Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Exploitcorporations Jun 7 2007, 07:07 AM

Yes, it's time to Rock the Inner Geek and proclaim your love for what you consider to be what's hot and what's...well, boring in terms of planetary excitement. Criteria may include dynamicism, color, scale, grandeur, crater-counting wrist torture, budgetary reality, and whatever else you might consider relevant. I'll open with my own picks, without giving any particular reasons. (Earth can count if you like)

In descending order...

Most Interesting:

1.) Io
2.) Titan
3.) Europa
4.) Enceladus
5.) Mars
6.) Triton
7.) Venus
8.) Pluto
9.) Dione
10. Iapetus


Least Interesting:

1.) Rhea
2.) Luna
3.) Mercury
4.) Oberon
5.) Mimas
6.) Tethys
7.) Callisto
8.) Ganymede
9.) Earth
10.) New Jersey

Posted by: volcanopele Jun 7 2007, 07:24 AM

hehe

Most Interesting:
1) Io
2) Titan
3) Triton
4) Enceladus
5) Venus
6) Earth
7) Miranda
8) Ganymede
9) Vesta
10) Pluto

Least Interesting:
1) Europa
2) Mars
3) Tethys
4) Rhea
5) Callisto
6) Mars
7) Mercury
8) Charon (in my mind, it looks exactly like Rhea)
9) The Moon
10) Pasiphae

(EDITL Replaced Hati with the Moon)

Posted by: Exploitcorporations Jun 7 2007, 07:49 AM

Bonus points for listing Mars twice, and equating Charon with Rhea is thought-provoking. Europa provokes deathmatch in the alley behind Pizza Hut of your choice. I'm slow and uncoordinated, so play nice.

Posted by: Cugel Jun 7 2007, 08:26 AM

My list, kind of search-for-life centered I think....

Most:

1.Exo planets
2.Mars
3.Enceladus
4.Titan
5.Europa
6.All other, except...

Least:

1.Low Earth Orbit
2 to 10.The Moon

Posted by: ngunn Jun 7 2007, 08:56 AM

Most interesting:

Earth
Titan
Mars
Venus
Sedna
Ganymede
Europa
Io
Triton
Iapetus

I refuse to name boring ones - there aren't any.

Posted by: Toma B Jun 7 2007, 09:03 AM

I can't believe that some of you put Moon in the "Most boring" part of your lists...

Here's my list. I will put no numbers because they are all most interesting in they own way.

Most Interesting:

Io
Jupiter
Mars
Europa
Titan
Moon (buy yourself a telescope)
Enceladus
Iapetus
All Asteroids/Comets (Ida,Gaspra,Eros,Itokawa,Tempel 1,Halle-Bopp...)
Sun

This list does not contain Ceres,Vesta,Lutetia or Pluto because they are not explored/seen by spacecrafts yet but they are damn interesting to me...

Most boring:
Sorry but I cannot think of any Solar System object that would easily fit here...

Posted by: djellison Jun 7 2007, 10:15 AM

I can't think of a single body in the solar system that I'd find boring.

Doug

Posted by: Bjorn Jonsson Jun 7 2007, 11:57 AM

I echo what Doug said (and no, I'm not forgetting about Rhea).

Interesting ones in very approximate/crude order by how interesting they seem:

Titan
Io
Jupiter
Europa
Saturn
Enceladus
Triton
Uranus (!)
Venus
Mars
Neptune
Vesta
Pluto
Miranda

I was unable to limit myself to only 10 bodies.

Posted by: akuo Jun 7 2007, 12:19 PM

As most interesting: Comets! Possibly the most active orbiting objects in the solar system. Especially Churyumov- Gerasimenko with the arrival of Rosetta. I cried after observing the many seperate components of the comet Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 and realising only afterwards that it would have been the target of the (failed) COUNTOUR mission.

Posted by: OWW Jun 7 2007, 12:41 PM

From most to least interesting:


Terra
Titan
Mars
Venus ( I'm sure, were there pretty MER-like surface panoramas, it would be very popular )
Triton
Io
Enceladus
Europa
Miranda
Ganymede
Luna

.......all known asteroids

Dione
Ariel
Titania
Callisto ( the fact that it's 'melting' saves it from total boredom )
Mercury
Iapetus ( it's Rhea's twin sister. Only with lousy make-up and a love handle around the waist )
Oberon
Umbriel
Tethys
Mimas ( that whole death-star routine doesn't fool me )
a frozen corpse in the morgue
Rhea

Posted by: tedstryk Jun 7 2007, 01:20 PM

I started with a list, but I realized that there were no major moons, planets, or kuiperoids I left off. I have dificulty with the "boring" thing. Rhea, for example, isn't all that exciting in and of itself, buut understanding why it evolved so much differently than Dione, with Tethys in the middle, is fascinating.

Posted by: Rob Pinnegar Jun 7 2007, 01:57 PM

Well, here we go.

Most interesting: Titan, Mars, Io, Europa, Triton, Saturn's rings, Iapetus, Enceladus, Miranda, Venus.
honorable mention: Hyperion, Ganymede, Ariel, Luna, Vesta (#11-15)

Least inspiring: Rhea, Tethys, Oberon, Umbriel, Uranus, Mercury, Saturn proper, Mimas, Ceres, Dione.

And making up a new category:

Most interesting *for its size*: Hyperion, with Enceladus and Miranda close behind (Phobos, too).

Least interesting *for its size*: Saturn. Something with 95 Earth masses can do better. Uranus is a close second, though.

Posted by: ugordan Jun 7 2007, 02:23 PM

You can't blame the planet for high altitude hazes obscuring interesting cloud dynamics. Blame the temperature!

For me, I can't really select favorite places in the solar system because each of the places is unique, but I can select a random few I find boring less interesting (mostly from an aspect of "wow, nothing interesting happened here for ages AND it's visually dull (i.e. no color variation whatsoever)"), in no particular order:

Moon, Mercury, Mimas, Rhea, Uranus (though the equinox did bring some life to it). Tethys and Dione.. well, they're also dull, but Dione has a dark stain and "wispy" terrain and Tethys has the orangish splat so from an imaging standpoint it pulls them out of the brink for me. There's also a few Uranian moons I find less than awe-inspiring but at least they're brownish in color!

