Comparing and Reconciling Traditional Field and Photogeologic Mapping Techniques: Lessons from the San Francisco Volcanic Field, Arizona

Cartographic products and - specifically - geologic maps provide critical assistance for establishing physical and temporal frameworks of planetary surfaces. The technical methods that result in the creation of geologic maps vary depending on how observations are made as well as the overall intent of the final products [1-3]. These methods tend to follow a common linear work flow, including the identification and delineation of spatially and temporally discrete materials (units), the documentation of their primary (emplacement) and secondary (erosional) characteristics, analysis of the relative and absolute age relationships between these materials, and the collation of observations and interpretations into an objective map product. The "objectivity" of a map is critical cross comparison with overlapping maps and topical studies as well as its relevance to scientific posterity. However, the "accuracy" and "correctness" of a geologic map is very subject to debate. This can be evidenced by comparison of existing geologic maps at various scales, particularly those compiled through field- and remote-based mapped efforts. Our study focuses on comparing the fidelity of (1) "Apollo-style" geologic investigations, where typically non-geologist crew members follow static traverse routes established through pre-mission planning, and (2) "traditional" field-based investigations, where geologists are given free rein to observe without preplanned routes. This abstract summarizes the regional geology wherein our study was conducted, presents the geologic map created from traditional field mapping techniques, and offers basic insights into how geologic maps created from different tactics can be reconciled in support of exploratory missions. Additional abstracts [4-6] from this study discuss various exploration and science results of these efforts

Mapping Planetary Volcanic Deposits: Identifying Vents and Distingushing between Effects of Eruption Conditions and Local Lava Storage and Release on Flow Field Morphology

Terrestrial geologic mapping techniques are regularly used for "photogeologic" mapping of other planets, but these approaches are complicated by the diverse type, areal coverage, and spatial resolution of available data sets. When available, spatially-limited in-situ human and/or robotic surface observations can sometimes introduce a level of detail that is difficult to integrate with regional or global interpretations. To assess best practices for utilizing observations acquired from orbit and on the surface, our team conducted a comparative study of geologic mapping and interpretation techniques. We compared maps generated for the same area in the San Francisco Volcanic Field (SFVF) in northern Arizona using 1) data collected for reconnaissance before and during the 2010 Desert Research And Technology Studies campaign, and 2) during a traditional, terrestrial field geology study. The operations, related results, and direct mapping comparisons are discussed in companion LPSC abstracts [1-3]. Here we present new geologic interpretations for a volcanic cone and related lava flows as derived from all approaches involved in this study. Mapping results indicate a need for caution when interpreting past eruption conditions on other planetary surfaces from orbital data alone

NEEMO 20: Science Training, Operations, and Tool Development

The 20th mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) was a highly integrated evaluation of operational protocols and tools designed to enable future exploration beyond low-Earth orbit. NEEMO 20 was conducted from the Aquarius habitat off the coast of Key Largo, FL in July 2015. The habitat and its surroundings provide a convincing analog for space exploration. A crew of six (comprised of astronauts, engineers, and habitat technicians) lived and worked in and around the unique underwater laboratory over a mission duration of 14-days. Incorporated into NEEMO 20 was a diverse Science Team (ST) comprised of geoscientists from the Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science (ARES/XI) Division from the Johnson Space Center (JSC), as well as marine scientists from the Department of Biological Sciences at Florida International University (FIU). This team trained the crew on the science to be conducted, defined sampling techniques and operational procedures, and planned and coordinated the science focused Extra Vehicular Activities (EVAs). The primary science objectives of NEEMO 20 was to study planetary sampling techniques and tools in partial gravity environments under realistic mission communication time delays and operational pressures. To facilitate these objectives two types of science sites were employed 1) geoscience sites with available rocks and regolith for testing sampling procedures and tools and, 2) marine science sites dedicated to specific research focused on assessing the photosynthetic capability of corals and their genetic connectivity between deep and shallow reefs. These marine sites and associated research objectives included deployment of handheld instrumentation, context descriptions, imaging, and sampling; thus acted as a suitable proxy for planetary surface exploration activities. This abstract briefly summarizes the scientific training, scientific operations, and tool development conducted during NEEMO 20 with an emphasis on the primary lessons learned

