geology of Gale Crater and Mount Sharp Options

[David Palmer]

The idea that the Lower Formation of Mt. Sharp is of lacustrine origin (lakebed sediments) has rather fallen out of favor recently, but I just finished my essay on Mars, "An Interpretation of the Geology of Gale Crater & Mount Sharp, with Implications for the History & Habitability of Mars," which I have spent over one year researching and writing, and the primary thrust of this paper is to offer a fresh defense of the lacustrine model, incorporating some fairly original ideas on my part. I'm not a professional scientist, but this is a labor of love that springs from a near-lifelong interest in Mars (since I was a young boy in the 1960s). And I'm trying to publicize it prior to Curiosity reaching Mt. Sharp, as that will be a test of my theories, and I'm hoping to get some recognition if I'm right. So here's the link for all interested readers: http://galecratergeology1.tumblr.com/post/...le-crater-mount

[elakdawalla]

Ah, my mistake, I did not notice the list of references on the fourth page. The essay is not organized like a typical paper, so I got a little lost -- observations and inferences are all mixed together. On a closer second reading I see you considering models one by one. You're missing any of Malin and Edgett's mapping work on the crater and other mound-filled craters.

Almost none of your photos are from NASA/JPL alone (only Viking and the rover Navcams and Hazcams have that credit, without other institutions like UA for HiRISE or MSSS for Mastcam images). I see at least one photo of mine, which has data from MRO CTX and Mars Express (MSSS and ESA/DLR/FU Berlin (G. Neukum)). I believe that there are several other amateur-processed images in your essay but I cannot be certain because they are not labeled as to their source.

I think there are a few really good points in here about inconsistencies in relative timing of events being described by different researchers, points that they should listen to and think about. But the way that this essay is structured, no professional will read it.

Scientific papers have a typical structure and signposts to that structure that really helps a reader. You have an introduction and literature review section, briefly summarizing past work -- here would be a great place to identify the specific logical inconsistencies you have found in those stories. You have a methods section, identifying your data sources and how you went about doing your research -- it should be devoid of interpretation, focusing on the locations of the geomorphic features you are mapping: craters, channels, boxwork, shorelines, etc. Then lay out your two models (the story you tell about the order in which formation and erosion happened for all the geomorphic features you identify in the previous part). Then have a discussion section where you compare your model to others' models -- you have a choice here: you could compare your model to other models one by one, or take geomorphic features one by one and compare all models' explanations for them. Your essay sort of does the latter but we keep coming and going to features and I lose the thread of your argument. Finally you wrap up with conclusions, which may include a section that identifies specific tests of your models. All this stuff is in your essay but it's mixed up, and there's a lot of irrelevant material like your discussion of Martian sky color.

This organization is important, because as a reader I cannot keep everything in my head as I read. I will read, and get partway through, and need to return to literature review and observation and model sections to remind myself of stuff as I read your discussion section. Right now you have a little bit of observation, and some discussion, and then comparison to one paper, and then some different observations, and then discussion, and I'm sorry, but I find it very hard to follow.

[djellison]

I'm sorry, but I find it very hard to follow.

I tried - and I'm afraid I had to give up.

You've clearly done a lot of work David - but the devil is in the detail when it comes to gaining professional traction.