Posted by: jaredGalen Jun 7 2007, 02:36 PM

Quote of the Day for ugordan!
"You can't blame the planet for high altitude hazes obscuring interesting cloud dynamics. Blame the temperature!"

Only at UMSF, classic

Posted by: ugordan Jun 7 2007, 02:51 PM

The ironic part is I included Uranus in the boring list and yet the same don't blame it statement could be said about that planet as well.

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Jun 7 2007, 03:07 PM

I find the denigration of Ceres as an object of interest to be puzzling. The fact that so little is known, yet before long we are about to find out so much is what is drawing me. Let's face it, the most interesting item in your house when you were a kid was an unwrapped Christmas present the day before Christmas. Those vague tantalizing Hubble images just add to the excitement -- as thought the present was wrapped with slightly transparent paper.

Right now Ceres is the MOST interesting object in the Solar System.

If I had to list an uninspiring object, I'd have to say it would be Comet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Kohoutek, but then most of you kids won't remember that big let-down.

Posted by: brellis Jun 7 2007, 04:05 PM

Most dull and uninteresting object in the solar system? Paris Hilton

Posted by: lyford Jun 7 2007, 05:06 PM

Well, the most boring was done by Apollo and the Lunakhod missions on the moon.... but I don't think that's what he meant.

I have to agree that the question "What is the most boring object in the solar system?" doesn't make sense to me, unless we stretch the definition of objects to include television about celebrity heiresses.

EDIT - DOH - brellis beat me to it.....

Posted by: Exploitcorporations Jun 7 2007, 05:47 PM

I clearly could have phrased the topic/question better. Absolutely true that each world is fascinating in it's own right, but I was aiming for personal tastes. ( I've spent a fairly disporportionate amount of time sorting and staring at pictures of Rhea ) An entirely seperate poll based on percentage of hard drive space occupied would paint a different picture too.

Posted by: dvandorn Jun 7 2007, 06:07 PM

Now, see, I'm in the camp that every solar system object is interesting. I think Luna is *tremendously* interesting -- all you guys and gals who think that samples returned from eight sites, and varying degrees of in-situ measurements from another six or seven, means we know everything we need to know about the place, are just plain misguided... Luna is more the norm than the exception in this system, and we can learn a LOT more from it that will apply to other bodies, such as Mercury and the asteroids.

There are very definite classifications of bodies, too, each of which holds its own fascination. Vacuum-shrouded rocky bodies; rocky bodies with atmospheres; small rocky bodies; small icy bodies; large gas bodies; and large ice and gas bodies. Each has its own general set of processes, each has its own general set of geological conditions. (Titan, as a small icy body with an atmosphere, is sort of in a class by itself...)

Even Rhea, with the interesting organization of its crater chains, holds some interest for me. I'm still convinced that a lot of Rhea's crater chains are endogenically controlled...

-the other Doug

Posted by: Juramike Jun 7 2007, 06:18 PM

My preferences based on hard drive storage percentages:

58% Titan
20% Europa/Ganymede/Callisto
17% Mars
3% Exoplanets
1% Enceladeus
1% Venus

-Mike

Posted by: volcanopele Jun 7 2007, 07:01 PM

LOL let me try that out. No percentages, just the raw numbers. I should also point out that this is on my laptop, not my work computer as that would skew Titan's numbers considerably...

Io: 5.39 GB
Ganymede: 15.4 MB
Titan: 1.30 GB
Enceladus: 717 MB
Rhea: 35.8 MB
Dione: 92.6 MB
Tethys: 64.8 MB
Saturn: 18.2 MB
Phoebe: 18.0 MB
Mimas: 11.8 MB
Iapetus: 62.1 MB
Triton: 14.0 MB

Posted by: ugordan Jun 7 2007, 07:18 PM

There's a slight hint of you being an Io fan right there.

Posted by: Exploitcorporations Jun 7 2007, 08:10 PM

(Expletive deleted), that really does skew the balance!!!

Mars 6.56gb
Terra 1.54gb
Europa 1.22gb
Titan 843mb
Luna 751mb
Venus 496mb
Io 352mb
Saturn 302mb
Mercury 291mb
Enceladus 234mb

Posted by: Pavel Jun 7 2007, 08:52 PM

Most Interesting:
1) Europa
2) Titan
3) Mars
4) Ganymede
5) Ceres
6) Venus
7) Io
8) Eris
9) Vesta
10) Sedna

I just cannot call anything boring. If it seems boring, it means we know too little about it to be intrigued.

Posted by: nprev Jun 7 2007, 11:26 PM

What's very telling is VP's space allocated to Mars, which would be not so much as a single bit...

My top ten, in descending order (I don't store many images, actually):

1. Titan
2. Mars
3. Io
4. Europa
5. Triton
6. Enceladus
7. Miranda
8. Hyperion
9. Luna
10. Puck

My bottom ten:

1. Rhea
2. Rhea
3. Rhea...(well, you get the idea...) I feel kind of sorry for any future colonists from there; Rhea is definitely the North Dakota of the Solar System.

All that said, I agree with ElkGroveDan; Dawn may (in fact, almost certainly will) reveal some real surprises from Ceres and Vesta...to say nothing of the Pluto system from NH. Many lists will be reshuffled!

Posted by: volcanopele Jun 8 2007, 12:54 AM

I do have the USGS labeled Europa map...

And Io is the Texas of the Solar System, and Mars and Europa can fight over the title of California of the Solar System. Titan is a combination of Minnesota and Arizona.

I have included Vesta, Pluto, and Charon on my lists. Though to be honest, I fear Vesta will be like a mini-Moon, only with a giant hole at the South Pole - heavily cratered with mare filling in some of the larger impact basins. My listing of Pluto and Charon are based on my own imaginings of those two worlds. I imagine Pluto as a cross between Triton and Dione. Imagine Dione's varying crater density, fracture systems, but with Triton's polar caps and volatile cycle. I imagine Charon as much like Rhea, with a large impact basin in the northern part of its leading hemisphere.

Posted by: nprev Jun 8 2007, 01:01 AM

You sure Io isn't the Hawaii of the Solar System? Mauna Loa, after all...

