Life in the Atacama

1
Life in the Atacama

• Discussion on Science Goals, Objectives,
• Methods Questions
• ASTEP Project Kickoff Meeting, Pittsburgh, Dec.
  3th, 2001

2
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

3
Overall Science Goals A Real Science Question on
Earth with Critical Applications for Mars.
1. Why it is important?

• 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.

4
2. Why do we go there and what are our questions?
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?

5
3. How do we document these questions methods
and instruments
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.

6
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

7
Science Instruments and Purpose
8
Updates on Instruments and Potential Opportunities

• 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.

9
Where do we go?
4. How do we prepare our field campaigns?

• 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.

10
Region II (Antofagasta)

• Includes
• Desert
• Volcanoes Lava Flows
• Hot Springs
• Salars Evaporites
• Mineral Deposits (e.g., nitrates, sulfates,
  hematite, magnetite)
• Canyons
• Fog Traps

11
Region II (Antofagasta)Temperature and
Precipitation Year-Round
Period to Avoid July, August, September.
Unstable and exceptional weather have brought
flooding last years
12
Region II (Antofagasta)
Total UV - November 2002
General Topographic Trend Coast Costal
Range Cordillera Domeyco (Pass) San Pedro O
m 800 m 3270 m 2480
13
Diversity of Environments Coastal Range (West)
Fog enters 40 km East close to Baguedano. Varies
with Range Elevation.
N
14
Diversity of Environments Coastal Range (To the
East)
Atacama Desert near the Altiplano (250 km East
of Antofagasta
15
Diversity of Environments Region of San Pedro
16
Diversity of Environments Region of San Pedro -
Salar de Atacama
17
Diversity of Environments Region of San Pedro -
Salar de Atacama
18
Diversity of Environments Region of San Pedro -
Salar de Atacama
19
Diversity of Environments Region of San Pedro
Salar de Atacama
Cordillera de la Sal
20
Diversity of Environments Region of San Pedro -
Cordillera de la Sal
21
Diversity of Environments Region of San Pedro -
Stratigraphy
22
Diversity of Environments Region of San Pedro -
Valley of the Moon
23
Diversity of Environments Region of San Pedro
-Valley de la Muerte
24
Diversity of Environments Region of San Pedro -
Geysers of El Tatio
25
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

26
ASTER Coverage
Peru
Bolivia
Pacific Ocean
27
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)

28
Thematic Mappers - Landsat 4, 5
29
Multispectral Landsat
30
Multispectral Landsat 1, 2
31
Multispectral Landsat 3, 4
32
Declassified Satellite Imagery (High-Res
Radiometry)
33
Space Shuttle
34
Remote Sensing (Source Not Identified Yet)
35
Remote Sensing (end) and Altimetry

• 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

36
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.

37
Blind Science Team

• 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

38
Blind Science Team in Landing Site Selection
Process

• 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.

39
Landing Site Selection Process (general)

• 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.

40
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.

41
Tentative Science Organization Chart
Science Lead Nathalie Cabrol
Science Deputy Lead Guillermo Chong
Ground-Truth Lead Edmond Grin
Instrument Co-Is
Instrument Co-Is

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

• Christian Lamelli
• Arturo Jensen
• Hans Winkle

• David Blake XRD/XRF
• Jeff Moersch Vis/NIR
• Alan Waggoner UV/Vis
• Nat. Cabrol SPI (?)

42
Field Campaigns Science Perspective

• Year 01 (2003)
• Testing Components. Little Integration of Instr.
• Not integrated
• Vis/NIR, UV/Vis, CHEMIN tested in the field?
• Integrated
• SpyPanCam 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

43
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

44
Field Campaigns Science Perspective

• 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

45
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)

46
The JPL Case

• 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.

47
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

48
Funding for the Chilean Partners

• Identify potential funding sources
• NSF International
• Research Foundations
• FONDECYT
• CONDECYT
• Other?