Curiosity Rover Drilling Debate
CuriousMars: Scientists Disagree on Timing of Departure from Drilling Site, SpaceRef
“The $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover is beginning detailed analysis of the first subsurface rock sample acquired on another planet, keeping researchers on “pins and needles” about whether Curiosity has struck Martian paydirt 216 million miles (348 million km) from Earth.”
“Preliminary examination of the greenish, mudstone-like sample is peaking interest and debate about whether the flat rocks under Curiosity’s wheels could be a type that perhaps preserved organic carbon relevant to potential past life on Mars, JPL geologist Robert C. Anderson told CuriousMars.”
One annoying mistake. The Apollo astronauts were the first ones to obtain subsurface drill samples over 40 years ago on almost all of the flights to the Moon.
In addition to the Moon not being a planet, Apollo astronauts never obtained core samples from within rocks on the Moon. Why do that when they simply whacked hunks of large rocks off with their hammers and returned those to Earth with smaller complete rocks simply cut open by scientists. Coring rocks on the Moon would have taken far to long during precious EVA time and was rejected early in Apollo planning. Lunar crews only took cores of the soft lunar regolith under their feet.
Craig I appreciate that perspective but it still leaves the wrong impression with the reader. Forgetting the hair splitting on whether or not the Moon is a planet, the drill cores that were done into the regolith were anything but into soft soil as most of them stuck if they went down more than a meter.
I think it may be an slippery argument about what’s a rock and what’s not a rock, but the papers describing the Apollo drill samples uniformly refer to stratified regolith. Whether that regolith became more compressed with depth, and whether the drill actually penetrated a solid rock down there that happened to be in the way is somewhat irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that Curiosity delivered for analysis the first subsurface sample of a rock that was selected on the basis of anticipated science value. Cores through random rocks that just happen to be in the way are a mechanical issue more than a scientific issue.
The fact of the matter is that Curiosity delivered for analysis the first subsurface sample of a rock that was selected on the basis of anticipated science value. Cores through random rocks that just happen to be in the way are a mechanical issue more than a scientific issue.
Have you ever actually read the scientific papers on this from the Apollo era in Acta Astronautica and the value of the drill cores?
Your statement reveals a woeful ignorance of the work done on those samples and the science behind obtaining those samples.
I will take Farouk El Baz, Gene Shoemaker, Don Wilhelms, and Chuck Lundquist over this shallow interpretation every time.
I personally think that what Curiosity is doing is awesome and support it all the way, though its cost approaches that of a Nimitz class Aircraft carrier.
And once again, the actual debate (Yellowknife bay vs. Mt. Sharp) is eclipsed by a Moon vs. Mars pissing contest. yay!
That would be contest that would be fun to see with EVA suits on. No … don’t touch that zipper!
Actually, there is no debate. The Apollo astronauts did a masterful job of taking deep core samples of the lunar regolith, the likes of which we won’t get on Mars for a long time. They also brought back selected rocks that, in terrestrial labs, we can drill to our hearts content. So yes, the Apollo astronauts actually enabled the first samples of the interior of selected rocks from another world, but they didn’t do it with a drill.
There. Feel better?
Craig,
We have video of Apollo 15 astronauts heaving on the end of “The Lunar Surface Drill,” collecting subsurface cores. They went below the regolith for sure. When one astronaut couldn’t get the drill moving below a certain depth, they tried working together to move it. At one point it got stuck and they had to leave it and come back later to retrieve it.
Core tube samples were taken from: Station 6 — Apennine Front and Station 8 — ALSEP Site. A double-length core tube sample was taken from Station 9A — Hadley Rille.
Steve
Lots of misconceptions on this thread. First, Dennis is correct – the Apollo missions obtained the first planetary drill cores — and the Moon is as much a “planet” to planetary geologists as any other rocky, self-gravitating object. Second, it is correct that the Apollo drill cores sampled regolith, but the object was not to “mechanically get through rock fragments”, but to recover a core sample with preserved stratigraphy (layering), if any. By the way, those worthless “regolith” cores gave us a preserved record of over 2 billion years of solar and galactic particle history and lunar impact history. Third, the Curiosity “drill” is more accurately described as a rock grinder, as it: a) does not extract core; b) destroys the sample into which it drills into a fine powder for chemical analysis. There is no real advantage to drilling through rock unless you are taking oriented bedrock samples (e.g., for paleomagnetic studies), which has never been done on any object except the Earth. If you could get hundreds of meters to kilometers of rock core, that would be scientifically significant, but again, such never been done on any object except Earth (and likely to remain that way — it is very difficult and power intensive to drill that deep through rock.)
The drill was included on Curiosity only to ensure that we would be able to obtain samples of FRESH rock (i.e., we could get though any exterior weathering rind). It was not in any way comparable to the Apollo deep drill,nor for that matter, even to the hand-inserted, hollow drive tubes.
Since this seems to be the focus of the comments:
The article said “first from another planet”. Dennis chose to nitpick and point out the lunar samples which are completely irrelevant to the story. But the moon is not a planet under any definition.
If the article had said “first from beyond earth”, the the nitpick would be valid, though still a nitpick, since there was so much in this article beyond that. (It was actually a very engrossing article, I recommend to people to read it. 🙂
He also talked about “core samples in almost every flight to the moon” – again, not correct. If you’re going to nitpick, at least be accurate.
Finally – the point that YOU make, about core drilling vs. a percussion drill, is absolutely correct, relevant to the story, and is a difference worth mentioning – it didn’t register with me before – thanks!
Reading the story, I’m again impressed by a) how capable this rover is and b) just how overwhelmed it is given the task at hand.
I agree. The accomplishment is the drilling and sampling, and the extent of autonomy MSL is capable of, quite aside from the definitions drill, regolith, planet, or anything else.
I’m also very impressed with the patience and planning of the mission team. In an age where so many things have reset switches, back keys and undo commands (spilled your milk? hit Ctrl+z), it must be a very demanding (even frustrating) task to have to plan and evaluate every little move before making it, knowing that you won’t get a second chance, while a whole lot of people are looking over your shoulder.
Hats off to MSL and the pros who are guiding her.
I think this article is really nice and very impressive too. Thanks to share this article with us.