Posted by: Mongo Jun 8 2007, 01:22 AM

I am taking a similar post I made here several years ago, which was about my personal 'top 12' moons, and adding in planets and minor planets as appropriate. The top 10 in that combined list are as follows:

1: Titan
2: Earth
3: Europa
4: Venus
5: Io
6: Mars
7: Triton
8: Jupiter
9: Neptune
10: Luna

Bill

Posted by: edstrick Jun 8 2007, 07:10 AM

"...If I had to list an uninspiring object, I'd have to say it would be Comet Kohoutek...."
Hey!.. I SAW Khoutek... 6" home assembled Edmonds telescope.

Most boring object in the solar system...

At the moment: PARIS HILTON!

Posted by: mchan Jun 8 2007, 07:45 AM

Based on where I would like to see umsf craft go further explore --
1. Titan
2. Mars
3. Enceladus
4. Europa
5. Io
6. Vesta
7. Ceres
8. Triton
9. Pluto
10. Miranda

Boring: I have to agree with most of the folks here, Rhea.

Hey, Paris Hilton was the leadoff story on network news tonight. If you can't beat them, I'd say join them. Let's rename Opportunity as Paris Hilton! Ducks.

Posted by: Toma B Jun 8 2007, 07:52 AM

How can you say that for Ceres when it has not been imaged better than 30km/pix...
From what I can see in these HST images it is very intersting.
I can't wait for Dawn to do some up close inspection...

Posted by: djellison Jun 8 2007, 09:39 AM

That's the flaw in this debate. What is intrigue, what is interesting etc. The less we know about something (up to a point) , the more intriguing it becomes. The Columbia Hills were a point of intrigue when we landed, then they became interesting after we arrived.

Ceres is certainly full of intrigue right now - with the tiny HST images just saying "look - I could be all sorts of things - come see". Does that intrigue defy the realty of what may be an uniteresting world - or can any world not yet explored be considered uninteresting.

It's an interesting issue...intruigingly.

Doug

Posted by: ugordan Jun 8 2007, 11:35 AM

I have a feeling Ceres can't turn out as boring as Rhea even if it tried. Just look at color/albedo variations in that HST composite. Even if it turns out to be completely ancient geologically, at least visually it'll be interesting.

Posted by: ngunn Jun 8 2007, 12:31 PM

I wasn't thinking in terms of a debate, just a light-hearted exchange of highly subjective personal impressions. 'Interesting' to me can mean anything from very familiar but magnificently complex and beautiful (Earth's biosphere) to right-on-the-edge-of-the-observable and pregnant with intriguing possibilities (Sedna).

I think another factor that probably influenced my list was the realistic potential for more to be revealed within the next few decades. (How exactly does the machinery of terrestrial life operate? What is consciousness? Is there any sign of life on Mars? Does Titan posess an evolved ecosystem with broken symmetries - chirality? - and sub-systems maintained in stasis but out of equilibrium? Is Sedna the tip of a new iceberg as Pluto has turned out to be? Did it form around the Sun or was it captured from elsewhere? - all questions we can think about addressing now.)

One day we may be able to explore the deep interiors of the giant planets. They will be extremely interesting when that time approaches, but in the meantime . . .

Posted by: David Jun 8 2007, 12:54 PM

Rather than just list "most interesting" objects, it might be helpful to say why they are interesting.

I think a solar system object is more interesting if it has:

1. Presently flowing liquids on its surface (Titan)

2. Formerly flowing surface liquids (Mars)

3. Subsurface liquids (Europa, Mars?)

4. Meteorologically interesting atmosphere (Mars, Titan, Venus; Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune)

5. Present geological/cryological(?) activity (Io, Enceladus - Triton? Venus? Titan??)

6. Past (but not ancient in terms of the age of the Solar System) geological activity (Mars, Venus)

7. Older geological activity with interesting results (Iapetus etc.)

So I guess I find a world more interesting if it has something going on, some kind of movement or activity, now -- rains and rivers on Titan, volcanoes on Io, dust devils on Mars. I don't find floating rocks like Jupiter XLIX (or whatever they're up to now) to be particularly interesting. I am not particularly moved by asteroid classifications. The Kuiper Belt leaves me cold. (Joke!) I'm interested to see what NH finds at Pluto, but only on the supposition that it's something more than just a big, frozen iceball.

Posted by: Pavel Jun 8 2007, 03:33 PM

Perhaps instead of "most boring objects" we should be talking about "most overrated objects", i.e. those that receive too much attention compared to other objects. I nominate Enceladus for the first spot.

Posted by: lyford Jun 8 2007, 04:25 PM

Good distinction, Pavel! Which object is unduly hogging the public spotlight?

(Though I might quibble with your first choice for purely aesthetic reasons that will become clearer in a future thread....)

Posted by: J.J. Jun 8 2007, 04:26 PM

^
Agree with Pavel...I don't think anything in the Solar System is truly boring, but I do think many things are overrated. That said, that doesn't mean I think the overrated places don't have plenty of great science potential.

Faves:
1.) Earth (as someone with a lifelong interest in geology, I could never consider the Earth boring)
2.) Jupiter
3.) Europa
4.) Titan
5.) Venus
6.) Uranus
7.) Mercury
8.) Any long-period comet
9.) Any NEO
10.) Iapetus

Overrated:
1.) Mars
2.) Enceladus
3.) Io
4.) Phobos
5.) Any short-period comet
6.) Any KBO (except Pluto and Sedna)
7.) Triton
8.) The Moon
9.) Interplanetary dust
10.) Rhea

Picking the last two was a real bear...

The Sun, main-belt asteroids, Pluto, and Neptune fall in between the two extremes.

Posted by: volcanopele Jun 8 2007, 05:51 PM

Io...overrated.... oohhh, it's on!



Seriously, I am with you on Phobos. Can someone please tell me why the Soviets/Russians were/are so interested in Phobos?!?

Posted by: AlexBlackwell Jun 8 2007, 06:13 PM

Genuine scientific interest combined with a chance for a "first" at Mars (i.e., something the U.S. had not done nor shown much interest in pursuing).

