4.5 Article

Results of the imager for Mars Pathfinder windsock experiment

期刊

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-PLANETS
卷 105, 期 E10, 页码 24547-24562

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/1999JE001234

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Imager for Mars Pathfinder (IMP) windsock experiment measured wind speeds at three heights within 1.2 m of the Martian surface during Pathfinder landed operations. These wind data allowed direct measurement of near-surface wind profiles on Mars for the first time, including determination of aerodynamic roughness length and wind friction speeds. Winds were light during periods of windsock imaging, but data from the strongest breezes indicate aerodynamic roughness length of 3 cm at the landing site, with wind friction speeds reaching 1 m/s. Maximum wind friction speeds were about half of the threshold-of-motion friction speeds predicted for loose, fine-grained materials on smooth Martian terrain and about one third of the threshold-of-motion friction speeds predicted for the same size particles over terrain with aerodynamic roughness of 3 cm. Consistent with this, and suggesting that low wind speeds prevailed when the windsock array was not imaged and/or no particles were available for aeolian transport, no wind-related changes to the surface during mission operations have been recognized. The aerodynamic roughness length reported here implies that proposed deflation of fine particles around the landing site, or activation of duneforms seen by IMP and Sojourner, would require wind speeds >28 m/s at the Pathfinder top windsock height (or >31 m/s at the equivalent Viking wind sensor height of 1.6 m) and wind speeds >45 m/s above 10 m. These wind speeds would cause rock abrasion if a supply of durable particles were available for saltation. Previous analyses indicate that the Pathfinder landing site probably is rockier and rougher than many other plains units on Mars, so aerodynamic roughness length elsewhere probably is less than the 3-cm value reported for the Pathfinder site.

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