Comparing different methods for assessing ground truth of rover data analysis for the 2005 season of the Life in the Atacama Project

Thomas G W; Peate Ukstins; Nakamoto J; Pudenz E; Glasgow J; Bretthauer J; Cabrol N; Wettergreen D; Grin E; Coppin P; Dohm J M; Piatek J L; Warren‐rhodes K; Hock A N; Weinstein S; Fisher G; Diaz Chong; Cockell C; Marinangeli L; Minkley N; Moersch J; Ori G G; Smith T; Stubb K; Wagner M; Waggoner A S

Comparing different methods for assessing ground truth of rover data analysis for the 2005 season of the Life in the Atacama Project

Authors

G W, Thomas
Ukstins, Peate
J, Nakamoto
E, Pudenz
J, Glasgow
J, Bretthauer
Nathalie Cabrol
D, Wettergreen
Edmond Grin
P, Coppin
J M, Dohm
J L, Piatek
K, Warren‐rhodes
A N, Hock
S, Weinstein
G, Fisher
Chong, Diaz
C, Cockell
L, Marinangeli
N, Minkley
J, Moersch
G G, Ori
T, Smith
K, Stubb
M, Wagner
A S, Waggoner

And 6 more

Type

Published Article

Journal

Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences

Publication Date

Dec 01, 2007

Volume

112

Issue

G4

Source

SETI Institute

License

Unknown

Abstract

[1] The scientific success of a remote exploration rover mission depends on the right combination of technology, teamwork and scientific insight. In order to quantitatively evaluate the success of a rover field trial, it is necessary to assess the accuracy of scientific interpretations made during the field test. This work compares three structured approaches to assessing the ground truth of scientific findings from a science team conducting a remote investigation of a locale using an autonomous rover. For the first approach, independent ...

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times