Interesting. Do you think private exploration solves this problems?

Not sure to be honest.

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.

The point of competition is that if 10 deeply flawed organizations take a crack at a problem, they won't all produce garbage.

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.

Or! They all produce garbage as they chip away at costs, and make bank telling people what they want to hear. The incentives are all wrong.

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?

They’ve been calibrated on Earth for use on Earth.

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?

different gravity

Oh interesting - so Earth calibrated systems expect... a specific density for display of signals?

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.

Are you insinuating that NASA sent an incorrectly calibrated device? I know NASA has its flaws but this seems like a stretch no?

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 he means it would need to be calibrated on Mars as the exact ground density and composition isnt known from earth

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.