The 1027 drive direction pancams are pointed due east, so I don't think we are going to approach the end of Bottomless bay but head straight around to the far side to image the cliffs on the SW side. As far as I know the next cape (B1) has no name other than "Bottomless Bay NE"

James

er, where did you see the 1027 drive direction pancams?

The pancams posted on exploratorium Dec 14 were the drive direction pancams from sol 1021 ( Dec 8 ) . I think they were sent after the 1027 drive because they were assigned a high priority before the Odyssey "glitch".

I didn't, I just looked up the pointing data. The images aren't downlinked yet.

James

Amazing! I never would have guessed. It appears that you are getting quite good at this. It is beginning to appear that this will be the current drill. Zip from cape to cape, imaging the next one and the one being left behind. It sounds eerily like what they said they would do. This will be great fun, for as long as it lasts.

Yep. That's what happened. Preliminary map here.

My version for sol 1028.

Click to view attachment

Is Sofi Crater in this image ?

Sofi Crater ?

Thanks.

MahFL : Yes, of course !:)
" - You speak about Sofi crater?
- Yes.
- Mmm, perfect... What else!"

Right in the middle

The little crater with red letters at 5 o-clock.

The little crater with red letters at 5 o-clock.

LOL!

"Sofi" crater... in that profound view
Is it aptly named because of the slightly arabesque bearded face looking so very happy to see Oppy stolling by?
Click to view attachment
Or maybe Tesheiner's Santa (er, Papa Noel) has ventured from the Polar cap (Ha! i finally found whats under that cap!)?

Seems that Jim Bell's article in the latest Planetary Report was referring to it as "Bright" crater. (well i dont have it in front of me at the moment, so im not positive) Is "Sofi" just the UMSF clubhouse name or taken from some official source?

Yup, Sofi Carter is a purely UMSF name, The JPL folks called it "Bright Crater" on the map where they called some of the far capes Cape1, Cape2, etc.

Imagine if Opportunity had bounced into Sofi crater on the landing and MOC never found it because it was outside the landing ellipse. The after exit pictures would be quite a shock! (Assuming the exit is not where the wall drops into Victoria on the other side and Opportunity takes a long slide!)

Actually, MOC would have found it. The crater diameter would be known and would limit the candidate craters to examine.

Good catch!
I posted that same picture when decided to use that "face". It might be somewhere in one of the old threads.

Oh thank you! That has been driving me nuts for ages. All I could ever see was a gargoyle in bondage.

Brian

How did Opportunity drive through these little craters without tripping a tilt?

Looks to me like she hovered over them.

Speaking of Sofi / Bright Crater, I think it would be *very* appropriate to honor Sofi Collis, the young girl who gave names for the two rovers, by naming a crater on Mars after her which one of the rovers may actually visit. The UMSF-named Sofi crater seems a great candidate for that, and it would be wonderful if JPL could make it official the name is adopted by the MER team.

Just a thought.


"I used to live in an orphanage. It was dark and cold and lonely. At night I looked up at the sparkly sky.
I felt better. I think I could fly there. In America I can make all my dreams come true.
Thank you for the spirit and the opportunity,"
-- Sofi Collis
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/mer_names_030608.html

Oh, wow. Thanks for that, Pando. I second the motion.

I third it.

I think the track marks here show a good example how the stability of its 6 wheels enables the rover to go over depressions without wobbling, even if a wheel or 2 are not touching the ground.

I also endorse the great idea of getting Sofi designated as an official Martian place name.

Kenny

None of these names are really official, so I think you mean "adopted by the MER team". That would be nice, but it's not JPL who would do it, it would be the MER team itself.

I think it would be better to find a feature that doesn't yet have a name within the team. I would suggest choosing a feature at the Gusev site, maybe on the way out of Home Plate towards the next target, to be the new Sofi.

Phil

Route map updated after driving on sol 1030.

Click to view attachment

Good point Phil, and I edited my post above to reflect that. I still think the name "Bright Crater" is rather generic and can be renamed once we get closer to it, same as with Beagle.

I agree that naming *any* feature would be great, just that this crater seems to be a pretty good candidate already. I think it would be a bit lame to name some rock after her, as a crater is a bit more prominent feature.

(sorry for the off-topic derail)...

