Coordinated Geologic and Geo-Thematic Maps: the Unifying Platform for Maximizing Success of Lunar Surface Science
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Lunar Surface Science Workshop 2020 (LPI Contrib. No. 2241) 5128.pdf COORDINATED GEOLOGIC AND GEO-THEMATIC MAPS: THE UNIFYING PLATFORM FOR MAXIMIZING SUCCESS OF LUNAR SURFACE SCIENCE. J. A. Skinner, Jr., J. J. Hagerty, C. M. Fortezzo, A. E. Huff, T. M. Hare, and M. A. Hunter, U. S. Geological Survey, Astrogeology Science Center, 2255 N. Gemini Drive, Flagstaff, AZ 86001 ([email protected]). Introduction: In the most basic sense, geologic of the Moon. For the lunar south pole, pre-Nectarian maps provide spatial and temporal context for the rock, massifs, Nectarian terra, Imbrian plains, and Eratosthe- sediment, and soil at and near the land surface, and place nian crater units are all resolved at regional scale (Fig. geologic phenomena into relationships with each other 1), but the existence and geometry of these units within and their immediate and distal environments. Beyond 6° of the south pole is ill-constrained. We identify a pre- providing geologic information, scientists and decision- mission need for a mapping campaign that locally ex- makers alike use geologic maps to help identify and pre- tends regionally-identified units to support selection of pare for natural hazards; site and build civic infrastruc- a safe, scientifically relevant landing site and to maxim- ture; locate and develop natural resources; and promote ize science within the exploration zone. Recommenda- informed decisions for land-use and planning [1-2]. The tion: Immediate commencement of an expedited geo- essentiality of geologic maps to support exploration logic mapping campaign framed by a common set of does not stop at national or even planetary boundaries; purpose, process, product, and scale to guide lunar sur- the same principles prove geologic maps are equally ap- face science operations and promote comparability of plicable to basic and applied science questions beyond basic and applied research afforded by the Artemis mis- Earth. In this abstract, we do not argue for specific sites sions. Effort would ideally be team-based, guided by a or propose instrumentation for exploration by the Arte- community review panel of subject matter experts, and mis missions to the lunar south pole. Rather, we assert released for community use at regular intervals. that such efforts cannot evolve in the absence of coordi- nated, standardized geologic maps. Well-constructed, consistent, and theme-diverse geological maps are es- sential, not optional, infrastructure to plan for and max- imize the scientific return of the Artemis missions. Con- siderations of the unifying aspects of geologic mapping fall squarely into the “concepts, options, capabilities, and innovations” intent that guides this workshop. Lunar Mapping Strategy: For the NASA Artemis Program, geologic and geo-thematic maps will be re- quired for (1) characterization of geology and identifi- cation of resources when selecting landing sites, (2) classification of selected site terrains and constraint of mission-specific exploration objectives, and (3) docu- mentation and contextualization of field investigation and instrument results. This continuous need for geo- logic maps before, during, and after surface operations demands products be standardized, accurate, and scien- tifically robust. Furthermore, these products must be Figure 1. 1:5M-scale Unified Geologic Map of the Moon [3] constructed in a way that places map-specific infor- of the lunar south pole (84 to 90°S). Units include pre-Nec- mation within the broader geologic framework of the tarian basin (pNb), pre-Nectarian basin massif (pNbm), Nec- Moon (that is, the assimilated context of regional- and tarian terra-mantling and plains (Ntp), Nectarian crater (Nc), global-scale geologic knowledge). The targeted devel- Imbrian plains (Ip), Imbrian crater 1 and 2 (Ic1 & Ic2), and opment of geologic and geo-thematic map products will Eratosthenian crater (Ec). LOLA shaded relief base. accelerate mission progress and amplify Artemis pro- Process. Geologic mapping, particularly wherein gram success. operational considerations are at the forefront, should Need. The geology and stratigraphy of the Moon has follow well-vetted rules, principles, and processes. This been resolved body-wide only at regional scales (Fig. 1) broadens understanding of the operational environment [2]. Very local scale geologic maps are uncommon, are- or, perhaps more importantly, limits misunderstanding. ally dispersed, and, though locally informative, rarely It is increasingly clear to data producers and users that enable extrapolation to the broader geologic framework Lunar Surface Science Workshop 2020 (LPI Contrib. No. 2241) 5128.pdf certain widely-accepted standards are essential to creat- which Artemis-supportive maps should be devised. ing, managing, and disseminating geoscience infor- These scales are selected in order to “nest” themselves mation [4-6]. Standardization allows all participants of with each other, the broader lunar geologic framework, the exploratory mission to operate on the same plane of and available data types and resolutions. 