We held our second SOWG Meeting this morning. We focused on the analysis of the data from the Day 2 EVA. For this EVA, Brent and Abby, the crew geologists, completed a pedestrian EVA to the area at Pooh's Corner first scouted by Boudreaux. In addition, they analyzed their collected samples in the lab. This made for a very long day for them and a huge amount of data for us to analyze in less than 6 hours (and for most of those hours, we were sleeping).

The amount of data in this EVA, compared to the amount of the Day 1 EVA, was massive. We were again able to view what data came into SO during the day as we were notified via an email alert each time the agents transferred data to SO. It was impressive. These were the data the RST would have access to until the analysis came from the crew. Due to some technical glitches, however, some data didn't make it into SO, although we weren't aware of this until later in the evening. Those data would be delivered to us in the crew's analysis, which meant we would have to do our preliminary analyses using only what we had. We also would not have a meeting replay for this EVA, because the technical problems that had hindered the data downloads meant that the crew had extra work to do in getting all the data to us.

Surprisingly, it wasn't a problem. One of the first things I noticed in following the data as it was delivered during the EVA was the crew's obvious use of the field methodology, created by Stacy Sklar and developed by her and me with the assistance of Crew 25. This methodology, while originally created to assist geologists in their fieldwork, had clear potential to streamline communication between collaborating scientists on Mars and Earth. The idea behind the methodology is that primary data collection methods are standardized; yet still allow the crew scientists to ask whatever questions they want in support of their hypotheses. Those questions are filed as part of the EVA Plan, sent to the RST prior to execution, then as the data arrive, the RST can quickly put together a preliminary story of what is happening without having all of the information the crew will deliver later.

Another advantage of this methodology is that it gives each sample the kind of in situ context needed for reproducibility of results. For example, say the crew discovers an interesting site (Fossils on Mars!) and a dust storm rolls in before they have time to grab more than a single sample. A future crew returning to the site may have problems getting back to the sample site without sufficient data. The MDRS RST first tested this idea with Crew 21, using data provided by Tiffany Vora of Crew 11. Tiffany had excellent, very complete data for her sample sites when judged against current Earth scientist standards. She had the GPS coordinates, in situ and microscopic photos, and detailed field and lab notes. It should be mentioned that Tiffany is a molecular biologist and was looking for interesting microbiological sample sites. Consequentially, the sample sites were small. What we discovered is that even with all of her data, it was extremely hard to find her sample sites again and replicate her sampling. We had some success, but the most valuable data was gathered from our failures.

While the Mobile Agents data collection methods are much more sophisticated, we believe it is still necessary to put each sample in the context of its location before the RST can make a comprehensive analysis or a future crew can successfully reproduce the science of another crew.

The way the RST analyses the EVA data is set up so that we begin our SOWG Meetings with two preliminary analyses, one from Stacy and one from Melissa. I was so excited when I realized that the crew was using the methodology that for this SOWG Meeting there were three. Last night, I sent out a message to the RST saying that I would be analyzing the data for methodology only-in other words, I wasn't interested in the geology, just in how the data worked within the methodology. So we started the meeting with three preliminary analyses.

I also sent an email out last night asking the RST members review the methodology, since it appeared some of the RST were unaware that the crew was using it. These two emails proved to be critical in all of us arriving at the meeting "on the same page". At our first meeting, the preliminary analyses were markedly different in approach. At today's meeting, all three worked seamlessly together. Each had different suggestions and comments, but all three made the analysis with the methodology as the focus.

Compared to the last meeting, then, things started very smoothly. The only technical problem we were still having was that Stacy was again unable to access WebEx with her school computer. We had to describe each piece of the crew's data to her, so she could recognize it from SO, until Al and Simon suggested using web exports of the Compendium maps. Working with amazing deftness while we scientists continued to discuss the data, they created a web export of the crew's analysis and emailed it to Stacy. It was a lifesaver! Now we were able to work our way through the crew's analysis with ease.

Several of our questions were immediately answered. We needed clarification of such simple things as the scale on the crew's Jacob's staff and rock hammer, which they had included in their analysis. We had some questions they hadn't answered too: why were they using two virtually identical photos to show the rock perspective from the methodology, what were they doing to show orientation in the photos, confirmation of naming scheme. We also realized that there were no clear photos of Rock Hill. When the crew named it during the meeting replay, we weren't able to see it in the panorama. We used GPS coordinates, the data from this EVA, and once again, Maarten's very valuable hand drawn map, to orient ourselves to where it was.

We realized that we had a lot of questions and suggestions for the crew, but we also had some kudos to send their way. We thought their Compendium maps were incredible. We would have liked to have had one big map that combined their analyses, but realized that time was a factor in our getting a map from each of them. We were also very excited about something that they did that we weren't even sure was intentional. The methodology calls for photos to be taken from the Outcrop perspective-a wider angle shot that puts the sample in its in situ context and from the Rock perspective-a close-up of the sample before collection. Brent and Abby had included what we called a Finder perspective (remember it was very early in the morning, creative names were not flowing at that time), a photo mid-way between Outcrop and Rock. It was very evident that the Finder perspective made it much easier for the RST to put the sample in its context. We will modify the methodology to include this valuable perspective in the future.

We did have problems associating voice notes to other data in our preliminary analysis. Because time is a challenge, we requested that the crew come up with the way to put voice notes in context in the field. This would require that they preface each voice note with an qualifier of which site or sample the voice note addresses. This would require the crew think in a new way-as if each voice note were a stand alone entity, such as notes in a field book, which require qualifiers to understand what they are addressing.

We again had a very hard time coming up with a complete analysis in the time we had. There is still much work to be done on this EVA's dataset. I will continue to work on it over the weekend. Since Monday is a holiday in the UK, we will not be having a SOWG Meeting, One of the advantages of being an international team is that when one person has a national holiday, we all get the day off!

Time seems to be our greatest enemy in our analysis of the data. I have found that to be the case with most crews at MDRS. I believe in most cases, crews would be better off to limit the number of EVA's to the amount needed to competently analyze and report on the data they collect. This is not true of Mobile Agents since our testing requires we do as much field work as possible, but from the RST perspective we are on information overload in respect to time. That, then, will be the challenge in the future. We need to find ways to streamline our job in order to present the crew with our analyses in the time we have. It is going to be interesting to see how we do that!

RST Daily Summary:

We held our second SOWG Meeting and successfully used web exports of the crew's Compendium maps to solve the problem of Stacy being unable to access WebEx. The web exports also ameliorate the challenges of importing, viewing and studying the maps when time is so short between their creation and our meetings. The successful creation of the web exports was the highlight of the meeting.

We also recognized and focused on the crew's use of the field methodology.

There is still a lot that can be done with this EVA's dataset and we will continue to work on it over the weekend.