2017 GHOST Rover Tests: Our Team

The 2017 GHOST Rover Tests kicked off in Mid-October with a fantastic collection of planetary scientists.  See below for the who’s who of the 2017 GHOST mission:

 

Aileen Yingst, PI

 

Dr. R. Aileen Yingst is a Senior Scientist at the Planetary Science Institute, a research institution headquartered in Tucson, AZ. She is a Participating Scientist on the Mars Exploration Rover Mission and Deputy Principal Investigator for the Mars Handlens Imager instrument on the Mars Science Laboratory rover Curiosity. She is also an associate on the Dawn at Ceres mission. Other missions that Dr. Yingst has worked on include Dawn at Vesta, Mars Pathfinder, Mars Polar Lander, and Galileo. Dr. Yingst served as Director of the Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium for 14 years.

 

Dr. Yingst received her AB from Dartmouth College in Physics and Astronomy, and her M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Geological Sciences from Brown University. She lives with her family in Brunswick, Maine.

 

Becky Williams

 

Becky is excited for a return engagement with the GHOST team to another fantastic region of interest in the state of Utah.  Once again, she is partnering with fellow geologists on the Tiger Team to ground-truth the geologic history preserved in the rock record.  She enjoys time in the field investigating water-carved landforms and deposits, particularly ones in inverted relief, at sites in Utah, Spain, Australia and the Chilean Atacama Desert.  Becky’s investigations of martian geomorphology focus on constraining the relative timing, duration, and magnitude of fluvial processes on Mars.

 

She received her bachelor’s in geology at Franklin & Marshall College and doctoral degree in planetary geology at Washington University in St. Louis working with Roger Phillips. Becky is a senior scientist with the Planetary Science Institute and works from Madison, Wisconsin, where she resides with her husband and two daughters. Becky is a science team member of the THEMIS and CTX instruments and a participating scientist with the Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity rover.

 

Linda Kah

 

Dr. Linda C. Kah is a Professor of carbonate sedimentology and geochemistry in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the University of Tennessee. She received concurrent BS and MS degrees in Geology from MIT in 1990, followed by a PhD in Earth and Planetary Sciences from Harvard in 1997; she joined the faculty at the University of Tennessee in 2000.

 

Growing up in northeastern Ohio, Linda was fascinated with the world around her. By kindergarten, Linda was pretty sure that geology was for her — she was, quite simply, fascinated by the endless diversity and beauty of rocks. At the age of nine, Linda’s nature-loving parents took her on a vacation to the western US. Upon seeing White Sands, New Mexico, and the Canyonlands of Utah, she was hooked.

 

Linda’s love of geology has only grown over the last 40 years, and in her research she works to decipher how ecosystems arise on planets; how biological processes interact with, and are recorded in, geological systems; and how rocks preserve information about past life. Linda’s research has taken her to some of the most remote places on Earth, including the Canadian Arctic, Saharan West Africa, the Ural mountains of Russia, China, and the high Andes of Argentina. Since August 2012, She has been working in an even more remote environment as a science team member and payload uplink lead in Curiosity’s investigation of Gale Crater. This is Linda’s second field season as part of the GHOST team, and she brings to the table her background as a field geologist. The last few years of rover mission activities, however, have opened her eyes to the necessity of human field simulations as a mechanism to advance our rover planning abilities.

 

Michelle Minitti

 

Michelle Minitti, Principal of Framework, specializes in activities at the intersection of science, engineering and operations typified by spacecraft operations. She received her B.S. in Materials Science and Engineering at the University of Arizona (1995), and her M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Geological Sciences from Brown University (1998, 2001). As a member of the Mars Science Laboratory science team, Minitti helps plan and execute observations by the Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) and Mars Descent Imager (MARDI) investigations. She is also a member of the Mars 2020 Scanning Habitable Environments with Raman and Luminescence for Organics and Chemicals (SHERLOC) science team.

 

This is Minitti’s second GHOST field experience. In 2015, she served as a member of the walkabout rover team; this year, she will serve as a member of linear rover team. She looks forward to working with the GHOST team once again!