Latest map version (sol 1032).

Click to view attachment

Yeah, the image serendipitously flashed on my MMB screen one day as i did an update and it immediately stuck out, thats it! a kidnapped elderly Taliban elf or something... But not to worry, if you adjust some contrast you can see that although looking rather gaunt, he is cracking a small but contented grin.
Click to view attachment

Mmm, guess I may use this contrast-enhanced version after xmas holidays are finished.

Latest map version (sol 1034).

Click to view attachment

Here's a modification of Tesheiner's excellent map with the unofficial labels for the capes added.
Click to view attachment
I'm also attaching a transparent version of the labels, which might be useful on future maps.
Click to view attachment
Thanks again to Tesheiner for keeping track of where we are.

Steve

Here is the route map, updated to sol 1039 and including the additional layer provided by Steve for the unofficial cape names.

Click to view attachment

Updated route map (sol 1041).

Click to view attachment

You will find two new ground features, "Rio de Janeiro" and "Santa Catarina", places in Brazil where Magalhaes stopped during the circumnavigation.

Edited: "Maio" and "Fogo" added too.

Has anyone noticed the relative numbers of small craters on the exterior of Victoria vs the interior?

Broadly, there's approaching zilch inside (OK, a couple). Now, the drifts in the centre are perhaps a special case, but the areas below the cliffs are almost 'normal' ground - and still there's only a couple of little fellas.

Anyone got any thoughts on the way that the cratering rates apply to the ages of the surfaces? I suspect that on the almost drift-free annulus we're seeing something like the true Meridiani crater distribution.


Bob Shaw

On a quick scan I count over 20 craters above 3m diameter inside Victoria, some very subdued and distorted. The drifting dunes are indeed a special case as you say Bob, but the slopes leading from the dune fringe to the base of the cliffs are surely a different "special case". These are talus slopes in motion, in a slow downward creep. The rate of creep (and therefore obliteration of features like little craters) will be greater with increased gradient, therefore greatest at the top of the slope near the cliff base. We know from the boulder track discussions that there is downward motion of erosional products. So I'm not surprised by seeing few extant craters anywhere inside Victoria, although I don't know the maths of cratering rates over time, versus obliteration.

Happy new year, when it comes
Kenny

Tesheiner, if you're including stops as Islas Baleares maybe you could do the same with Maio and Fogo?...

Done. Check it again here.

Beautiful!
It was the perfect way of knowing where they were exactly...

Fine tuning the various cratering rates seems to be all the rage lately. It's wonderful how the rover's and HiRise's imagery are adding to the precision of that measurement.

How can you fine tune without numerical ages?

Jon:

It's all relative, but hopefully some baselines can be established. Geology is like that, though, layers of assumption piled on top of each other to make a consistent story (or stories).

Which brings me back to the point I was trying to make earlier regarding the cratering rates both within and without Victoria, and indeed on the dust seas around the crater. I have a feeling that there's a story there - perhaps a numerical test of the micro-crater hypotheses, or some means to date the surface of the plains themselves. It's nagging at me in that way that an idea sometimes does, bubbling up to the muddy surface of my mind...


Bob Shaw

Oh, there is definitely a story out there in terms of cratering rates and how the current erosion rates work on erasing cratering remnants. And I'm sure that somewhere someone is working on it.

However, while we are at a point where we can do *comparative* dating of various geological strata, we just are not and cannot be in a position to do *absolute* dating until and unless we have samples in hand (or we figure out how to do rock dating remotely, on in-situ landers).

In fact, for the larger-scale landforms, we already have a comparative dating system (Noachian, Amazonian, etc.). But the actual date ranges in which these land-forming events took place on Mars is still nothing more than energetic arm-waving, at this point. And, again, this will continue to be the case until we can pin down absolute ages in some fashion.

-the other Doug

Yes, the radio-isotopes will be needed, but it seems to me that there is also a need for some unequivocal way to distinguish between primary and secondary craters. Some of the 'fundamentalist' "crater counters" want to dismiss the latter as few in number (viz. 10% or less) and therefore a minor source of error. But the skeptics seem to prefer higher percentages and bigger errors. Without a way to positively label craters as one or the other (without just saying "Clumped craters are secondary; 'random' craters are primary". This is clearly an oversimplification.), I can't see a way out of this dilemma. One would have to analyze the walls of every crater for meteoritical elements! Too hard.

