IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Miranda: Verona Rupes
machi
post Oct 17 2012, 06:42 AM
Post #16


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 779
Joined: 27-February 08
From: Heart of Europe
Member No.: 4057



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)
Attached Image
 


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DrShank
post Oct 18 2012, 02:56 PM
Post #17


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 207
Joined: 6-March 07
From: houston, texas
Member No.: 1828



QUOTE (machi @ Oct 17 2012, 01:42 AM) *
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)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
machi
post Oct 18 2012, 05:24 PM
Post #18


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 779
Joined: 27-February 08
From: Heart of Europe
Member No.: 4057



Thanks for your answers, Paul!


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MarcF
post Oct 4 2014, 10:16 AM
Post #19


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 202
Joined: 16-May 06
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Member No.: 773



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
marsbug
post Feb 23 2015, 06:50 PM
Post #20


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 324
Joined: 5-January 07
From: Manchester England
Member No.: 1563



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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
antipode
post Feb 25 2015, 07:33 AM
Post #21


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 217
Joined: 1-October 06
Member No.: 1206



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CAP-Team
post Mar 4 2015, 10:38 PM
Post #22


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 146
Joined: 23-August 06
From: Vriezenveen, Netherlands
Member No.: 1067



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Mar 5 2015, 12:02 AM
Post #23


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 4387
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (CAP-Team @ Mar 4 2015, 10:38 PM) *
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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Explorer1
post Mar 5 2015, 01:17 AM
Post #24


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1456
Joined: 13-February 10
From: Ontario
Member No.: 5221



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Superstring
post Aug 12 2015, 06:24 PM
Post #25


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 10-September 06
Member No.: 1129



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
j-zeitler
post Jan 12 2016, 10:13 AM
Post #26


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 7-January 16
Member No.: 7872



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 11th December 2017 - 07:05 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.