 

Barbara Cohen

 

Dr. Barbara Cohen is a planetary scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Originally from upstate New York, Dr. Cohen earned her BS in Geology from the State University of New York at Stony Brook and her PhD in Planetary Science from the University of Arizona. Her main scientific interests are in geochronology and geochemistry of planetary samples from the Moon, Mars and asteroids. She is a Principal Investigator on multiple NASA research projects, a member of the Mars Exploration Rover mission team still operating the Opportunity rover, and the principal investigator for Lunar Flashlight, a lunar cubesat mission that will be launched in 2018 as an SLS secondary payload. She is the PI for the Mid-Atlantic Noble Gas Research Laboratory (MNGRL) and is developing a flight version of her noble-gas geochronology technique, the Potassium-Argon Laser Experiment (KArLE), for use on future planetary landers and rovers. She has participated in the Antarctic Search for Meteorites (ANSMET) over three seasons, where she helped recovered more than a thousand pristine samples for the US collection, and asteroid 6186 Barbcohen is named for her.

 

Dr. Cohen has been involved in GHOST team activities since their inception in 2010. She brings her experience on Mars rover operations and human field simulations to the GHOST rover team and planning activities, while gaining further geologic field skills.

 

Julie Bartley

 

Julie Bartley grew up in Southern California and completed an AB in Chemistry at Bryn Mawr College and an MS in Chemistry at UCLA before becoming a geologist and earning a PhD in Geology at UCLA. Following postdoctoral research at NASA Ames Research Center and Harvard University, Julie joined the faculty at the University of West Georgia. She moved to Gustavus Adolphus College in 2009, where she is an associate professor in Geology and Environmental Studies, currently serving as Associate Provost and Dean of Sciences and Education.

 

Julie’s research interests lie in the interface of biology, chemistry, and sedimentary processes on the early Earth. She studies microbial ecosystems, the fossilization of microbes, and the geologic structures left behind by microbes. This interest in ancient and microbially-dominated ecosystems has taken her to saline lakes in the Andes and to spectacular microbial reefs of West Africa and the Canadian Arctic. Recently, she’s worked on relatively young microbialites in Wyoming and relatively old ones in southern Ontario. This is her first GHOST project, and she’s joining the field crew for the first time, having recovered from a martial-arts accident that left her “planet-side” during the last excursion.

 

Brian Hynek

 

Brian grew up in Iowa and paid for part of college selling sweet corn on the street corner.  Ever since he was little he had a love of rocks and space, so a career in planetary geology fit the bill.  After earning his Bachelors at the University of Northern Iowa, he taught high school physics and chemistry in an inner-city school in San Antonio, TX.  Then he headed to Washington University and worked with Roger Phillips on various Mars surface process issues.  Disliking the flatlands, he headed to Colorado as a post-doc at the the University of Colorado-Boulder.  He became a permanent research scientist, and later a tenured professor.

 

Brian’s research focuses on: (1) planetary geologic mapping of Mars and Mercury, (2) the fluvial history of Mars, (3) Mars volcanism, (4) astrobiology, (5) fieldwork studying hydrothermal systems on modern Earth and how they relate to relic systems on Mars.  The latter provides a chance to climb into active volcanoes around the world and understand how they work and how those on early Mars operated.

 

Ramy El-Maarry

 

Ramy is an Egyptian planetary scientist focusing on understanding the geology of planetary surfaces. His work is primarily focused on Mars but also extends to small bodies, especially comets. Ramy is an active member in the MRO/HiRISE, TGO/CaSSIS, and Rosetta/OSIRIS teams.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tom Chidsey

 

Tom grew up in the Washington DC metropolitan area. As the “senior citizen” of the GHOST mission, Tom followed the early days of human space exploration throughout his childhood, from when in the third grade he watched Alan Sheppard blastoff in the Redstone rocket to the first landing on the moon to help celebrate his 17 th birthday, July 20, 1969. Tom has been fascinated with planetary geology and is thrilled to help the Tiger Team of the GHOST mission. Tom graduated with Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in geology from Brigham Young University. After spending 13 years in the petroleum industry with Exxon in South Texas and Questar in the Rocky Mountain region, Tom joined the Utah Geological Survey in 1989 where he is a Senior Scientist. His research includes petroleum reservoir studies (especially carbonates including microbialites), oil and gas field summaries, carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, the geology of Utah’s parks, and outcrop reservoir and occasional Mars analog investigations. The Tiger Team is drawing on Tom’s many years of experience and extensive knowledge of Utah geology to assist with the GHOST mission.

