Miranda: Verona Rupes Options

[machi]

Some parts of Ariel really looks like active regions on Enceladus. Especially region named Leprechaun Vallis.
And of course, we don't know, how more than 50% of Ariel's surface looks even in moderate resolution (~1 km/pix).

BTW, It's any possibility to derive "absolute" heights (measured from the center) for Miranda from available data?
(This is in particular question for Paul, who is master in this field.)

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[DrShank]

Some parts of Ariel really looks like active regions on Enceladus. Especially region named Leprechaun Vallis.
And of course, we don't know, how more than 50% of Ariel's surface looks even in moderate resolution (~1 km/pix).

BTW, It's any possibility to derive "absolute" heights (measured from the center) for Miranda from available data?
(This is in particular question for Paul, who is master in this field.)

here are JPGs of my elevation maps of Ariel and Miranda. getting absolute heights from center would require integrating with the limb profiles but the geometric distortions of the VGR cameras were only partially solved. a true solution wont come from VGR. best we can get is really good relative measures, and a close approx to absolute hts.

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[machi]

Thanks for your answers, Paul!

[MarcF]

Global resurfacing of Uranus's moon Miranda by convection:

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2014/09/15/G36124.1

"Here we use numerical methods to show that sluggish-lid convection in Miranda's ice shell, powered by tidal heating, can simultaneously match the global distribution of coronae, the concentric deformation pattern, and the estimated heat flow during formation."

http://www.space.com/27334-uranus-frankens...141004_32849726

"It'd be really interesting to think about what could be on the other side of Miranda," Hammond said. "Our study predicts there'd be one additional corona on Miranda's other side, and I would love to live long enough for a mission to go back to Uranus and test that hypothesis."

We really need a Uranus mission !!
Best regards,
Marc.

[marsbug]

Sadly there still doesn't seem to be anything on the cards - as i understand it a trajectory that would allow for an orbital insertion would just be too slow, taking 15 yrs plus to get there. Don't quote me on that it's pulleds from the depths of my rather unreliable memory.

[antipode]

At this stage a carefully timed New Horizons style flyby would do me - is there a nice juicy Kuiper Belt object that could be lined up after a gravity assist? Not a rock either, one of the big ones!?

P

[CAP-Team]

I guess a mission to Uranus with an orbiter can't be done in New Horizons style.
You can't shoot a bullet at Uranus and slow it down when it gets there. I guess you could use a gravity assist of Saturn and then let the spacecraft slowly meet up with Uranus by gently approaching its orbit just like with most Mars orbiters and landers.

[tedstryk]

I guess a mission to Uranus with an orbiter can't be done in New Horizons style.
You can't shoot a bullet at Uranus and slow it down when it gets there. I guess you could use a gravity assist of Saturn and then let the spacecraft slowly meet up with Uranus by gently approaching its orbit just like with most Mars orbiters and landers.

There was a proposed New Horizons 2 that would have passed through at equinox, avoiding the bulls-eye problem. Oh well, maybe in 2049.

[Explorer1]

An atmosphere probe would work in terms of fast transit time, right? It wouldn't be doing much in terms of moon imaging, but it would be cheap and fast.
Maybe by the next equinox there will be some reliable aerocapture method, removing the ability for an impractically sized heatshield. Or just nuclear engines while we're still dreaming...

MOD: Guys, kinda veering off topic here. Pretty sure there's a dedicated Uranus orbiter thread for this.

[Superstring]

I had a related question, so I'll just ask it here -- do we know how deep Ariel's observed canyons get? I've seen estimates from 4 km to 10 km.

[j-zeitler]

There seems to be some inconsistency between Stooke's and Schenk's answers about the slope of Verona Rupes. Stooke says 25-30 deg, but t_oner's spherical projections of Schenk's heightmaps seems to suggest steeper slopes, let's say at least double that of Stooke's abstract. Schenk wrote some disclaimers above that the topology may not be 100% accurate.

I'm not really familiar with the methods you guys used to get these results but I would like to know how you reson around these two, seemingly conflicting, results. How certain can we be? Is a significance of +- 30 deg to be expected from the available data? Is it the spherical projection that's not accurate?

Edit: Did I read the abstract wrong by the way? Is it perhaps just the talus that is 25-30 deg?