ASTEP Life in the Atacama Carnegie Mellon Life in the Atacama Discussion on Science Goals,...

ASTEP Life in the Atacama Carnegie Mellon

Life in the Atacama

Discussion on Science Goals, Objectives,

Methods & Questions

ASTEP Project Kickoff Meeting, Pittsburgh, Dec. 3th, 2001


Review of Points to be Discussed

• 1. Why it is important?• 2. Why do we go there and what are our questions?• 3. How do we document these questions: methods and

instruments• 4. How do we prepare our field campaigns?

– Where do we go?– When do we go?– What is the existing data coverage?– Landing site, team “blindness”, & Ground-Truth– Science perspective for the 3 field campaigns– The “JPL case” - Ignore? Fully Integrates? Somewhere in

between?– The “Flyers” case and the Scout mission perspective


Overall Science Goals A Real Science Question on Earth with

Critical Applications for Mars.

• Understand the Atacama as a habitat for life;• Document the limits of life on Earth;• Test the capacity of a science payload to

detect and characterize life in one of the most desertic environments of Earth for application to the exploration of Mars;

• Test astrobiological exploration strategies and train science teams to benefit future Mars missions.

1. Why it is important?


Science Questions

• The astrobiology questions to be addressed during the investigation of the Atacama are:

• Are the most arid regions of the Atacama completely lifeless (absolute desert) and thus constitute an absolute limit for life on Earth and possibly elsewhere in the Solar System?

• What is the spatial variability of biodiversity and productivity within the transect?

• What specific environmental boundary conditions generate oases of microorganic life in the Atacama today?

• What are the spatial diversity and types of habitats for microorganic life?

2. Why do we go there and what are our questions?


Science Method (1)

• Establish in situ the presence of microorganisms; ideally, the response should be unambiguous. No speculation. Converging data from payload instruments should provide a certainty what life is present or not. Field ground-truth will come only after.

• Determine how organisms modify their environment; it will be critical to expand this question to “what are the survival strategies of these organisms”. Habitats and microorganisms will be characterized using the data returned and they may differ from those of “close parents” in other regions of the world. This is where the potential for genuine discoveries is.

• Identify, characterize, and map a diversity of habitats for life based on their morphology, geology, mineralogy, texture, physical, and elemental properties;

• Characterize the small-scale texture and color of habitats.

3. How do we document these questions: methods and instruments


Science Method (2)

• Identify and characterize rocks exposed/deposited at the surface that may bear evidence of past life; The case for fossils: Unless we uncover a dinosaure bone, fossils of well-recognizable shape, we will be in the same situation as for Nomad, and may end-up speculating on the nature of the rock. A big difference: we have this time a microscope and a series of spectrometers that can provide critical interpretative clues. Claiming a fossil this time should require a full investigation of the candidate by the payload instruments. A protocol will have to be put in place with the biologists and geologists to agree on what would be a minimum data and instruments sequence to claim a fossil/

• Identify the composition of individual mineral grains present in the environment/habitat (rock, soil, sediment) and the presence of microorganisms;

• Establish the physical characteristics of the encountered environments including temperature, pressure, humidity, and light;


Science Instruments and Purpose


• Since our proposal was submitted:

– Dave Blake was funded to develop the sampling system of CHEMIN;

– Alan Waggoner ASTEP technology maturation proposal was funded;

– Aaron Zent Mars Organic Detector (MOD) and Mars Oxidant Instrument (MOI) are part of a JPL field campaign seeking partnership.

Updates on Instruments and Potential Opportunities


Where do we go?

• We should perform transects that are meaningful in terms of habitat variability– Region II (Antofagasta), Chile– West to East - continuity difficult. Need to find

solution to perform the “aridity” transect. Very appealing in terms of diversity of extreme environments.

– North to South - can be continuous through a “humidity” transect. Very appealing for the first year campaign.

4. How do we prepare our field campaigns?


Region II (Antofagasta)

• Includes:– Desert– Volcanoes & Lava Flows– Hot Springs– Salars & Evaporites– Mineral Deposits (e.g.,

nitrates, sulfates, hematite, magnetite)

– Canyons– Fog Traps


Region II (Antofagasta)Temperature and Precipitation Year-Round

Period to Avoid: July, August, September. Unstable and exceptional weather have brought flooding last years


Region II (Antofagasta)

PRELIMINARY MEASUREMENTS OF ULTRAVIOLETSOLAR FLUX.

