4.5 Article

Penetrometry of granular and moist planetary surface materials: Application to the Huygens landing site on Titan

期刊

ICARUS
卷 210, 期 2, 页码 843-851

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2010.07.019

关键词

Titan; Regoliths; Ices, Mechanical properties

资金

  1. PPARC
  2. UK PPARC (now STFC) [ST/F003102/1, PP/D000882/1]
  3. NASA at Jet Propulsion Laboratory
  4. Royal Astronomical Society
  5. STFC [PP/E007732/1, ST/F003102/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  6. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/F003102/1, PP/E007732/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Huygens probe landed on the then unknown surface of Titan in January 2005. A small, protruding penetrometer, part of the Surface Science Package (SSP), was pushed into the surface material measuring the mechanical resistance of the ground as the probe impacted the landing site. We present laboratory penetrometry into room temperature surface analogue materials using a replica penetrometer to investigate further the nature of Titan's surface and examine the sensor's capabilities. The results are then compared to the flight instrument's signature and suggest the Titan surface substrate material consists of sand-sized particles with a mean grain size similar to 2 mm. A possible thin 7 mm coating with mechanical properties similar to terrestrial snow may overlie this substrate, although due to the limited data we are unable to detect any further layering or grading within the near-surface material. The unusual weakening with depth of the signature returned from Titan has, to date, only been reproduced using a damp sand target that becomes progressively wetter with depth, and supports the suggestion that the surface may consist of a damp and cohesive material with interstitial liquid contained between its grains. Comparison with terrestrial analogues highlights the unusual nature of the landing site material. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据