Quote from: Dalhousie on 06/06/2014 07:18 amAs an example of what can be learned from samples decades after collection we had this story today coming from Apollo data http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27688511 . While there is a slight difference (ten orders of magnitiude between the mas of the Apollo sampldes and the likely mass of SCIM, none the less it does illustrate the value of returned material.There's another aspect to this as well, which is that we also have high fidelity remote observations of the Moon. So you can analyze the sample and also compare it to what LRO is showing for the sample area, and what LRO shows for other parts of the Moon. It might allow you to say things like "the Apollo 15 samples are similar to the following areas we have observed on the Moon."I was at LPSC a few months ago and was struck by the number of presentations based upon using Apollo samples with modern instruments.As for the difference in mass amounts, a scientist explained to me that Stardust has demonstrated that it is possible to do significant science with tiny samples. Still, I think that more is better, because you can share it more, and you don't have to worry about destroying the samples if you have a lot of them.
As an example of what can be learned from samples decades after collection we had this story today coming from Apollo data http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27688511 . While there is a slight difference (ten orders of magnitiude between the mas of the Apollo sampldes and the likely mass of SCIM, none the less it does illustrate the value of returned material.
More links about the mission:http://boldlygo.org/mars-mission.phphttp://boldlygo.org/mars-science.phphttp://boldlygo.org/mars-aeropass.php
Interesting comment about LPSC. Biblometric work by Ian Crawford suggests that the rate of publication on Apollo science is actually increasing. I suspect this is due to two factors; new methods and new researchers, and and the volume of sample allowing new studies.
I suspect it is also due to Constellation reviving lunar science. Constellation funded LRO, and when you have an active mission it also pumps money into the science. So lunar science has experienced a bit of a renaissance in the past decade and we're seeing the results.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 06/06/2014 10:47 pmInteresting comment about LPSC. Biblometric work by Ian Crawford suggests that the rate of publication on Apollo science is actually increasing. I suspect this is due to two factors; new methods and new researchers, and and the volume of sample allowing new studies. I suspect it is also due to Constellation reviving lunar science. Constellation funded LRO, and when you have an active mission it also pumps money into the science. So lunar science has experienced a bit of a renaissance in the past decade and we're seeing the results.
Biblometric work by Ian Crawford suggests that the rate of publication on Apollo science is actually increasing. I suspect this is due to two factors; new methods and new researchers, and and the volume of sample allowing new studies. The much smaller Luna sample suite is now largely exhausted, as are some key martian meteorites like ALH84001.
Well, it might happen that the best money for science could be more analysis of old datasets than new missions.
Possibly, but it is a general and long term trend, so unlikely to be attributable to a single cause.
I suspect that if you looked at the trend for NASA grants for lunar science, you'd see a substantial jump around 2006 or so. Yeah, instruments have been getting better since forever, but there was a long gap in U.S. lunar science missions (between Apollo and Clementine, Clementine and Prospector, and Prospector and LRO). Constellation then primed the pump and there's been a lot more lunar science since then. And it's the missions that drive the grants and data crunching.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 06/06/2014 11:40 pmPossibly, but it is a general and long term trend, so unlikely to be attributable to a single cause.I suspect that if you looked at the trend for NASA grants for lunar science, you'd see a substantial jump around 2006 or so. Yeah, instruments have been getting better since forever, but there was a long gap in U.S. lunar science missions (between Apollo and Clementine, Clementine and Prospector, and Prospector and LRO). Constellation then primed the pump and there's been a lot more lunar science since then. And it's the missions that drive the grants and data crunching.
Well, it might happen that the best money for science could be more analysis of old datasets than new missions. Nice subject to work on: optimum investment in missions vs data analysis.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 06/06/2014 10:47 pmBiblometric work by Ian Crawford suggests that the rate of publication on Apollo science is actually increasing. I suspect this is due to two factors; new methods and new researchers, and and the volume of sample allowing new studies. The much smaller Luna sample suite is now largely exhausted, as are some key martian meteorites like ALH84001.Yes, really interesting. Never heard about that. I guess you got it from Crawford, I. A. 2012, Fig. 7. where I noted that:(1) the increase is quite sensitive: from the plot, ~10 papers/year among 2001 and 2005, ~20 among 2006 and 2010.(2) it started suddenly in 2005 and remained almost constant since then. I tried to quickly replicate these results by searching "Apollo & Moon" in titles in ADS. I got 55 papers from 2001 to 2005, and 117 papers from 2006 to 2010, a 1:2 ratio in good agreement with the ratio shown by the certainly more sophisticated work by Crawford. I then scrolled through the paper list found on ADS to find any evident difference between the 2 list of papers, but found nothing really obvious.So, I guessed that something happened in the last decade that triggered this renowned interest in the scientific community about the Moon. One thing I noticed is that since 2000 to 2005 there has been only one mission to the Moon: ESA SMART-1 in 2003, while in the period 2005-2010 there have been 7 missions (counting impactors and orbiters as one). My hypothesis is that the huge increase in the number of missions and availability of new dataset may have started a lot of interest in the Moon, Postdoc positions, etc. People that got the knowledge, the interest and the need to look into older data from the Apollo missions.
Quote from: baldusi on 06/07/2014 12:37 amWell, it might happen that the best money for science could be more analysis of old datasets than new missions. Nice subject to work on: optimum investment in missions vs data analysis.Except that if you don't invest in the mission in the first place you have no data to analyse. Plus of course any missions only generate limited data, from which only a finite amount of information can be extracted. If you look at Crawford's paper, it would appear that publications taper off after a while for all missions. Apollo is unique because of the nearly 400 kg of sample collected, which is an enormous source of new data. It is very hard to quantify the data contained in a sample, let alone the number of publications that result.I know you suggestions is slightly tongue in cheek (at least I hope so), but there are politicians in many stripes in many nations who constantly question to acquisition of new data because "we already know enough, we just have to be smarter about how we use what we know"....
It was more an academic question on what new analysis can be done with old data. Computing power has increased, signal processing has improved. I was thinking of things like the time when an exoplanet was discovered on an old Hubble image, by applying a starlight filtering technique that was developed much later.It also raises the issue on the importance of raw sensor data, since that can be processed with new techniques later on.And last, doing a decadal survey on data archives and potential new analysis, can't be that expensive. Think of dedicating 0.5% of SMD budget each 10 years to look for potential new analysis applications.
Nice to see this is being followed up. Can you see what proportion of new work is linked to new missions, and which is simply looking at the samples?
According to Red Rover, SCIM was nearly selected as the first Mars Scout mission.I do wonder what the new incarnation would add over the numerous meteorites we have from Mars. Stardust returned samples that were otherwise unavailable on Earth. Mars sample return will return carefully selected and well documented samples. What will a small bulk sample of dust tell us? I'm not throwing bricks; I really don't know based on the information on the website.Based on SCIM's near selection for a Scout mission, the new mission should fit within a Discovery budget. I hope that the team proposes it for this Discovery competition. The review team can evaluate the proposal and science against other proposals. This may be the best idea out there.
I do wonder what the new incarnation would add over the numerous meteorites we have from Mars. Stardust returned samples that were otherwise unavailable on Earth. Mars sample return will return carefully selected and well documented samples. What will a small bulk sample of dust tell us?