 

Mike Vanden Berg

 

Mike Vanden Berg grew up in southwest Michigan where the saying goes, “lower Michigan has great geology and it is only 1 mile away, straight down through the glacial till.” Despite this fact, Mike received a B.S. in geology from Calvin College in Grand Rapids, and then headed west to play with “real” rocks in Utah. After completing his M.S. degree in geology at the University of Utah, Mike joined the Utah Geological Survey and has been there ever since, going on 15 years. He is currently the Energy and Minerals Program Manager. Mike’s main area of research includes the lacustrine Green River Formation and the study of its amazing microbialites. Mike also investigates the extensive microbialites in Great Salt Lake as a possible analogue for ancient lacustrine deposits. Oh, and he is a ski bum.

 

Sarah Black

 

Sarah Black received her Geology BA in 2004, and Geology MS in 2006 – both from the State University of New York at Buffalo.  For her MS, Sarah worked with Dr. Tracy Gregg (who is 100% responsible for luring Sarah away from her original undergraduate plan of biomedical science and stem cell research – thank goodness), and conducted a morphological and statistical analysis of volcanoes on Io – the innermost moon of Jupiter.

 

After completing her MS, Sarah worked at Malin Space Science Systems, where she targeted the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) on the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft, and the Context Camera (CTX) on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) spacecraft.  She then returned to her hometown in Upstate New York, where she taught introductory geology courses at Skidmore College for several years.

 

Sarah is currently a 5th year Ph.D. student at the University of Colorado Boulder in Brian Hynek’s Surface Processes And Continuing Evolution of Contemporary Analogous TerraneS (SPACECATS) lab.  For her dissertation research, Sarah is studying hydrothermal systems in Costa Rica and Iceland, which may be useful analogs for early Mars.  Sarah’s current research focuses on instrumentation techniques (VNIR, XRD, Raman), mineralogy, geochemistry, and astrobiology.  She is also interested in physical volcanology, computer modeling, and geological mapping.  Sarah has fallen in love with fieldwork over the years, and has been fortunate enough to travel to Hawaii, Yellowstone, all over the desert southwest, New Zealand, Costa Rica, and now Iceland, and call it “work.”

 

For this year’s GHOST project, Sarah will once again be operating the VNIR instrument and enjoying wandering the Utah desert.

 

John Gemperline

 

John Gemperline is a 2nd year Ph.D. student in planetary geology at CU Boulder with Dr. Hynek.  He studied geology and geography as an undergraduate at both East Carolina University and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and has also dabbled in classics and music.

 

John first began studying planetary geology in middle school when his science club participated in the Mars Student Imaging Project in 2002.  He interned at NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center in 2012 where he studied craters around Martian outflow channels and visited Mars analog sites in Arizona.  For the past year John has been mapping the area around the Rembrandt impact basin and studying lobate scarps on Mercury.

 

While sitting in on Dr. Hynek’s class, John was able to visit a previous GHOST field site on a class field trip that involved each student drawing a nominal rover traverse.  John is excited to be the XRD instrument and not on rover ops after his own imaginary rover ended up driving off a cliff last fall.  He has been honing his XRD skills and will once again be providing crystallographic and mineralogical analysis for the two rover teams and Tiger team.

