IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

24 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The Top of Vera Rubin Ridge Part 1, Site 66-67, sol 1812-1943, 11 Sep 2017-23 Jan 2018
PaulH51
post Nov 12 2017, 11:31 AM
Post #136


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1604
Joined: 30-January 13
From: Penang, Malaysia.
Member No.: 6853



Curiosity's weekend workspace L-MastCam, raw in MS ICE. Also a rather nice cropped ChemCam RMI target that features in the workspace. sadly no target names (yet)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ant103
post Nov 12 2017, 02:03 PM
Post #137


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1504
Joined: 12-February 06
From: Bergerac - FR
Member No.: 678



Hi everyone smile.gif

Found some motivation to do some work there. So, a little bunch of panoramic of my own smile.gif

Sol 1866 Mastcam34



Sol 1867 Navcam



Sol 1869 Navcam



Sol 1871 Navcam



And an extra postcard, from Sol 1866, by Mastcam100 :



Enjoy smile.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
climber
post Nov 12 2017, 05:13 PM
Post #138


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2815
Joined: 14-February 06
From: Very close to the Pyrénées Mountains (France)
Member No.: 682



C'est la cas!
Merci Damia


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jvandriel
post Nov 12 2017, 10:31 PM
Post #139


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2000
Joined: 22-April 05
From: Ridderkerk, Netherlands
Member No.: 353



The Navcam L view on Sol 1873.

Jan van Driel

Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PaulH51
post Nov 12 2017, 10:34 PM
Post #140


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1604
Joined: 30-January 13
From: Penang, Malaysia.
Member No.: 6853



Possible aborted drive on 1873, very small move, nothing obvious in the workspace that would warrant a short bump, but what do I know smile.gif
Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ant103
post Nov 13 2017, 12:25 AM
Post #141


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1504
Joined: 12-February 06
From: Bergerac - FR
Member No.: 678



Sol 1873 Navcam panoramic :



--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HSchirmer
post Nov 13 2017, 01:32 AM
Post #142


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: 24-July 15
Member No.: 7619



QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Nov 11 2017, 10:25 PM) *
QUOTE (HSchirmer)
"But, if you don't drill actual bedrock, how would you know it's the same geologic unit?"


All the ChemCam and APXS data, plus geological interpretation of HiRISE and rover images.
...
Phil


Good point.

But, eh, I guess I should have phrased my question differently....

What if Vera Ruben Ridge was influenced by groundwater from a deep fault

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2013/pdf/3106.pdf

would we be able to identify vertical displacement?

Lots of sedimentary basins on Earth have developed deep faults that create paths for groundwater flow-


Would there any way to determine whether the geological unit NORTH of the Vera Rubin Ridge has moved higher or lower
than the same geological unit SOUTH of Vera Rubin Ridge?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Nov 13 2017, 02:59 AM
Post #143


Martian Cartographer
****

Group: Members
Posts: 7795
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



So the first step would need to be detailed geological mapping using HiRISE images and the CRISM compositional data. Is there much evidence of faulting? Not sure, but it could be looked for. My impression is that there has not been a huge amount of faulting, so I would not be expecting an explanation based on large vertical motions. But I haven't done that work myself. Part of the reason for all the Mastcam imaging of the ridge along its northern side was to map the stratigraphy and structure. That can continue to the south as well. Wil there be evidence of vertical offsets? Or is it all stratigraphy, layer after layer without much faulting? I don't know, but that's how it could be tackled.

Phil


--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HSchirmer
post Nov 13 2017, 03:35 AM
Post #144


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 415
Joined: 24-July 15
Member No.: 7619



QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Nov 13 2017, 03:59 AM) *
So the first step would need to be detailed geological mapping using HiRISE images and the CRISM com positional data. Is there much evidence of faulting? Not sure, but it could be looked for. My impression is that there has not been a huge amount of faulting, so I would not be expecting an explanation based on large vertical motions. But I haven't done that work myself. Part of the reason for all the Mastcam imaging of the ridge along its northern side was to map the stratigraphy and structure. That can continue to the south as well. Will there be evidence of vertical offsets? Or is it all stratigraphy, layer after layer without much faulting? I don't know, but that's how it could be tackled.