Location Altitude[m]

Local Time[h]

UV Flux(Watt/m2)

Antofagasta 50 16.35 56San Pedro 2450 13.15 68Heated Pond 4328 12.23 98*Laguna Blanca 4341 09.55 74.8Refuge 4355 09.20 68Summit** 6017 Noon 141

General Topographic Trend

CoastCoast Costal RangeCostal Range Cordillera Domeyco (Pass) San PedroCordillera Domeyco (Pass) San Pedro

O m 800 m 3270 m 2480

Total UV - November 2002


Diversity of Environments: Coastal Range (West)

N Fog enters ~40 km East close to Baguedano. Varies with Range Elevation.


Diversity of Environments: Coastal Range (To the East)

Atacama Desert near the Altiplano (~250 km East of Antofagasta


Diversity of Environments: Region of San Pedro


Diversity of Environments: Region of San Pedro - Salar de Atacama


Diversity of Environments: Region of San Pedro

Salar de Atacama

Cordillera de la Sal


Diversity of Environments: Region of San Pedro - Cordillera de la Sal


Diversity of Environments: Region of San Pedro - Stratigraphy


Diversity of Environments: Region of San Pedro - Valley of the Moon


Diversity of Environments: Region of San Pedro -Valley de la Muerte


Diversity of Environments: Region of San Pedro - Geysers of El Tatio


Data: The Existing Coverage

Currently under investigation. Already:

• ASTER: 486 images of the region – Scene: 60 x 60 km per image– 3 visible bands at 15 m/pixel resolution– Themal IR at 90 m/pixel resolution– 6 Near IR, however “band-to-band crosstalk problem

make them mostly unsuable– AVIRIS could solve the question (Airborne scenes of the

site for Near-IR to complement rover-based spectra.• Excellent analog to THEMIS onboard Mars Odyssey


ASTER Coverage

Pacific

Ocean

BoliviaPeru


Remote Sensing (Continued)• Thematic Mappers

– Landsat 4, 5

• MultiSpectral Scanner– Landsat 1-5

• Enhanced Thematic Mappers– Landsat 7

• Declassified Satellite Imagery (02/02)– Very-High Resolution Radiometer

• Space Shuttle– Spaceborne Imaging Radar-C/X-band Synthetic Aperture

Radar (detection of climate change)


Thematic Mappers - Landsat 4, 5


Multispectral Landsat


Multispectral Landsat 1, 2


Multispectral Landsat 3, 4


Declassified Satellite Imagery (High-Res Radiometry)


Space Shuttle


Remote Sensing (Source Not Identified Yet)


• Still looking for Digital Elevation Model (DEM)• USGS Geographic Information System (GIS)-

based data of Central and South America:– Multi-layered data– 1-km scale DEM Info

Remote Sensing (end) and Altimetry


Landing Site Selection• Goal over 3 years: document an astrobiological

transect in the Atacama.– Does not mean that we should necessarily re-investigate

segments of traverses over the three years.• Advantage doing it:

– Allow to understand how adding instruments and performance helps the interpretation. Biais: We have already been there;

• Advantage no doing it:– Flexibility in traverse which will be anyway difficult

while crossing West to East– Allow new landing site selection process each year that

can include knowledge acquired from previous year– The science team could still choose to revisit part of the

past traverses.


• To which level?– Some science team members have ongoing field activity in

the Atacama (McKay, Friedmann).• Cons:

– None- McKay and Friedmann work South of the region of investigation (Yundai).

• Pros: – When data is returned by the rover, they will be able to put

them immediately into the context of other regions of study and right away understand if the results are outstanding, bring something new, etc. This is part of the scientific process.

– The rover can be used to document their existing working hypotheses in other regions

Blind Science Team


• To which level?– Some of the science team members are also bringing

instruments. They need to test them and to calibrate them in the environment where they will be tested. For instance:

• Rocks, Mineralogy (can be performed in lab)

• Light (cameras, spectrometers and microscopes).– Can it be simulated?– If not, how do we proceed as these team members know best

their instruments and should be the ones testing them.» Test them in same type of environment but not the landing

site? Implies to send these people in the field prior to the test and the landing site selection.

Blind Science Team in Landing Site Selection Process


• A True Selection Process– Should mimic existing official process.

• Project should provide all existing data relevant to MGS, MO, Mars Express, and Mars Reconnaissance to simulate the 2009 mission site selection prior mission.

– Target Mission June? Site selected in April-May?

• Data is sent electronically and team can prepare arguments over a period of weeks or months. However, it would be a good idea to have a 1 day workshop at Ames to finalize the decision.

– Engineers and scientists both discuss their arguments– Possibility of inviting Program Discipline Scientists and HQ

people at the Workshop.