 

Rachel Kronyak

 

Rachel Kronyak is a third-year PhD student of Linda Kah’s at the University of Tennessee. A NJ native, Rachel spent her time growing up on the soccer field or at the Jersey shore- collecting sea glass, body surfing, and taking long walks on the beach (seriously). A fortuitous high school scholarship granted Rachel the opportunity to spend a week in Huntsville, Alabama attending Space Camp, which is where she realized that her dream was to work for NASA. Rachel went on to get her bachelors degree from Penn State, where she studied geobiology, astrobiology, and marine science, and spent all 4 years in a research lab experimenting with extremophile bacteria. Also while in college, Rachel had the opportunity to intern for 2 summers at NASA’s Goddard Space Fight Center, where she continued her work with extremophiles and studied the effects of Mars-like conditions on their survivability. Once Rachel started her graduate studies at UT, she became a member of the Mars Science Laboratory team and actively participates in several mission operations roles, including Documentarian, Geo Keeper of the Plan, and Payload Uplink Lead for the Mastcam instrument. For her PhD, Rachel is working with several forms of Mars datasets, including MSL and HiRISE, to understand the nature of rock fractures and veins in Gale crater. When she’s not on Mars, Rachel spends her time CrossFitting, running, cooking, and hanging out with her shelter pup, Sadie.

 

Mike Lotto

 

Mike Lotto is pursuing an MS in Geological Sciences with Dr. Brian Hynek, as well as a PhD in Aerospace Engineering Sciences with Dr. David Klaus at the University of Colorado Boulder. He has a BS and MS in Aerospace Engineering Sciences and a Graduate Certificate in Astrobiology from CU Boulder.

 

Mike’s previous experiences include internships with operations groups in the International Space Station program at NASA Johnson Space Center, research on NASA’s “Weightless Wonder”, and a rotation as crew engineer at the Mars Desert Research Station near Hanksville, Utah.

 

He is currently formulating a research topic for his MS, but between his interests in geomorphology and fieldwork, he hopes to use the experiences from this year’s GHOST project to guide his work moving forward. He is very excited to serve as the rover during this field campaign.

 

Madison Adams

 

I’m Madison! I’m an undergraduate student at Gustavus Adolphus College working on my bachelors in Geology. Geology and planetary science were never on my radar growing up, but now I’m lucky enough to have this awesome experience that all of my undergraduate friends can be jealous of! I’ll be working as a rover in the field this fall and I’m super excited to work with everyone on this project!

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 3

Ruby Rover "recharging her solar cells."

Ruby Rover “recharging her solar cells.”

Thursday was our last day in the field, and our science teams had only a few morning hours to wrap up their investigations.  Becca, Ruby, Sarah, and John were sent out to gather the last bits of data and cached samples for each team.  By mid-morning, the science teams had most of the data they wanted to collect, and were spending the bulk of their time drawing strat columns and refining their interpretations.  Meanwhile, the rovers and instruments “recharged their solar cells” after several days of hard work.

 

Science team debrief/findings comparison (from left: Michelle, Geoff, Linda, Aileen)

Science team debrief/findings comparison (from left: Michelle, Geoff, Linda, Aileen)

As lunchtime approached and the science teams wrapped up their investigations, they sat down to debrief with Aileen and then compared their findings. The walkabout team was thoroughly amused with the linear team’s serendipitous discovery of the microbial mat, which led to many excellent discussions throughout the rest of the day.  I’ll save the conclusions for the eventual paper, and will update this post with a link once it’s published.

 

Geoff finally gets his hands on the SWAMM unit. (From left: Linda, Geoff, Barbara)

Geoff finally gets his hands on the SWAMM unit. (from left: Linda, Geoff, Barbara)

After the official end of investigation by the science teams, the group sat down for lunch and discussion time.  The Tiger team brought out their returned samples and the no-longer-sequestered science teams got their first peek at what was really in the field site.

 

After lunch, each science team gave a summary of their findings to the group, followed by the detailed Tiger team findings.  We were all pleased to see that overall, both science teams did an excellent job of characterizing the general geology in the field site, with only minor differences.

 

Post-investigation discussion time; Left: Linda and Geoff give us a rundown of their science findings; Center: Group chat at mission control; Right: Barbara gives the group an overview of the Tiger team findings.

