Why papers do not fully cover the problem or are wrong in some places? It’s a pity to say, but not all tech guys want to open their work on public, but all of them need publications to get grants and fame. So some of them publish just a part of the material, or make mistakes in formulas. That’s why it’s always better to search for the code and not for the paper. You should think about the papers as an evidence or a fact that certain problem was solved.
…xpected, but in some ways is even exceeding its design efficiency, much like the Opportunity rover. The two biggest surprises are the diffuse, planet-wide aurorae, but also a phenomenon known as “transient metal layers,” which is what we see when interplanetary dust collides with Mars, leaving a thin layer rich in heavy elements (mostly metals) in the upper atmosphere. As the mission continues, we’re bound to learn even more.