Victoria Annulus, Discusions about Victoria's Apron |
Victoria Annulus, Discusions about Victoria's Apron |
Aug 9 2006, 01:41 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1636 Joined: 9-May 05 From: Lima, Peru Member No.: 385 |
From today, Oppy will start to head toward the Victoria Crater which is about 500 meters away. The drive would take about one month (that is 15 soles of driven with an average of 33 meters/sol, the other 15 soles would be for other purposes or restrictive soles).
The surface around Victoria Annulus, I seems it won't be as smooth as the way between Eagle and Endurance craters but the surface would have no uniform or parallel wave of sand and dust in small size of ripple. See Phil's Victoria Annulus partial map, Tesheiner's one Victoria Crater picture Otherwise, the surface might have ripples smaller and alike to the ones of El Dorado, on the skirt south side of Columbia Hill. Besides, the Anuulus has no outcrops except to around of few small mini-craters. This is a change of morphology of surface around the Victoria Annulus. What does it explain about this developing kind of surface of sand? Its extension is just around the inside of Victoria's ray of ejection. That is coincidence. Around that has no bigger ripples as the outside of Annulus. The explanation would be that around annulus has smoother rock or outcrop surface, no blocks which had not helped to build ripples by the winds. Other factor, I am not sure, is that the slope from the border of Annulus to crater is positive (going up by few meters), then this might be another factor not to build ripples. I have seen that anywhere in the desert that have a slopes does not have any ripples but only flat surface. Any debate about why the Victoria Annulus does not look like ripples as the outside of Annulus. Rodolfo |
|
|
Sep 11 2006, 04:36 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2228 Joined: 1-December 04 From: Marble Falls, Texas, USA Member No.: 116 |
Doug: I don't have a problem with the term tektite. I've always assumed that any impact melt droplet that solidified into a glassy sphere or aerodynamically altered shape was essentially a tektite. I see a lot of spheres and a fair number of multiple sphere agglomerations, but I don't see anything that looks glassy, nor anything that looks aerodynamic. I can discount the importance of the things being glassy by assuming they have had time to devitrify or be recrystalized by some later alteration process, but I really don't see anything that can't be more simply explained by assuming that these spheres are simply the same concretions we have been seeing since day 1.
I think I have seen a very few that could be roughly described as conical, but those looked more like multiply-connected berries that were broken or eroded, or berries that were broken from eroded stalks of the evaporite cemented sandstone, like those we saw at Fram. I'd love to see something new, like evidence of an impact melt, but I am not convinced, yet. -------------------- ...Tom
I'm not a Space Fan, I'm a Space Exploration Enthusiast. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 10:54 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |