Author Topic: Curiosity 2,000th Martian day of operation; science team eyes roverís future  (Read 3449 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/curiosity-2000th-martian-day-eyes-rovers-future/

Epic 4,000 word feature by Chris Gebhardt interviewing MSL Project Scientist Ashwin R. Vasavada at NASA JPL.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Hick2

  • Member
  • Posts: 15
  • Isle of Man
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 822
Another fantastic article ChrisG!

It'll certainly be interesting to see how Curiosity changes as those RTGs begin to decline.

Offline Peter NASA

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1202
  • SOMD
  • Liked: 4605
  • Likes Given: 94
Amazing read. Well done Chris G.

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1456
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 551
  • Likes Given: 537
Once again proving when something unexpected happens a scientist says "Wow" when others would say "Oops".

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 677
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 228
  • Likes Given: 47
Very nice article. I was not aware that Curiosity could directly date rocks. This begets a question, how do Curiosity directly measured dates compare with orbitally derived cratering dates? I hope some planetary scientist finds time off LPSC to answer

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8436
  • Highway Whatever
  • Liked: 57163
  • Likes Given: 1103
Opportunity says "Welcome to the club".
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2623
  • Liked: 652
  • Likes Given: 872
Very nice article. I was not aware that Curiosity could directly date rocks. This begets a question, how do Curiosity directly measured dates compare with orbitally derived cratering dates? I hope some planetary scientist finds time off LPSC to answer

Hard to compare for many reasons. 

Crater count ages are done on large areas whereas radiometric dating dates individual rock units.

Crater count ages are based on many assumptions including impact and denudation rates that are very hard to test at present.  Radiometric dating also depends on assumptions but these are for the most part testable

Crater count ages are hard to calibrate with radiometric methods unless there is a widespread single dateable impact that can be used as a base line.  For example on the Moon this would be the imbrium event.  For Mars we might use various volcanic flows.

It will be easier to radiometrically calibrate date the alternative stratigraphic nomenclature based on mineralogy (Phyllocian, Theiikian, Siderikian etc.).
"There is nobody who is a bigger fan of sending robots to Mars than me... But I believe firmly that the best, the most comprehensive, the most successful exploration will be done by humans" Steve Squyres

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1