Posted by: Exploitcorporations Jun 8 2007, 09:12 PM

This whole exchange gave me another bright idea. This is at a quarter scale and some of the images are placeholders. I'll get the full scale one up at a free hosting site later.

Posted by: Rakhir Jun 8 2007, 09:26 PM

Very nice !

Posted by: ngunn Jun 8 2007, 09:33 PM

I agree, that's beautiful, but please can we have captions or a key or something? I recognise quite a few of them but not all.

Posted by: OWW Jun 8 2007, 10:31 PM

My best guess:

Moon, Io, Europa, Tethys, Earth, Venus, Mars, Io, Saturn, Venus,
Io, Earth, Enceladus, Europa, Ganymede, Mars, Eros, Earth, Mars, Jupiter,
Jupiter, Itokawa, Neptune, Saturn, Earth, Mercury, Europa, Dione, Ganymede, Titan,
Venus, Sun, Dione, Moon, Rhea, Earth, Earth, Triton, Titan, Enceladus,
Mars, Tempel 1, Earth, Callisto, Io, Enceladus, Saturn, Phoebe, Mars, Hyperion,
Phobos, Earth, Miranda, Hyperion, Iapetus, Saturn, Mars, Earth, Moon, Earth,
Callisto, Ganymede, Titan, Mars, Earth, Earth, Io, Triton, Iapetus, Mars.

Posted by: AlexBlackwell Jun 8 2007, 10:32 PM

If you need captions, then you're not a true space cadet

Posted by: Exploitcorporations Jun 9 2007, 05:19 AM

Sorry about the captions, ngunn...OWW is correct on the identifications.I'm a real space cadet, but in a totally different way. The toughest one would probably be the second image on the top row of the Tohil Montes on Io. I love that image in particular, part of a five-frame mosaic from I32 in October 2001. I put it above Everest for the echo effect. I was actually working on a key sheet to go with the poster with the place names included (not like the GRS needs an introduction).

VP, I'll tag-team with JJ against you in the deathmatch just on principle. I did like the "California of the solar system" statement, though. It has the ring of truth. On second thought here...JJ, when has Rhea ever hogged the public spotlight?!? Here?

Posted by: OWW Jun 9 2007, 07:49 AM

No, I was not. Fourth row, Seventh picture. That's not Earth, It's Titan. And Bottom row, Sixth picture is Venus. Don't be mad, it was late.


Maybe 'Space Geek' is a better term.

Posted by: volcanopele Jun 9 2007, 08:28 AM

Come on, if people didn't know that was the peak of Tohil Mons just to the southeast of Radagast Patera, well, then I just can't help them. I did have some difficult telling on some images whether they were of Mars, or a desert on Earth...

Posted by: Thu Jun 9 2007, 12:36 PM

Here're my favourite places

1. Titan's seas (imagine the strange waves you'll see)
2. Underground ocean on Europa
3. The Face on Mars, the Inca site, the Dome, the Pyramid... the Cydonia region, Mars
4. The newly found cave on the flank of Arsia Mons, Mars (I wonder what's inside?)
5. Triton
6. Pluto&Charon
7. Iapetus
8. South Pole of the Moon
9. LEO
10. Earth

To me there're no boring places in the SS but I'd rather call them my least preferred places to visit

Posted by: J.J. Jun 9 2007, 04:37 PM

Thanks for the backup; I'll need it.

As for Rhea, I was really grasping at straws. "Better put *something* there! But what...ah, Rhea! One person in a thousand talks about it."

Posted by: ngunn Jun 9 2007, 08:29 PM

Absolutely! And I'm proud to be a mere part-timer. Not the right stuff at all, thank goodness.

Posted by: nprev Jun 10 2007, 04:42 AM

Ironically, Rhea's about the only body that I can think of that actually looks like what we expected a pre-Voyager outer planet icy moon to look like...what does this fact tell us about what we really know and understand?

Posted by: edstrick Jun 10 2007, 08:54 AM

"Ironically, Rhea's about the only body that I can think of that actually looks like what we expected a pre-Voyager outer planet icy moon to look like...what does this fact tell us about what we really know and understand?"

1.) Ice balls (ice and mud, really) can do interesting things if they have energy. Tidal energy was predicted for Io pre-Voyager, but estimates seem to repeatedly be off. The orbital dynamics involved are nonlinear and may be chaotic

2.) It seems likely that colder ice-balls contain "lubricant".. ammonia or something, that helps keep activity "up" as you go outward from Jupiter to Neptune.

3.) There is an imperfect tendency for outer solar system objects to be more active the more reflective they are.. Europa was identified as an ice-ball pre-voyager, based on spectra and albedo, and assumed to be BORING... but it's a self-renewing-surface ice-ball.

4.) Bigger ice balls may be less interesting.. they may hold heat better, but they're often further out and less likely to get tidal heating.. Callisto.. Rhea, Iapetus (fascinating despite no activity), Oberon.

Posted by: David Jun 10 2007, 04:19 PM

Rhea is the moon that looks more like any other moon (in the 1000+km range) than it does like itself... that is, if you wanted an image of a generic "solar system moon" that could not be quickly identified as being an individual moon (the way that an image of Io always looks like Io, or that Ganymede, or Triton, or Earth's Moon, have their own distinctive patterns and appearance) you would likely choose Rhea.

Posted by: JRehling Jun 10 2007, 04:45 PM

I can't get into the mindset of what's most interesting given what we NEED to know. My list is what is most interesting based on what we do, plus my speculation. My top 25 -- hash marks after #10.

Funny, because my recent thoughts on Ganymede were that it's an interesting world and all that has the problem of being about the tenth most interesting place in the solar system. After sizing everything up, that was about right.

Earth
Titan
Europa
Mars
Enceladus
Io
Venus
Triton
Jupiter
Sun
- - -
Ganymede
Saturn
Miranda
Pluto
Iapetus
Saturn's rings
Neptune
Dione
Mercury
Moon
Uranus
Tethys
Callisto
Vesta
Amalthea

Posted by: mchan Jun 11 2007, 07:56 AM

In many ways there are two Californias, Northern and Southern. Someone who disdains both is probably just jealous.