Post-investigation discussion time; Left: Linda and Geoff give us a rundown of their science findings; Center: Group chat at mission control; Right: Barbara gives the group an overview of the Tiger team findings.

 

After lunch and the presentation of science team findings, it was time for the group to wander across the street to the field site so the science teams could finally see things with their own eyes.  The Tiger team, rovers, and “instruments” were also along to point out locations they had sampled, and things they never saw.  There were many laughs, shaking heads, and exasperated “if onlys,” but overall, the science teams had both done an excellent job with the tools they had.

 

The science teams finally get to see their field site in person.

The science teams finally get to see their field site in person.

 

After the site tour, the team broke camp and headed into town for dinner.  Everyone thoroughly enjoyed the dinner conversation, as well as washing their hands with actual soap.  After dinner, the team parted ways – to be reunited again next year.

 

The 2016 GHOST team, enjoying the view from the SWAMM unit (from left: Michelle Minitti, Sarah Black)

The 2016 GHOST team, enjoying the view from the SWAMM unit (from left: Michelle Minitti, Sarah Black, Geoff Gilleaudeau, Becca Thomas, Aileen Yingst, Becky Williams, Linda Kah, Ruby Schaufler, Barbara Cohen, Brian Hynek, John Gemperline, Tom Chidesy)

 

Other 2016 GHOST rover posts:

2016 Utah “Rover” Tests: Our Mission

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Our Tools

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Our Team

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 1

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 2

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 2

The team awoke fresh faced and ready to get back into their traverses on day 2. After a chat around breakfast, coffee, and stick throwing for our resident Martian dogs, Ruby, Becca, Sarah, and John prepared themselves to head back out and do their science teams’ bidding, and the TIGER team headed out to finish their in-situ investigations of the field site.

 

Left: Ruby Rover with our "Martians," Quinn and Neva; Center: The Tiger team, getting ready to head out for the day (from left: Barbara Cohen, Becky Williams, Tom Chidsey)

Left: Ruby Rover with our “Martians,” Quinn and Neva; Right: The Tiger team, getting ready to head out for the day (from left: Barbara Cohen, Becky Williams, Tom Chidsey)

While the rovers and instruments were out gathering data, the science teams remained at base camp, plotting their next moves. They had all of day 2, and a brief bit of time the following day to finish their investigations, and still had many questions to be answered, and quite a bit of ground to cover.

 

Left: Aileen (left) and Linda (right) planning their next moves; Right: Becca Rover (right) receiving instructions from Michelle (left)

Left: Aileen (left) and Linda (right) planning their next moves; Right: Becca Rover (right) receiving instructions from Michelle (left)

 

Throughout the day, the rovers and instruments struggled (but succeeded) to not give away anything when receiving instructions from their science teams. Everyone was wondering what the science teams would find, and if they would find the rock that had been unanimously named the “most interesting” unit of the whole site – a cap rock containing a carbonate and silica microbial mat that the Tiger team had named “SWAMM” (Siliceous WAvy Microbial Mat). The walkabout team (Geoff and Michelle) had encountered this unit on day 1, but luck had it that the location they imaged was not as nice of a structure, and they interpreted the linear features as fractures. Towards the end of day 2, the linear team (Aileen and Linda) happened to have Ruby take a mid-drive image in just the right location, and noticed a float rock from that unit. They squeezed in a detailed investigation of the float rock and surrounding area before the end of the day, which ended up re-focusing the remainder of their investigative efforts on day 3.

 

"Ruby Rover" and ChemMin (John Gemperline) gathering data on the fateful SWAMM float blocks.

“Ruby Rover” and “ChemMin” (John Gemperline) gathering data on the fateful SWAMM float blocks.

