It's pretty safe to say they are looking at incomplete data, not poor data. They have made advancements that allow for greater resolution, which is the amount of data in a given space on screen, which improves our visibility into the night sky, but this doesn't mean we weren't looking at the same sky in less detail before, or a "poor" sky view.
Part of NASAs biggest challenge is getting into space, let alone affording to do so every time there is a scientific breakthrough. This is why bundles of experiments go up on every flight (almost every), and why it's so tragic when we loose payloads because with trips like mars you have a good window every 2 to 2.5 years or so, and they are often highly anticipated experiments going to a number of space destinations. Just look at Hubble and Kepler Space Telescopes... HUGE following including myself.
I’m a fan of the Hubbell, too, speaking of which, I was under the impression if it wasn’t for public opinion the Hubbell telescope expenditure would have been terminated. Unless, there has been a turn around in the modifications, the view is different, but as you said with improved resolution better. I may disagree with you that we will be looking at the same sky if I understand that correctly? If we backup a tad maybe things will be clearer and so will the data? Poor science, I would define as inconclusive and there will always be lots of that.
Sorry, I do not understand the connection with Mars to this launch? Are you saying planet position is factored in?