Posted by: Zvezdichko Jun 11 2007, 09:50 AM

Most interesting:

1. Mars
2. Europa
3. Titan
4. Earth's moon
5. Triton
6. Ceres
7. Pluto
8. Io
9. Phobos
10. Mercury

Least interesting

1. Venus ( quite boring, huh )
2. Uranus ( except the moon Miranda )

Posted by: JRehling Jun 11 2007, 08:00 PM

No way! It's just hard to explore. We might end up finding out that Venus is the second most volcanic body in the solar system, or third if it doesn't beat Earth. There are at least three mysteries regarding its atmosphere, it vomits its innards into a new surface every 700 million years, and we don't know why it has the funny rotation or how it turned out so different from Earth in the first place. And even just taking the geomorphology of today, it's got scads of wrinkly terrains, tessarae and compression, etc.

Venus is way above average! As far as we know so far, it clobbers Mercury.

Posted by: hendric Jun 12 2007, 05:57 AM

Venus is probably one of the easiest planets to explore:

1. No extreme radiation environment
2. Easy to reach
3. Has a nice, think, constant atmosphere. Don't need to worry about altitude, or depth/temp varying
4. Nearly earth gravity.
5. Close enough to the sun for solar power in orbit.
6. Close enough to the Earth for high data rates
7. No Great Galactic Ghoul gobbling up spacecraft.
8. ED (not L obviously) testing could be done in your back yard, more or less.
9. Lots of hours of daylight, something like 60 days?

(Anyone think up 1 more reason? Top Ten lists have to have, um, ten items.

I mean really, what's a little sulfuric acid and 700 K? Just rework your system to work with vacuum tubes and wind up springs and you're good to go.

Seriously though, there is lots of good stuff on Venus exploration at the VEXAG website, and in a blog entry Emily did last year at a VEXAG meeting:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/vexag/vexag.html
http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000560/

Their Reports and Conference Reports are pretty informative.

I agree with John, Venus is not boring, and has more interesting things to tell us than Mercury. I think there's lots of things worth taking a look at, with short duration landers, or a yo-yo-ing balloon.

Posted by: ngunn Jun 12 2007, 09:47 AM

I'd like to join the 'interesting Venus' lobby. The atmosphere alone would be enough. It's by far the thickest one in our Solar System that we can study all the way from top to bottom. Surface exploration is challenging, but I've no doubt that new materials will some day (soon?) be devised and assembled into a fleet of rovers that are happy in that environment and can conduct detailed geological surveys over extended periods of time. It is a truly wonderful place, and right on our doorstep.

Posted by: JRehling Jun 12 2007, 05:46 PM

The Venus quirk that blocks what would otherwise be the easiest means to explore it are the clouds. Venus would be a hell of a target for Earth-based telescopes, not to mention orbiter imagery, if it weren't for those darned clouds. As a result, if there are smoking plumes of volcanic origin, we can't see them. Whatever vis/IR spectroscopy could do in determining the mineralogy of landforms (a la TES and THEMIS at Mars) -- impossible from above the clouds. Visible-light sounding or star occultation studies of the lower atmosphere -- impossible. So even way up there (over here?) away from the heat, Venus is still tough.

By analogy to Titan, imagine losing all of the ISS/VIMS imagery, leaving you with RADAR and Huygens. That's roughly what we have at Venus. The only solution will be to have aerobots look at the surface beneath the clouds, and doing that on a global basis is inconceivable.

I guess eventually, we'll have some aerobots paint "stripes" of vis/IR mapping across long noodles of Venus's map, coloring in representative samples of the terrain types. Assuming such mapping has scientific and not just aesthetic purpose -- which the high temperature makes tough for IR.

Monitoring for smoking calderas is a tough problem if they erupt infrequently (think Mount St. Helens). Very tough problem. A one-time visit might be pointless, and monitoring a volcano from a permanent surface station with cameras aimed at the caldera would be a very pricey mission for possibly little return. I would suggest that if a seismographic network is ever put into place that landing VERY near a suspected active volcano or two would be a good idea.

Posted by: dvandorn Jun 12 2007, 05:59 PM

Venus is an interesting place, yes. It is somewhat more difficult to get to than some other places -- you have to lose a lot of your solar orbital velocity to get there from Earth, it's not as simple as it sounds. And while it has very interesting processes, it takes a lot of power and sophistication to see through the very dense atmosphere to study the surface. So, it's by far not the easiest place in the Solar System to explore.

And there is another factor -- it's a place that humans will likely never visit. The conditions are just too extreme. There is something of a disinclination for people to get interested in places they can never, ever visit. As much as I enjoy unmanned space exploration, it's easier to get people's imaginations fired up if you can get them to visualize standing there, themselves. Seeing it with their own eyes. If that can never realistically happen, it's more difficult for most people to get enthusiastic about it.

Oh, I'm assuming you had your tongue fully in your cheek, hendric, with your little list there. Most of the items you list make Venus *more* difficult to explore than other Solar System bodies, not less...

-the other Doug

Posted by: volcanopele Jun 12 2007, 06:06 PM

Why would you need to place the seismic network "VERY" close to a suspected active volcano. As a first shot, you send a network of seismometer spread widely across the surface of Venus. These should be capable of working for about a year or so. This shouldn't be terribly difficult as long as you KISS, and don't add any other gizmos to the lander except the seismometer. This network could be used to identify the regions that are experiencing the most geologic activity by looking for earthquake (or venusquake) swarms. On your next shot to Venus, you send an aerobot to investigate any prime targets identified by the seismic network.

Posted by: ngunn Jun 12 2007, 09:04 PM

Whilst you make a lot of good points, this is one you've made before (in connection with Titan) and I have once again to register my disagreement. I think this assumption is terribly limiting, and underestimates 'people'. There are really very few places we can currently envisage visiting in the flesh. Meanwhile the universe teems with exotic worlds that are at last coming into our field of view. They are already making headline news and this can only continue as the pace of revelation accelerates.

Even if one accepts your premise I don't think it applies particularly forcefully to Venus. It is entirely possible to imagine being on board a Venus orbiter, or even in an aeroplane or airship at high altitude where the pressure and temperature are rather similar to Earth surface values.