 

It’s important to note that in this case, Aileen and Linda’s serendipitous initial image of the SWAMM unit, and Michelle and Geoff’s alternate identification had nothing to do with the merits of linear vs. walkabout methodology, nor Michelle and Geoff’s abilities as planetary scientists. It was simply a matter of sheer dumb luck – which is always a factor in remote investigations. Aileen and Linda asked Ruby Rover to take a mid-drive image at just the right location at just the right time of day (with a good lighting angle to see a particular feature).  When taking her pictures, Ruby just happened to start low enough in her field of view that Linda and Aileen saw an interesting float block down near her feet. The other fateful part of this equation was that Linda was looking at the image. With decades of experience looking at exactly these structures, and a picture of a beautiful example sitting right in front of her, she was immediately interested. While Geoff is also very familiar with microbial mat structures, the location he and Michelle happened to get a picture of did not have the same distinctive features, and was easily missed. All of these variables were discussed at length at the end of the week, but for now, neither team knew what the other had seen.

 

Left: The less distinct SWAMM outcrop as imaged by the walkabout team - interpreted as fractures/fracture fill; Right: The characteristic SWAMM unit in a float block, first recognized as a potential biosignature by the linear traverse team.

Left: The less distinct SWAMM outcrop as imaged by the walkabout team – interpreted as fractures/fracture fill; Right: The characteristic SWAMM unit in a float block, first recognized as a potential biosignature by the linear traverse team.

 

The diagnostic SWAMM unit outcrop

The diagnostic SWAMM unit outcrop

 

Day 2 ended with discussion over a delicious dinner, Becca’s first s’more, and light up bocce ball.

 

Aileen, the "field mom," showing Becca how to make her first s'more.

Aileen, the “field mom,” showing Becca how to make her first s’more.

 

Other 2016 GHOST rover posts:

2016 Utah “Rover” Tests: Our Mission

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Our Tools

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Our Team

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 1

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 3

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 1

The GHOST team arrived onsite Monday evening, and began our rover investigations early Tuesday morning. The day began with a coordination of teams, and laying out an initial work plan, by the team’s PI, Aileen Yingst.

 

Morning briefing

Morning briefing

 

This year’s TIGER team (our team of geologists free to roam the site) consists of Becky Williams, Barbara Cohen, and Tom Chidsey. Aileen Yingst, Linda Kah, and Ruby Schaufler make up the linear traverse rover team, while Michelle Minitti, Geoff Gilleaudeau, and Becca Thomas are conducting the walkabout rover investigations. Site god, Brian Hynek, is overseeing rover operations and providing logistical support. Sarah Black is operating the rovers’ “ChemCam” (VNIR), and John Gemperline is operating the “CheMin” (XRD/APXS).

 

Both rovers and ChemCam (Becca Thomas, Ruby Schaufler, and Sarah Black) were deployed into the field – given specific locations to stop at, and instructions for sampling/imaging. As the day progressed, samples were taken to analyze with XRD/APXS (John Gemperline), and the rovers and ChemCam continued along their traverses – making it about 1/3 to 1/2 of the way around the loop the team roughly sketched out – using remotely sensed data – before arriving at the site.

 

A linear traverse team meeting, and "Ruby Rover" surveying the site

A linear traverse team meeting at base camp (from left: Linda Kah, Aileen Yingst, and Ruby Schaufler), and “Ruby Rover” surveying the site

A walkabout team meeting, and "Becca Rover" surveying the site

A walkabout team meeting at base camp (from left: Becca Thomas, Geoff Gilleaudeau, and Michelle Minitti), and “Becca Rover” surveying the site

 

Day 1 operations spanned several Martian sols (days), and the rover teams began to characterize the lower half of the stratigraphy. Both teams kept the rovers and “ChemCam” extremely busy running back and forth between the field site and base camp, and the linear traverse team also ran several samples on the XRD/AXPS. Science team members fluctuated between happy, frustrated, excited, and confused throughout the day as their rover teams returned more data – often contradicting their expectations. Operations wound down as dinnertime approached, and the GHOST team pondered the next day’s moves to the sound of gale force winds howling outside their tents.

