Victoria Crater Vs Big Crater, Visibility Options

[djellison]

I'm not really asking a question really - just posing an issue




Mars Pathfinder was about 2.2km from 'Big Crater' which was about 1.5km wide.

Now - Victoria is only half that size - but it says something about local topography that we cant see it from where we are now - about 3-4km from it.

Doug

[chris]

I'm not really asking a question really - just posing an issue

Now - Victoria is only half that size - but it says something about local topography that we cant see it from where we are now - about 3-4km from it.

Doug

I remember seeing a coloured MOLA map somewhere here (can't find it) that shows that Victoria is a bit lower than where we are now - so its just under the horizon.

Chris

[djellison]

I think it may be that some of the etched terrain is actually quite tall - a few metres perhaps - and that will seriously effect visibility toward the crater. I think victoria will suddenly just appear - and we'll all go "OMFG" - but it'll be after Albert - sorry - Erebus, that we see it.

Doug

[wyogold]

here is the elevation link posted by alen.

It looks like there is indeed a rise infront of victoria after albert..or whatever its called now.

http://s05.imagehost.org/view.php?image=/0899/oppy_topo.jpg

scott

[chris]

here is the elevation link posted by alen.

It looks like there is indeed a rise infront of victoria after albert..or whatever its called now.

http://s05.imagehost.org/view.php?image=/0899/oppy_topo.jpg

scott

That's the one I meant. Well found.

Chris

[cIclops]

much more detail, including the previous image and MOLA profiles here (18MB) in the Mars Express OMEGA and Opportunity Coordination report.

[Stephen]

I think it may be that some of the etched terrain is actually quite tall - a few metres perhaps - and that will seriously effect visibility toward the crater.

On the other hand, I can't help wondering if the etched terrain is not going to turn out to be a more extensive version of Vostok: ie areas of white bedrock eroded more or less flat (or flattish) interspersed with low dunes of dark dust and sand.

[djellison]

Vostok always looked flat to me - MOC imagery showed no elevation.

However - there is almost certainly ( and infact, we can almost see in Erebus from where we are now ) quite a lot of elevation there.

Doug

[wyogold]

Here is an image from the nasa report with the elevation data. I've added a few things. It seems to put everything into perspective. If sombody could take the colorized elevation chart and overlay it across the route map it might help too.
I'll do it if I get time but it won't be for a few days.

scott

[Tman]

Thanks for the deliverance from the PDF format.

We have only accomplished the half way to Victoria, therefore my heavy guess is that we are still on the flat plane and only now Oppy have to overbear this (circa) 40 metres, ...hui 40 metres

I'm right with 40?

[djellison]

I make the main flat part -1385m, the etched terrain -1380m, and the rim of Vic -1375m

A total of 5m altitude change at the etched terrain - and a further 5 at Victorias rim.

Victoria itself would appear to be -1410 at its deepest - making it, from rim to bottom - about 35m deep - excavating to a depth some 25m below our current altitude.

Doug

[Tman]

Right, 5m steps. I don't know how/why I got 20er steps.

clearly flater than it appears in this profile

[deglr6328]

Sadly, I think Victoria crater will be somewhat disappointing.... not asthetically (it will doubtless be beautiful perched on the rim), but scientifically. Endurance crater was ~20 m deep and Victoria crater appears to be ~20-30 m deep, but we've climbed about 10 m or so since leaving endurance, so we'll be seeing the exact same stratigraphy as we saw in endurance! Oh well, maybe "etched terrain" will reveal some surprises.

[john_s]

  Sadly, I think Victoria crater will be somewhat disappointing.... not asthetically (it will doubtless be beautiful perched on the rim), but scientifically. Endurance crater was ~20 m deep  and Victoria crater appears to be ~20-30 m deep, but we've climbed about 10 m or so since leaving endurance, so we'll be seeing the exact same stratigraphy as we saw in endurance! Oh well, maybe "etched terrain" will reveal some surprises. 

I think it's possible that Victoria is deeper than it appears in this profile- it's near the resolution limit of MOLA (it doesn't show up very clearly on the MOLA map), so MOLA may not show its full depth. Let's hope so!

[ElkGroveDan]

  Sadly, I think Victoria crater will be somewhat disappointing.... not asthetically (it will doubtless be beautiful perched on the rim), but scientifically. Endurance crater was ~20 m deep  and Victoria crater appears to be ~20-30 m deep, but we've climbed about 10 m or so since leaving endurance, so we'll be seeing the exact same stratigraphy as we saw in endurance! Oh well, maybe "etched terrain" will reveal some surprises. 

I don't believe that is a safe assumption. Rarely is depositional bedding so uniform as to preclude the need for studies over a wide area. Endurance told a wonderful stratigraphic story, but by no means was it a complete story.

Travel through the American Southwest and you will discover the same layers as you find in the Grand Canyon hundreds of miles away, but in varying thicknesses and at different elevations. Where there are disconformoties in one place, a geologic record exists to fill those gaps in other places.

Victoria is far enough away from Endurance to provide a necessary glimpse into a broader sample of the depositional history of the region. Moreover, since it is larger (did someone say five times?) then it will provide more opportunities for more nice clean exposed layers like Burns Cliff at varyious depths. At five times the diameter, Victoria will offer 20-30 times the circumference, and hence miles of new geologic observing that wasn't available at Endurance. You can bet the geologists won't be planning any summer vacations this year.