Posted by: Decepticon Jul 2 2007, 03:05 AM

Posted by: David Jul 2 2007, 04:26 AM

In a sense, there's some value in not being able to land on (or take off from) Venus; it provides a good excuse for doing an interplanetary roundtrip without the added complexity of a landing; which is sort of necessary for the proof-of-concept that human interplanetary travel is possible at all -- which I gather is still debatable.

Not having done the math, I might require a little explanation as to why it would be harder to get from Earth to Venus than it is to get back to Earth from Mars; at first thought the complexities of round-trip travel would seem to be comparable, except that Mars is farther away and takes longer to get into favorable configurations.

Posted by: volcanopele Jul 2 2007, 04:58 AM

Someone is getting a lump of coal in their stocking for Christmas...

Posted by: mchan Jul 2 2007, 08:39 AM

Note Decepticon did not state Most WHAT / Least WHAT. It could be Most Interesting / Least Interesting, or it could be Most Boring / Least Boring.

Posted by: Decepticon Jul 2 2007, 04:00 PM

Posted by: marsbug Jul 2 2007, 05:56 PM

In rough order of personal preference:

Earth
Titan
Venus
Mars
Europa
Sol
Io
Enceladus
Saturn (Rings and wierd looking atmospheric features at its poles)
Jupiter
Luna
Yes I know its eleven, if that bothers any one take out mars for the reasons below.

Plus honourable mentions for:
Ceres
Pluto (and moons)
Vesta
Chiron
Just because ther could be interesting and no ones gone to look yet!

Most overrated? Paradoxically I'm gonna have to say mars; yes its fascinating geologically and atmospherically, yes it may have habitatable spots, and I post under it, and, yes I put it in my top ten, but it sometimes gets so much attention I wonder if we haven't all got a bit too hung up over it.

Posted by: jasedm Nov 7 2007, 05:48 PM

I've been thinking about this from the point of view of (a) the interest of remote sensing-these objects from a spacecraft or ( actually visiting them, and have plumped for the latter.

Therefore top ten most interesting:

1. Earth - for the sex, beer, music, food, beauty, variety, and not having to wear a space suit whilst enjoying these hedonistic pursuits
2. Titan - possible volcanism, lightning, methane-rapids/rain/flash-floods/lakes and seas
3. Io - for the spectacle of seeing Pele or Loki let rip from a safe distance - also the view of Jupiter from the surface must be awesome.
4. Mars - for the views! Standing on the edge of Valles Marineris, or seeing the other huge volcanoes from the summit of olympus mons
5. Saturn - very dynamic atmosphere, with lightning and hugely powerful winds. The rings in close-up would be phenomenal
6. Europa - for the remote chance of life existing there, a form of possibly ongoing plate tectonics, and again Jupiter would fill the sky
5. Miranda - to run off the top of the 20km high Verona Rupes icecliffs and fall (very slowly) to the bottom. That crazy terrain
7. Triton - on-going spectacular volcanism, possible triton-quakes and again, the views of Neptune would be spectacular
8. Enceladus - ok it has cryo-volcanism, so it is intrinsically interesting but then again, it's not that much bigger than a golf ball.....
9. Venus - probably dead for a while, and a tad inhospitable but geologically a very interesting place to spend some time I reckon
10. Daphnis - probably the best view in the solar system (assuming the rotation is stable and you could stay attached)

Honourable mention: Luna - earth meteorite prospecting and other geology has some surprises in store I reckon

Top ten most boring:

1. Phoebe - a collection of impact craters held together by very ancient dust
2. Rhea - yes, I concur with most - the solar systems 21st largest object and second most dull
3. Mimas - were it not for Herschel.......
4. Proteus - ditto Phoebe above
5. Larissa - etc etc
6. Mercury - am hoping that Messenger will change my mind - possible comet ice at the poles though.....interesting
7. Deimos - great views but trumped by Phobos
8. Callisto - The largest solar system object to show no signs of anything other than impact gardening
9. Umbriel - Uranus' version of Callisto - two bright craters relieve the utter monotony
10. Hyperion - craters on craters, but dark stuff in the bottom of some, and how weird does this moon look?

Honourable mention: Titania - larger than Rhea....slightly more interesting

Posted by: Geographer Nov 11 2007, 04:59 PM

The moons of the outer planets fascinate me the most. Granted most of them are uninterested hunks of rock, but there is such diversity too! I guess Europa is the most intriguing with its hypothesized underground liquid water ocean kept war by tidal forces feeding steam vents.

Posted by: Phil Stooke Nov 11 2007, 06:46 PM

Just to correct a surprisingly common misconception...

The "20km high Verona Rupes icecliffs " are not vertical, they are talus slopes at the angle of repose. You would skid and bounce down them, not bungee.

The error arose when the images were first released, with the 'cliff' vertical in the image. But the whole image is tilted with respect to the horizontal.

Phil

Posted by: Stu Nov 11 2007, 07:01 PM

Most interesting object in the solar system: Mars - come on... volcanoes the size of France, a canyon longer than the Atlantic is wide, endless plains of ochre dust, lavendar dawn and dusk skies, life hiding under the rocks or just beneath the surface, destined to be Mankind's next home in space. I rest my case.

Most boring object in the solar system: Howard, off the Halifax adverts. No contest.

Posted by: tasp Nov 11 2007, 09:56 PM

Here's one for the probably most surprisingly least boring object:

Ariel


{In light of the intersting surprises on the Saturnian flock, I suspect Ariel to be a good candidate for most interesting Uranian satellite}

Posted by: Betelgeuze Nov 11 2007, 10:56 PM

My list:

1) Ceres
2) Europa
3) Titan
4) Enceladus
5) Luna
6) Mars
7) Eris
8) Pluto
9) Io
10) Vesta

Posted by: GregM Nov 12 2007, 02:45 AM

.

Posted by: jasedm Nov 12 2007, 09:22 AM

Ok, the solar-system's most inviting ski slope......

This does beg therefore, the question of the location of the solar-system's highest vertical (or near-vertical) cliff:

Valles Marineris? 5-7km
Herschel on Mimas?


At less than a mile, the Earth's highest cliff is not hard to beat.

Posted by: Jeff7 Nov 12 2007, 02:07 PM

Agreed. I was all hopeful about the Prometheus project allowing for powerful orbiters to be put around Jupiter, but of course that was canceled.