Phil


Well, reason I'm asking, what may be dumb questions.

Given the amount of boxwork exposed not that far away- at Naukluft plateau, and at the base of Mount Sharp

and given estimates that boxwork features are likely due to groundwater,
and given estimates that cubic kilometers of groundwater are needed to create the boxwork features
https://thesis.library.caltech.edu/9838/1/S...chapters1-3.pdf

Then it might be interesting to look at layering, not just "It's sandstone" or "it's mudstone" but which lake layer are we talking about?

Idea being, that identification of specific lake layers, allows you to identify offset faults, and identify discontinuities.

Now, that's a HUGE challenge to put on somebody else, doing high resolution stratigraphapy takes huge amounts of data.

I'm just a bit curious whether the huge amounts of data being collected could eventually identify likely groundwater sources.-
"oh, there's a fault here, we see that the layers are offset by (1, 10, 100, 1000 meters) which suggests that there's a connection
to groundwater going down at least (1, 10, 100, 1000 meters)...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RoverDriver
post Nov 13 2017, 02:58 PM
Post #145


Member
***

Group: Admin
Posts: 974
Joined: 29-September 06
From: Pasadena, CA - USA
Member No.: 1200



QUOTE (PaulH51 @ Nov 12 2017, 02:34 PM) *
Possible aborted drive on 1873, very small move, nothing obvious in the workspace that would warrant a short bump, but what do I know smile.gif


The drive was intentionally short. Some targets were out of reach and on the previous drive we did not want to overshoot. While our cameras are well calibrated one has to account for some measurement errors!

Paolo


--------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions, ideas and information included here are my own,and should not be intended to represent opinion or policy of my employer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PaulH51
post Nov 13 2017, 08:00 PM
Post #146


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1604
Joined: 30-January 13
From: Penang, Malaysia.
Member No.: 6853



QUOTE (RoverDriver @ Nov 13 2017, 10:58 PM) *
The drive was intentionally short. Some targets were out of reach and on the previous drive we did not want to overshoot. While our cameras are well calibrated one has to account for some measurement errors!


Many thanks Paolo, also the weekend plan just got released and it mentioned the 'bump' smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charborob
post Nov 13 2017, 08:19 PM
Post #147


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 679
Joined: 21-September 07
From: Québec, Canada
Member No.: 3908



Sol 1873 Lmastcam:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RoverDriver
post Nov 13 2017, 11:08 PM
Post #148


Member
***

Group: Admin
Posts: 974
Joined: 29-September 06
From: Pasadena, CA - USA
Member No.: 1200



QUOTE (PaulH51 @ Nov 13 2017, 12:00 PM) *
Many thanks Paolo, also the weekend plan just got released and it mentioned the 'bump' smile.gif


One would think there's a uniform understanding of what constitutes as a "bump". I have seen a 20-30m drive referred to as a bump. I end up calling anything that is less than a meter a "burp" since that typically requires only one or two rover steps.

Paolo


--------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions, ideas and information included here are my own,and should not be intended to represent opinion or policy of my employer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gerald
post Nov 14 2017, 01:37 PM
Post #149


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2238
Joined: 7-December 12
Member No.: 6780



QUOTE (HSchirmer @ Nov 13 2017, 05:35 AM) *
...and given estimates that boxwork features are likely due to groundwater ...

Tafoni and honeycomb weathering as examples of salt weathering are other options, Given the sulfate-rich overlying layers, I'd consider some kind of salt weathering as another, if not more plausible, cause of the boxwork. This doesn't rule out additional groundwater activity, but it may be less evident, at least from a distance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
serpens
post Nov 14 2017, 09:15 PM
Post #150


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 782
Joined: 17-February 09
Member No.: 4605



The boxwork is on the horizon between the sulphate rich upper member of the Mount Sharp lower formation and the overlying aeolian deposits. There would almost certainly have been a hiatus following the final water influenced deposition so dessication fracturing must be a contender and given the lack of lithification of the overlying deposits any subsequent groundwater interaction must have occurred before the aeolian deposition.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

24 Pages V  « < 8 9 10 11 12 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd February 2019 - 02:53 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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 a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.