The antenna pattern has side lobes which can potentially generate large echos in the radargram, e.g. from rocks on the surface etc. you only know that there is something in some distance (or rather time delay).
The useful signal is extremely weak anyway and the clutter from the surface hides the useful signal in many cases unless you habe really strong scatterers (large and highly reflective) buried in the ground.
Plenty of commercial GPR devices operate on Earth just fine with the explicit goal to detect changes in the subsurface's dielectric properties. It doesn't matter if you're on Mars or here, GPR works in the same way and I'm pretty sure that the antenna and the signal processing has been designed for the purpose, possibly even more meticulously than the antennas of commercial GPR pushcarts. Your comment makes something simple sound highly involved and problematic.
Your understanding is correct. It's about detecting variations in dielectric properties across layer interfaces. GPR works just fine for that, whether here or on Mars. The other commenter's negativity and theorized worries about side lobes and reflectors are unwarranted.
NASA isn't doing anything here but providing the platform for the instrument.I mean, that's a lot but they are not the one in charge of running the instrument. The science teams are. GPR is a complex topic and *maybe* these signals contain the information that they think they do, but it's unlikely in my opinion.
I think the main problem of the current setup is that the science teams are not balanced enough.
The radar sounding science team is mostly geophysicists because the interpretations are geophysical in nature, but there are not enough people who are experts in radar sounding, radar system and radio frequency wave propagation in general. The reason for that is, that this is not considered science and is looked down upon as mere "engineering".
Privatized exploration would initially solve some of these problems for sure, but once a group of people and its structure has manifested I believe they would eventually suffer from the same problem.
Anyway, this is a pretty complex topic which covers many aspects such as research funding, incentives in academia, vain egos, etc.
The public sector doesn't have a monopoly on internal politics. Posturing between departments to be included in the next big initiative happens in lots of companies.
That's not guaranteed. Really it's a question of incentive structure more than public vs private.
For example there are cases I can point to of poor competition and high costs in NASA picking private companies to do big cost-plus development contracts, and cases where they did fixed-price contract bidding among a larger pool of competitors and got much better results.
While that might be true the costs of going up there are so high that there won't be 10 companies who get a crack at it.
Besides, the radar isn't the only instrument on the rover. There aren't many companies/groups in the world who have the know-how and financial means to do what NASA does here.
It feels like hybrid is always the worst of both worlds.
It's very likely that most people are actually in office and there is a unspoken expectation that you are in the office at least a couple of days. Typically, the work culture is centered around direct conversations in the office. If that is the case, you are more likely to succeed if you are in the office. Few companies or teams are looking for better tooling to support remote or hybrid work.
Companies that have a great remote culture are all about async communication. You also don't necessarily need dailies to be a live event but each team should figure out what works best for them in that regard.
You can unfollow people and/or companies without removing the connection. I go through people I follow about once every 6 to 8 weeks and remove everyone who isn't contributing much to my feed or even worse, only contributes bullshit.
If someone appears in my feed with bullshit posts several times in a short time, I'll just get rid of them. I want my feed to be cleanish and only see relevant things. That's helps tremendously to engage easily.
If your freelance practice isn't effected at all, you didn't make a wrong decision.
I think LinkedIn has changed quite a bit the last couple of years, especially since covid hit.
I actually got (potential) clients with linkedin but I post regularly and always try to create some value in my posts. At the moment, it's my main marketing channel. This isn't ideal in the long run because it makes me highly dependent on the platform.
Regarding the feed, it just takes work to keep your feed clean. I only follow people who are actually related to my work or engage regularly with my content. People who post work anniversaries, selfies, and other junk will be removed after one or two occasions.
How do you get clients for your freelancing if I may ask?
I used to get work through word of mouth, occasionally from my own web site. Now I have an agency that represents me, they bring customers to me.
LinkedIn was always a bust for me, waste of time. If I'm going to spend significant time promoting myself I'd rather do that on my own web site rather than feed a database for web scrapers.
Sometimes leads or customers ask for my LinkedIn or Facebook (or Twitter) ID so they can connect. When I tell them I don't use those or any social media the most common response I get is "I wish I didn't use those." Anecdotally I know a couple of people who tell me they got leads and customers from LinkedIn, but more people tell me it's a time suck.
I think a website and LinkedIn are complementary (or can be) but in the end it doesn't matter how you get client as long as you get them.
LinkedIn feels (somewhat) natural to me and I only post content in a specific niche and no selfies or other junk content. Got a couple of leads over time but it's also time consuming, especially when you just start out.
Wait, you do an internship and are not provided with a laptop? That sucks and sounds like a massive security risk for the company.
Anyway, if that is the case I would definitely separate your work and private account.
Keeping some short notes on what you did each day is definitely a great way to reflect and think about what you have learned. Also help to create some accountability.
Are there any other interns? Get to know them. Also get to know the people you are working with. Try to pick their brains when appropriate: career advice, technical things, office politics, ...
* Are there any other companies that would need something like this? Is there a market?
* Is it potentially transferable to other retailers or even other use case in general?
This seems very similar to these self-checkout systems for cafeterias where an image of the food is taken and than recognized.
Before I would to anything of what you mentioned above, I would work my ass off to get some potential customer interviews, especially with other companies as well. Just understanding if this can become a real product or this might "only" be a project-based work that you can sell to company A.
The radar sounder design and the numerical studies are flawed due to the used simulation methods. Numerical simulations are computationally expensive (in time and in space). Therefore many approximations are made (e.g. no real antenna pattern, no influence of the rover, thin slices of ground that is being simulated and than put together, ...)
Reading such radargrams is like reading tea leaves. I am pretty sure that most of the echos in the radargram are surface clutter from bigger rocks or hilly areas in the distance. In one of our simulation works for a very similar project we have actually shown that this has a heavy influence on the radargram and is never considered in any of the works analyzing the results from Mars (or any other space object).
These projects are extremely political even though they shouldn't be. Groups that have had instruments on previous missions will be part of the next mission, too, because they have flown instruments already. So, any study or inclination that the instrument as it is does not work is buried quickly and often unknown to many of the people in the science teams, too.
I know, it's quite cynic but it's my experience and I know that I am not the only one feeling that way. So, while the rover and the measurements themselves are impressive, the analysis is wonky at best.