Mapping Planetary Volcanic Deposits: Identifying Vents and Distinguishing between Effects of Eruption Conditions and Local Storage and Release on Flow Field Morphology

Terrestrial geologic mapping techniques are regularly used for "photogeologic" mapping of other planets, but these approaches are complicated by the diverse type, areal coverage, and spatial resolution of available data sets. When available, spatially-limited in-situ human and/or robotic surface observations can sometimes introduce a level of detail that is difficult to integrate with regional or global interpretations. To assess best practices for utilizing observations acquired from orbit and on the surface, our team conducted a comparative study of geologic mapping and interpretation techniques. We compared maps generated for the same area in the San Francisco Volcanic Field (SFVF) in northern Arizona using 1) data collected for reconnaissance before and during the 2010 Desert Research And Technology Studies campaign, and 2) during a traditional, terrestrial field geology study. The operations, related results, and direct mapping comparisons are discussed in companion LPSC abstracts. Here we present new geologic interpretations for a volcanic cone and related lava flows as derived from all approaches involved in this study. Mapping results indicate a need for caution when interpreting past eruption conditions on other planetary surfaces from orbital data alone

Geologic Interpretation of Data Sets Collected by Planetary Analog Geology Traverses and by Standard Geologic Field Mapping

Geologic maps integrate the distributions, contacts, and compositions of rock and sediment bodies as a means to interpret local to regional formative histories. Applying terrestrial mapping techniques to other planets is challenging because data is collected primarily by orbiting instruments, with infrequent, spatiallylimited in situ human and robotic exploration. Although geologic maps developed using remote data sets and limited "Apollo-style" field access likely contain inaccuracies, the magnitude, type, and occurrence of these are only marginally understood. This project evaluates the interpretative and cartographic accuracy of both field- and remote-based mapping approaches by comparing two 1:24,000 scale geologic maps of the San Francisco Volcanic Field (SFVF), north-central Arizona. The first map is based on traditional field mapping techniques, while the second is based on remote data sets, augmented with limited field observations collected during NASA Desert Research & Technology Studies (RATS) 2010 exercises. The RATS mission used Apollo-style methods not only for pre-mission traverse planning but also to conduct geologic sampling as part of science operation tests. Cross-comparison demonstrates that the Apollo-style map identifies many of the same rock units and determines a similar broad history as the field-based map. However, field mapping techniques allow markedly improved discrimination of map units, particularly unconsolidated surficial deposits, and recognize a more complex eruptive history than was possible using Apollo-style data. Further, the distribution of unconsolidated surface units was more obvious in the remote sensing data to the field team after conducting the fieldwork. The study raises questions about the most effective approach to balancing mission costs with the rate of knowledge capture, suggesting that there is an inflection point in the "knowledge capture curve" beyond which additional resource investment yields progressively smaller gains in geologic knowledge

Crew/Robot Coordinated Planetary EVA Operations at a Lunar Base Analog Site

Under the direction of NASA's Exploration Technology Development Program, robots and space suited subjects from several NASA centers recently completed a very successful demonstration of coordinated activities indicative of base camp operations on the lunar surface. For these activities, NASA chose a site near Meteor Crater, Arizona close to where Apollo Astronauts previously trained. The main scenario demonstrated crew returning from a planetary EVA (extra-vehicular activity) to a temporary base camp and entering a pressurized rover compartment while robots performed tasks in preparation for the next EVA. Scenario tasks included: rover operations under direct human control and autonomous modes, crew ingress and egress activities, autonomous robotic payload removal and stowage operations under both local control and remote control from Houston, and autonomous robotic navigation and inspection. In addition to the main scenario, participants had an opportunity to explore additional robotic operations: hill climbing, maneuvering heaving loads, gathering geo-logical samples, drilling, and tether operations. In this analog environment, the suited subjects and robots experienced high levels of dust, rough terrain, and harsh lighting