Europa's got a young, active surface, and I find those colored cracks especially interesting. (Wouldn't it be incredible if the coloration was from plant-life, killed off by sudden exposure to space?) Whatever the coloration is, it's something welling up from below the icy crust. An orbiter could give more data about Europa, and maybe it could find fresh cracks, where an lander could gain easy access to new material from below the surface. But that's likely a long time away. Too darn much radiation for most of our electronics, too.

Posted by: rogelio Nov 12 2007, 08:36 PM

My two main criteria for “most interesting/boring”: A balance of spectacular scenery (including active processes such as geyser, volcanoes and lakes) along with positive prospects for life.

Most interesting:

1. Mars – C’mon now, it’s not even close here - The most earthlike place; diverse topography with views to distant mountains dozens of km away (my prejudices as a “desert rat” who loves Death Valley and the Atacama Desert may be coloring my opinion here), lots of water near the surface, active weather with cool dust devils, and some prospects for present-day life or at least fossils of past life.

2. Europa – A huge ocean lying just a few km down makes life more likely here than anywhere else extra Terra. Downside: Fairly boring surface (and you’d be fried in minutes by radiation).

3. Titan – Exotic hydrocarbon rivers and oceans – What do these look like standing on their banks and shores? Downside: Small prospects for life.

4. Io – Most spectacular volcanic landscape in the solar system.

5. Enceladus and Triton (tie) – Geysers must be great fun to watch from a few km away.

We don’t know yet where Pluto, Ceres, etc. will fall out – Perhaps in the Enceladus/Triton class.

Most boring:

1. Luna – What a shame earth’s moon isn’t more interesting; had it been so, a much greater impetus would’ve been given to space exploration in the last century or so, and the century or so to follow. Upside: Possible ice at the poles.

2. Mercury – Ditto. Same upside as the moon.

3. Callisto – Jupiter’s Luna surrogate.

4. Rhea – Saturn’s Luna.

5. Venus – For all we know it might’ve been a garden at one time, but the global resurfacing event 100 MYBP and views from Soviet Venera landers show a grim planetscape that most resembles the Kau Desert of Hawai’i.

Posted by: Gladstoner Jan 15 2008, 09:52 AM

.

Posted by: tasp Jan 15 2008, 03:12 PM

{work with me here}

Rhea's 'boringness' is actually very interesting.

Really.


Same size as Iapetus, in the same part of the Solar System as Iapetus, and orbits the same planet as Iapetus.

Yet it is totally boring.


Why ??


It's actually almost as interesting as Iapetus.

Posted by: marsbug Jan 15 2008, 05:04 PM

I have at least one paper suggesting Rhea may be much more interesting on the inside!

Posted by: jasedm Jan 15 2008, 05:57 PM

Poor old Rhea (old being the operative word) - Nobody loves saturation cratering on an iceball.
Compared to the glamour moons orbiting either side, she does look like the one to avoid at the party....
I contend though, that in 60 years time or so, when the solar system out as far as Pluto holds no particular surprises for us, most of the asteroids, and a fair few moons will fall well short of Rhea in terms of interesting geology.
Every gas or ice giant seems to have a damp squib satellite - Callisto at Jupiter, Umbriel at Uranus and Proteus at Neptune - at least Rhea has some wispy streaks analogous to Dione's....
Here's hoping for a momentous discovery on Rhea following the extended mission very close pass (not holding my breath though.....)

Posted by: tasp Jan 15 2008, 07:13 PM

Well . . .

An 'active' Ariel might be what has stained our little darkling, Umbriel. Or perhaps it has 'self darkened' from some internal process.

Not to sure we should be considering Umbriel 'dull' yet.

A 'fresh' crater, Wunda, punching through an outer layer of 'crud' could be vera, vera intresting.

Posted by: jasedm Jan 15 2008, 08:25 PM

Agreed.
I think it almost certain that Ariel has been active in recent geologic epochs judging by the surface contortions, and relative lack of impact architecture. However, I can't envisage any process which could work against the gravitational gradient to darken Umbriel.
The evidence in the outer solar system seems to point to bright materials/features below the crusts of these bodies, and that any dark material seems to be exogenous in nature (c.f. Iapetus, Dione, Rhea Phoebe etc)
With Enceladus in mind, my feeling is that high albedo = recent, and low albedo = ancient as a general rule. Consequently, save a few projectiles punching through the crust, Umbriel is as old as the hills.
I agree wholeheartedly though, that no solar system body could be considered 'dull' per se.

Posted by: JRehling Jan 15 2008, 10:06 PM

I think Rhea's boringness is a psychological artifact. It has everything that Tethys and Dione do, just paler and less exaggerated. It comes down to the opinion of whether a taller cliff is more interesting than a shorter cliff made by the same forces.

Posted by: jasedm Jan 16 2008, 02:35 AM

Having mused on this for a while, and perused some pictures, I'm prepared to admit I may have been a bit hasty in dismissing Umbriel out of hand.
Wunda does indeed appear impact-related, but the crater nearer the pole (towards the centre of the image) has a central peak dusted with frost which surely is aeolian - some of the processes here are perhaps analogous to Iapetan geology. In any case, Umbriel becomes infinitely more interesting than your average 30km asteroidal rock.

Posted by: Superstring Aug 9 2015, 06:26 PM

Bumping this thread in light of recent exploration!

Here's my list -- I’m biased toward worlds that are active, have complex geology, and have striking visual features.

