P059-01
Mars Sample Selection Using a Highly Constrained Tactical Timeline: A GHOST Terrestrial Analog Field Study.
Monday, 14 December 2020: 08:30
Virtual
R Aileen Yingst1, Rebecca M. E. Williams2, Julie K Bartley3, Tom Chidsey4, Barbara A Cohen5, Brian M Hynek6, Linda C Kah7, Michelle Elaine Minitti8, Michael D Vanden Berg9, Natalie Curran10, Michael Lotto11, Madison Adams12, Bruce Bartley13 and Taylor Pearson12, (1)Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ, United States, (2)Planetary Science Institute Tucson, Tucson, AZ, United States, (3)Gustavus Adolphus College, Geology, Saint Peter, MN, United States, (4)Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, United States, (5)NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Planetary Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry, Greenbelt, MD, United States, (6)Univ Colorado, Boulder, CO, United States, (7)University of Tennesse, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Knoxville, TN, United States, (8)Framework, Laurel, United States, (9)Utah Geological Survay, Salt Lake City, United States, (10)NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, United States, (11)University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, United States, (12)Gustavus Adolphus College, Saint Peter, United States, (13)Concordia College at Moorhead, Moorhead, United States
Abstract:
The GeoHeuristic Operational Strategies (GHOST) field tests are designed to reveal best practices in maximizing science return from planetary missions. In May 2019, we executed a field test in the Grassy Mountains, western Utah, where Pleistocene Lake Bonneville geomorphic features and shoreline tufas are well displayed. Two methods were tested for data acquisition and decision-making: (1) a scenario where observations are notionally pre-planned, but changes can be made prior to plan delivery (used on the Mars Science Laboratory mission); and (2) a scenario in which the sol path must be planned prior to a given tactical planning day, with minimal adjustments to the plan permitted (such planning is currently being tested for Mars 2020). We used a suite of commercial, off-the-shelf instruments that provided visual, compositional and geochemical data similar to flight-ready instruments (SLR camera, field spectrometer, X-ray diffraction instrument), with humans providing mobility. This assured that testing assesses science decision-making protocols (which instruments to use, when and how often to use them), rather than the characteristics of the instruments themselves; it is the science decisions that are the necessary input to instruments. Our research question was: What is the effect on
science knowledge and
sample variety in a scenario in which planning is highly time- and option-constrained?
Lessons learned: (1) Systematic observations (e.g., reconnaissance stations, acquiring 360° panoramic color mosaics) were crucial to recognize subtleties of the site at scales below orbital resolution. (2) Time spent gathering chemical data must be balanced against systematic site characterization. Spectral data provided insight into chemical components of the general site, but did not provide clear guidance on geologically unique targets. (3) We suggest using the walkabout-first approach (reconnoitering using remote instruments, before choosing areas to use more resource-intensive contact instruments) where possible to provide early context and time for the science team to develop reasonable hypotheses and robust approaches to test them. We also suggest providing more avenues for science discoveries to inform plan changes, as understanding grows.