Landing Site Selection Process (general)


Ground-Truth• Ground-Truth Team (GTT) is kept separated from the science

team using rover data– Prior to Start of Mission.

• GTT members can establish an environmental assessment following the landing site selection. It will be used from post-test comparison with science team environmental interpretation.

• GTT members must perform ground-truth of each science targets investigated by the science team for comparison with science team conclusions.

– They should never interfere with the test (out of FOV)

– They should always investigate a target when the rover has moved on to the next.

• GTT members are part of the Test Organization Team not the Science Team.


Tentative Science Organization Chart

Science Lead

Nathalie Cabrol

Science Lead

Nathalie Cabrol

Science Deputy Lead

Guillermo Chong

Science Deputy Lead

Guillermo Chong

Ground-Truth Lead

Edmond Grin

Ground-Truth Lead

Edmond Grin

Instrument Co-IsInstrument Co-Is Instrument Co-IsInstrument Co-Is

• Christian Lamelli

• Arturo Jensen

• Hans Winkle

• David Blake XRD/XRF

•Jeff Moersch Vis/NIR

• Alan Waggoner UV/Vis

• Nat. Cabrol SPI (?)

• David Blake • Jeff Moersch • Alan Waggoner • Cecilia. Demergasso• James Dohm• Carl Allen• Chris Mckay• Imre Friedmann


Year 01 (2003):– Testing Components. Little Integration of Instr.

• Not integrated:– Vis/NIR, UV/Vis, CHEMIN tested in the field?

• Integrated– Spy+PanCam system, Close-up Imager, Environmental

sensors

• Could be performed:– Landing site selection– Interpretation of data sent back by rover– Interpretation of data sent by Instrument Co-Is

• No integrated science team field test at Ames for this year.• Everything happens (data return) via web and email

– Post-test workshop to present results

Field Campaigns: Science Perspective


• Year 02 (2004):– Assembling instruments on platform “without some”;

Function Integration.– Mission Phases:

• Landing site selection• GTT in the field for environmental assessment• Primary mission:

– Science Team at Ames for 1 week– E/PO ongoing. Students to help science team (e.g., Red

Rover goes to Mars?)• Extended Mission:

– Distributed Science Team– Data arrive through website– Daily telecons to organize day

» Upload/Download» Sequences

– Post-test workshop to present results– Post-test publications and presentations



• Year 03 (2005):– Full Mission (3 Months)– Mission Phases:

• Landing site selection• GTT in the field for environmental assessment• Primary mission:

– Science Team at Ames for 1 or 2 week(s)– E/PO ongoing. Students to help science team (e.g., Red

Rover goes to Mars?)• Extended Mission:

– Distributed Science Team– Data arrive through website– Daily telecons to organize day

» Upload/Download» Sequences

– Post-test workshop to present results– Post Project Publications & Presentations



The “JPL Case”

• Selected for field campaign in the Atacama to study relation between life and UV, Water, Oxidation of Environment– But, their mobility has been removed by HQ– Seek partners if possible. Contacted me at Ames through Chris

McKay.

• How to deal with it?– Completely ignore (maybe not the best idea)– Completely integrate (very complicated)– Somewhere between the above two (maybe smart…)


• What can they bring us?– A great complementarity in science objectives that would

complete our vision of life in the Atacama and enrich our own hypotheses and results

• Aaron Zent Mars Organic Detector and Mars Oxidation Instrument are supported by this effort.

• Access to subsurface (1.5 m) through coring

• Chris McKay is on their team. Contact and Coordination

• A complete integration is not necessary.– Only segments of traverse designated by the science teams

could be surveyed by both payload.• Constraint: Year 02 and/or Year 03 campaigns should happen at

the same time.

The “JPL Case”


The “Flyers”

• One scenario for future Scout missions is to have small flyers (airplanes) collaborating with rovers.

• Robotic 60-cm delta wings developed by group involving JPL/Ames/Australia. Have already flown. – Flyers are likely to be tested in Licancabur region in the

coming year during the next Licancabur Expedition.– In 2005, possibility of including in ASTEP project a

demonstration of collaboration between our rover and the flyer. Could come as the conclusion of the tests.

• Hot topic at HQ• Would be the first demonstration of such collaboration in

the field. High-Profile test• Logistics has to be evaluated


Funding for the Chilean Partners

• Identify potential funding sources– NSF International– Research Foundations

• FONDECYT

• CONDECYT

• Other?

ASTEP Life in the Atacama Carnegie Mellon Life in the Atacama Discussion on Science Goals,...

Documents

Transcript of ASTEP Life in the Atacama Carnegie Mellon Life in the Atacama Discussion on Science Goals,...