1. Earth (oceans, storms, active volcanism, mountain ranges, tectonics, biodiversity, possibly intelligent life)
2. Io (hundreds of active volcanoes across surface with sulfuric eruptions hundreds of km high, snow, volcanic terrain, mountains)
3. Titan (chemically complex atmosphere, methane precipitation, storms, seas, rivers, dunes)
4. Enceladus (small moon with water eruptions hundreds of km high, powers E-ring, biological potential)
5. Venus (scorching and high-pressure atmosphere, sulfuric acid virga, metallic "snowcapped" mountains, volcanic terrain)
6. Pluto (water mountains, nitrogen glaciers, albedo variation, binary dwarf planet)
7. Triton (solar-powered nitrogen plumes 8 km high, cryovolcanic terrain)
8. Europa (freshly cracked global surface, biological potential)
9. Mars (inert volcanoes, dust storms, carbon dioxide activity in polar cap)
10. Iapetus (yin-yang albedo variation, ancient equatorial ridge)

Honorable mentions: Miranda, Jupiter, Saturn, and 67P (on behalf of all comets)

Posted by: volcanopele Aug 10 2015, 08:17 PM

Great list, Superstring, I think you and I would get along just fine I think if you are going for geologically active worlds I would probably put Pluto aside for just a bit. How much its surface looks young as the result of endogenic activity and how much of it is due to exogenic processes like active glaciers remains to be seen. Cthulhu Regio certainly looks quite ancient (with more glacially eroded, cratered terrains to the north of Tombaugh Regio). Right now, I would put Triton above Pluto given its much younger surface (overall).

Posted by: Superstring Aug 10 2015, 11:50 PM

Yeah, that is true -- although I count active glaciers as, well, activity (even if it doesn't involve eruptions). Ranking Pluto higher was splitting hairs. Triton, in the part we've seen, has active geysers and a younger surface overall, but lacks the mountains and glacial flows. They're both fascinating worlds, for sure.

Posted by: HSchirmer Aug 11 2015, 05:13 PM

Most interesting, Methone, the Mork-from-Ork moon of Saturn.
It's 1-2 km diameter. weights basically nothing, and is completely unlike any other body in the solar system.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methone_%28moon%29

That image is in focus.
E.g., it's not a smooth oval image with a two-tone surface because
the picture is out of focus and the light/dark line is a jpeg artifact.
It IS a smooth oval with a two tone surface.

It has incredibly low mass for the volume it takes up.
How light? Rough-back-of-the-envelope calculations-
So light that it must be empty space. Snow-fluff, or hollow.
Roughly the same volume to weight ratio as an aircraft carrier.

Posted by: stevesliva Aug 12 2015, 10:58 PM

New press release today about accounting for Pluto's rate of Nitrogen loss, and how endogenic processes might be the source for it...
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/News-Center/News-Article.php?page=20150812
and this...
https://blogs.nasa.gov/pluto/2015/08/10/atmospheric-escape-and-flowing-n2-ice-glaciers-what-resupplies-plutos-nitrogen/

Posted by: Habukaz Aug 16 2015, 10:01 AM

Hmm, tough task. Of the objects that have been visited, these I find the most interesting:

1. Europa
2. Titan
3. Enceladus
4. Triton
5. Venus
6. Pluto
7. Mars
8. Ganymede
9. Charon
10. Io

I am not familiar enough with the science of gas and ice giants to rank Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. List may change radically as new information is learnt about the bodies in the solar system.


Most interesting objects that have not been visited yet:

1. Eris
2. Sedna
3. Haumea
4. Makemake
5. 2007OR10
6. <insert continuing list of the largest KBOs, typically sorted according to mass and diameter>

All objects are interesting when the solar system and the universe is viewed as a whole, since they are all pieces of the larger puzzle. But many pieces are almost identical, so in their own right, they might not be that interesting.

Posted by: Antdoghalo Feb 16 2022, 07:10 PM

Sorry to necropost but this is a fun topic

Most interesting:
1. Earth (obviously cause it has the most geologic processes going on at once)
2. Mars (Most extreme terrain aside from perhaps Miranda and possible geologic activity ongoing)
3. Titan (Basically if Earth was made of ice)
4. Venus (Lots of interesting terrain going on)
5. Europa (activity and a form of art)
6. Io (Lots of color and activity)
7. Enceladus (activity)
8. Triton (different types of geologic activity)
9. Miranda (What kind of geologic activity happened here?)
10. Ganymede (Looks like a jigsaw puzzle)

Most boring objects:
1. Umbriel (for an object its size, it sure lacks any geologic activity, the whole thing looks like the lunar highlands)
2. Rhea (Dione's less interesting sibling)
3. Mimas (cool you got a crater but geologically boring)
4. Tethys (see 3)
5. Oberon (not much happened here, a couple cool rayed craters is it)
6. Callisto (cool colors, just craters though)
7. Vesta (aside from a couple possible long dead volcanoes, its super dead)
8. Mercury (no color)
9. Moon (no color, maria bump it down from 8)
10-some millions. almost all asteroids and satellites smaller than Vesta and Pallas aside from ringed Centaurs, just a featureless clump of boulders shaped into potatoes that beg to be mapped

Stuff we gotta visit:
1. Sedna (coldest thing out there!)
2. Psyche (in progress, iron asteroid!)
3. Chiron (those rings and any possible moons!)
4. 2005 HC4 (this thing probably turns to soft plastic at perihelion)
5. Whatever interstellar comet enters the solar system next
6. Apophis after 2029 Earth encounter (that things gotta have rocks jostled around from tidal interactions)
7. Haumea (lotta bodies to explore at once!)
8. Northern hemisphere of Uranus moons
9. Northern hemisphere of Triton
10. Amalthea when Juno does an end of mission plunge (this thing is redder than Mars!)

Posted by: Phil Stooke Feb 23 2022, 11:00 PM

Hi Antdoghalo.

Most of the worlds you say are boring are not really so boring after all. In some cases like Umbriel it's because our images are very poor compared with many other worlds. Better images would probably make it look a lot more interesting, especially the crater with the very bright floor.

In other cases you have just not seen the most interesting stuff. Take Mimas as an example. Here are three links that make it look a lot more interesting:

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/12643/mimas-showing-false-colors-1/

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/14927/color-near-herschel-crater-annotated/

https://www.planetary.org/space-images/closeup-on-herschel

In the last one., be sure to click into the high resolution version. Look at the strange albedo markings on the crater wall.

There's a lot more going on with Mimas than a quick glance suggests. There are linear grooves which hint at a bit of tectonic activity, and this brand new paper:

Rhoden, A.R. and Walker, M.E., 2022. The case for an ocean-bearing Mimas from tidal heating analysis. Icarus, p.114872.

suggests the possibility of an internal ocean, rather unexpectedly.



So I am going to counter you by suggesting (paraphrasing Larry Soderblom) - there's no such thing as a boring object in the solar system.

Phil