NASA’s Curiosity Mars rover made big news last week with its arrival at its ultimate scientific destination of Mount Sharp. At almost the same time this was happening, however, the mission came under fire from a NASA commissioned senior review panel.

Among other things, the panel criticized the mission for lacking scientific focus and for not providing enough results to justify its ongoing budget. Curiosity rover project scientist John Grotzinger also came under fire for not being present during the panels question period and only being available by phone.

“This left the panel with the impression that the team felt they were too big to fail and that simply having someone show up would suffice. The panel strongly urges NASA HQ to get the Curiosity team focused on maximizing high-quality science that justifies the capabilities of and capital investment in Curiosity,” said the report.

Discovery News, however, reports that both Grotinger and Jim Green, NASA’s director of planetary science, have responded quickly to the panels complaints and assertions to defend the program. 

For Grotinger’s failure to attend the panel in person, Green blames a simple lack of communication. In addition to overseeing the Curiosity mission, Grotinger is a professor at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and has many additional responsibilities. According to Green, NASA was aware that he would be unable to attend the review panel but the panel was either unaware or did not understand that.

As to the scientific concerns of the panel, Green responded in a press conference and cited the many accomplishments of the car-sized rover. Those accomplishments include evidence that Mars could once have supported life.

“It immediately hit the jackpot. Curiosity explored Yellowknife Bay and found that it was in an ancient lake-bed environment that several billion years ago offered fresh water and all the key ingredients for life and a chemical source for microbes, if indeed any existed at that time,” said Green.

The specific complain of the panel that the rover was not drilling frequently enough was answered by Grotzinger who said that the team was deliberately being cautious with the rover’s drill.

“When you get that drill out, there is always a risk. So we would rather take an approach that we drill less, protecting it. The fickle nature of the preservation of organic matter is probably best handled by drilling a greater diversity of samples a fewer number of times,” said Grotzinger.

The recommendations of the panel are a useful way for NASA to gather outside opinions, however they are not binding on the space agency, the Curiosity team or the Congressional committees that provide NASA’s funding.