I suspect that with enough craters counted, and their diameters versus spatial distribution cross-linked, there will emerge a number of patterns from within the chaos. Secondaries, for example, may turn out not to be so randomly distributed - put simply, a chain of craters begs to be considered as something more than mere chance (or an invading comet). Absolute ages on a planet where C-14 testing is removed from the armoury will be difficult; in truth, that particular tool only works on a narrow (recent) band of ages on our own planet.

Arm-waving and hot air; ah, the joys of scientific discourse!


Bob Shaw

There are a number of relevant absolute ages (not "dates" please!) pertaining crater count calibration and several ways of obtaining these. the challenge is developing the tools to do this using a rover or , given the limits of power, mass, and number of uinstruments, let alone the fact that the sampled materials at the site might not cover a wide age range.

First is the formation age of the rock. The two most likely ways are K-Ar, Ar-Ar, and Rob-Sr. Whole rock mass spectroscopy would determine the Ar ratios, and XRF will determine the abount of K, Sr, and Rb. Measurement of the gamma wavelength, alpha, and beta energy spectrum will determine the amount of the relevant non-volatile radioactive isotope present. from this an approximate whole rock Then the exposure age of the rock, the time the rock has spent within ~1 m of the surface. This can be done using cosmogenic isotopes. As before, a combination of Whole rock mass spectroscopy (for volatile elements), XRF (for non volatile elments), and radioactivity spectroscopy would enablewould determine the Ar ratios, and XRF will determine the abount of K, Sr, and Rb. Measurement of the gamma wavelengths, alpha, and beta energy spectrum will determine the amount of the relevant radioactive isotope present. You would also need to measure the in situ and free air cosmic ray level.

These methods need only feasible improvements on instruments already flown (or even isting ones, Beagle 2 had, as I recall, the capability for whole rock dating). Further, the instruments supply other data (whole rock analyses, sbale isotopic data, radiation environment. They could be part of any future rover or lander package. They won't be highly accurate, probably at best 10%, but that will still be an improvement over crater counts.

Anyone have an idea of how many areas will need age determinations to adequately constrain the crater counts? Two, five" More?

Detailed geochronological studies will need sample return.

Jon

Pick a number, Jon, but the bigger the better!
I fear that if someone wants to pile uncertainty on the whole notion of crater counting, there are a number of variables one can invoke to "monkeywrench" the works. E.g. How target rock strength affects size of craters and the rate at which they disappear due to erosion and/or burial. Similarly, how geography affects wind strengths and/or temperature fluctuations and hence erosion rates. What is the effect of crater exhumation? Oh me, oh my! A dedicated skeptic could drag this out ad nauseam.

"Detailed geochronological studies" of Earth rocks are already the source of endless debate. These days you have to examine and hand-pick individual zircons under the microscope, and even then somebody will complain that some of them had undergone some "recrystallization" and should have been excluded. I swear, it's a wonder people keep on trying.

This can be said of all research. The more you learn the more questions there are.

The nature of the debate varies as well. Generally it is only key or controversial ages that are generally debated. Otherwise what is generally done is refining of existing ages.

On Mars I suggest at least 3 measurements to at least crudely constrain the ages and give meaning to the epochs. Six would allow refinement of the subdivisions within them and constrain the mineralogical evolution suggested by OMEGA data.

Jon

A new feature name or two from the latest Planetary Society update:


I make Cape Desire to be our Cape B3, and the Bay of Toil our Bay B3.

Actually, I already updated my route map to include those names.
Just one clarification: I assume "Bay B3" is that one between capes B2 and B3, right?

That's right, the bays take the name of the cape that's clockwise of the bay, according to our scheme.

Tesheiner...
More work for you...

EDITED: Where on Earth is this Bay of Toil and Cape Desire?!...
Can't find them anywhere...

EDITED AGAIN:
I think I found Cape Desire...
But the original name isn't of a Cape, is a Port, Puerto Deseado, or in English Port Desire...

AND EDITED ONCE MORE:

Here's the Bay of Toil, on chapter 5...
And a great read that is! I remember SS telling me that the author was the one generating the list of places to name features in Victoria.