1:500,000 to knowledge, regardless of expertise. Artemis mission 1:100,000 scale (1 mm map = 500 to 100 m ground) participants should recognize that adherence to a com- provides geologic context and enables cross-compari- mon suite of cartographic representations enables seam- son to global data sets and past investigations. less cross-comparison of geologic maps and thematic 1:100,000 to 1:20,000 scale (1 mm = 100 to 20 m) ena- geoscience data to establish context and afford success- bles site specific exploration beyond the landing site. ful operations. The absence of broadly-applied stand- 1:20,000 to 1:4000 scale (1 mm = 20 to 4 m) provides ards impedes development of a common knowledge da- details for landing hazards, site development, resource tabase and severely limits co-location of planetary geo- planning, and traversing. Further larger scale (smaller logic map information. Recommendation: Early discus- area) mapping will require improved data resolutions or sion and adoption of cartographic and data standards in field mapping by mission crew. Recommendation: Cre- the preparation and conveyance of geologic maps to en- ate geologic and geo-thematic maps based on an estab- sure such products are used and understood by all stake- lished set of “nested” map scale to ensure geologic maps holders (e.g., astronaut crew, engineers, mission scien- are prepared to promote cross-correlation. tists, program managers, and policy makers). Conclusions: The efficacy of lunar surface opera- Product. Like many scientific disciplines, the geo- tions will be driven – before, during, and after landing – sciences are becoming a collection of specialized fields by the preparatory context afforded by scientists and en- that result in more and more specialized types of maps. gineers. Without an understanding of the operational en- Though the conventional geological map continues to vironment, there will be a strong tendency to miss key provide a common link [7], modern software enables a steps in the logical thought process, which increases the robust level of data collation and interaction that was not probability of miscommunication and error. Therefore, available during the Apollo era. Technological advances the question is not whether geologic maps and associ- have altered geologic mapping production over the past ated products will be made to support the Artemis mis- few decades, most specifically the availability of geo- sions (they will) but rather how useful, timely, and con- spatial data and use of geographic information systems sistent these products will be. We call for a direct, non- (GIS). These permit geologic map information to be duplicative effort to prepare, standardize, coordinate, electronically stored, displayed, queried, and analyzed corroborate, and distribute geologic and geo-thematic in conjunction with a variety of other data types. How- mapping efforts. This will result in predictable and com- ever, contrary to terrestrial geologic mapping, planetary parable products across the most relevant scales for sci- geologic mapping has experienced no impetus to mi- ence, engineering, and decision-making. We underscore grate fully into applied research products that specifi- that successfully planning for and execution of an ex- cally co-locate basic and applied results to enable deci- ploratory mission to the lunar south pole will not occur sions that impact national assets throughout the mission effectively without the context afforded by coordinated timeline. Artemis is that impetus, as surface material geologic maps and thematic geoscience data and reiter- types, boundaries, and thicknesses derived from dedi- ate that planetary geologic mapping efforts need to com- cated geologic mapping will necessarily be corrobo- mence immediately and be cognizant of the applied re- rated and compared with hazard, solar illumination, search purposes of these maps. This will ensure that line-of-sight, slope, and other maps. Recommendation: NASA’s Artemis-based observations and investigations Ensure capture of mapping results from various geosci- merge seamlessly with pre-mission mapping efforts and ence disciplines, making products publicly available. provide stake-holders with a landscape-level under- Scale. Map scale conveys an accurate sense of size standing of the landing site as well as the potential for and space on any derived cartographic map product. resources, hazards, and siting assessments. Map scale for geologic