Planet Four Talk

South Polar Dunes - All In Here.

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    This post is not for the faint-hearted. It's pretty weighty, but it's packed with good stuff. The map is for anybody/everybody.

    Having started to get a handle on where spiders are, and having met some dunes in the discussions here, I decided to dig around to try and get the same handle on dunes in the southern regions. Do spiders live near dunes, or do they live elsewhere? Maybe I'll find out.

    If the link works you should get to a 'Kitharode at Planet Four' folder. If so, enjoy - if it don't work please let me know. Cheers.

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/e4g7wie1fezg3dw/oVHUB6Y0-0#/

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Thanks to Pete (p.titchin) for letting me know the link above worked for him. As I type this, he's probably messing around with a wheelbarrow full of grust and a hairdryer. Hahaha 😃

    If we allow that the incomplete maps do at least give a representative view of the situation (and they might not) then at first glance a comparison of the 'dune location map' and the 'spider location map' (in Spiders by Location) brings out some interesting stuff. There are some spiders mixed sparsely with dunes, but they each seem to dominate their own areas. Perhaps even more interesting is that, apparently, Dune fields inside craters cover roughly the same surface area irrespective of crater size.

    Methinks there is much to be learned from all this. I don't know what exactly, but it'll be fun finding out. ** 😃 **

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator

    Dune fields in craters, does always the same size mean always 100 square meters or always 67.5 percent of the crater area (say)

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator

    I seewhere you found saltation now 😃 how does measuring the wind in Newton meters squared work?

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Dune fields in craters; It's just something that's suggested to my eye looking at the dune map. Allowing that it's only a diagram, the tiny/small craters are filled with dunes, the middling size craters have space, the big craters have more space(ish). Might not be like that at all, but it's suggested by the map.

    Saltation; It can wait, but I think we'll need it later.

    "Wind in Newton metres squared" - I can lend you a book! (Translates to 'don't know') 😉

    Posted

  • wassock by wassock moderator

    My take on that is the above a certain size crater you'll get some sort of eddy effect which will shove all the loose stuff over to one side, and the small ones will just be a hole that every thing drops into

    Posted

  • p.titchin by p.titchin in response to Kitharode's comment.

    Kith, I'm still enjoying your link. I've been away for a week. Hairdryer aside, I try to think without being predisposed by the speculative papers put out on the drive to publish,by some. I try to look with an unbiased mind at the wonders displayed to us from mars. Dunes are fascinating, (if they are dunes!) The key is so often being able to see the progression of images over time. Something I only rarely get by chance when I spot an image from an area Ive classified before. The ripples within craters are to me a different process from the dunes on the larger scale that many seemed reluctant to accept as 'dunes' What wonders we are gifted to see.
    ~Pete

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator

    Wassock: Yes, I'll go along with that. Also, as mentioned in the blurb, you can see how the dunes tend to form on the equator side of the crater(ish). Probably to do with strength/direction of sunlight.

    Pete: I know nowt about dunes, except that they are fascinating indeed. I'm looking forward to getting into them when I've made some progress on my 'works in hand'. There's just so much amazing stuff to learn about.

    Posted

  • mschwamb by mschwamb scientist, translator in response to p.titchin's comment.

    Hi,

    Since there's been lots of talk of papers. I wanted to comment and give a bit more insight into the publication process. Most scientific papers are written and published because it says something new in the field . Also every published paper goes through a peer review process (it has it's good and bad sides) but means that an independent anonymous scientist or two who has read the paper commented, told the authors what changes they think are needed for improving the paper for a level sufficient for publication. Then iteration with the authors responding to the referee's points and concerns, and then the editor of the journal (who's a scientist) who makes the final decision on acceptance. Papers still need evaluating by whoever is readying them even after publication as to whether they believe the results of hypothesis put forward (which may be challenged or disproved with further data or analysis - which is the ever evolving state of our knowledge with science) , but the peer review system (flaws and all) is in place to try and keep a level of quality for all science publications.

    Cheers,

    ~Meg

    Posted

  • Kitharode by Kitharode moderator in response to mschwamb's comment.

    Thanks for that Meg. I'm a firm believer in the process, but I'm glad I don't need to go through it. 😉 Thanks for posting that.

    Posted