 

Other 2016 GHOST rover posts:

2016 Utah “Rover” Tests: Our Mission

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Our Tools

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Our Team

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 2

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 3

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Our Team

We have an excellent team working on the GHOST project this year!  Check out their bios below:

 

Dr. Aileen Yingst, PI

 

IMG_9080Dr. R. Aileen Yingst is a Senior Scientist at the Planetary Science Institute, a research institution headquartered in Tucson, AZ. She is a Participating Scientist on the Mars Exploration Rover Mission and Deputy Principal Investigator for the Mars Handlens Imager instrument on the Mars Science Laboratory rover Curiosity. She is also an associate on the Dawn at Ceres mission. Other missions that Dr. Yingst has worked on include Dawn at Vesta, Mars Pathfinder, Mars Polar Lander, and Galileo. Dr. Yingst served as Director of the Wisconsin Space Grant Consortium for 14 years.

 

Dr. Yingst received her AB from Dartmouth College in Physics and Astronomy, and her M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Geological Sciences from Brown University. She lives with her family in Brunswick, Maine.

 

Dr. Barbara A. Cohen

 

IMG_9084Dr. Barbara Cohen leads the planetary science group at the Marshall Space Flight Center. Originally from upstate New York, Dr. Cohen earned her BS in Geology from the State University of New York at Stony Brook and her PhD in Planetary Science from the University of Arizona. She is now a planetary scientist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center interested in geochronology and geochemistry of planetary samples from the Moon, Mars and asteroids.

 

Dr. Cohen serves within NASA representing science interests and capabilities within human spaceflight planning. She is a Principal Investigator on multiple NASA research projects, a member of the mission teams operating the Opportunity and Curiosity rovers on Mars, and the principal investigator for Lunar Flashlight, a lunar cubesat mission that will be launched in 2018. She is the PI for the MSFC Noble Gas Research Laboratory (MNGRL) and is developing a flight version of her noble-gas geochronology technique, the Potassium-Argon Laser Experiment (KArLE), for use on future planetary landers and rovers. She has participated in the Antarctic Search for Meteorites (ANSMET) over three seasons, where she helped recovered more than a thousand pristine samples for the US collection, and asteroid 6186 Barbcohen is named for her.

 

Dr. Cohen has been involved in GHOST team activities since their inception in 2010. She brings her experience on Mars rover operations and human field simulations to the GHOST rover team and planning activities, while gaining further geologic field skills.

 

Dr. Brian Hynek

 

IMG_9043Brian grew up in Iowa and paid for part of college selling sweet corn on the street corner.  Ever since he was little he had a love of rocks and space, so a career in planetary geology fit the bill.  After earning his Bachelors at the University of Northern Iowa, he taught high school physics and chemistry in an inner-city school in San Antonio, TX.  Then he headed to Washington University and worked with Roger Phillips on various Mars surface process issues.  Disliking the flatlands, he headed to Colorado as a post-doc at the the University of Colorado-Boulder.  He became a permanent research scientist, and later a tenured professor.

 

Brian’s research focuses on: (1) planetary geologic mapping of Mars and Mercury, (2) the fluvial history of Mars, (3) Mars volcanism, (4) astrobiology, (5) fieldwork studying hydrothermal systems on modern Earth and how they relate to relic systems on Mars.  The latter provides a chance to climb into active volcanoes around the world and understand how they work and how those on early Mars operated.

 

Dr. Linda Kah

 

IMG_9077Dr. Linda C. Kah is the Kenneth Walker Professor of carbonate sedimentology and geochemistry in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the University of Tennessee.

 

Linda grew up in the Cuyahoga Valley region of northeastern Ohio and has been pursuing her love of science since kindergarten, when she announced her intention to become a geologist. It only seemed natural….her mom (a polymer chemist) and dad (a metallurgist) had met in a geology class in college and had gone fossil hunting as a first date!  After growing up immersed in nature, Linda received concurrent BS and MS degrees in Geology from MIT in 1990, followed by a PhD in Earth and Planetary Sciences from Harvard in 1997.  Following postdoctoral research at the University of Missouri, she joined the faculty at the University of Tennessee in 2000.

 

In her research, Dr. Kah combines her knowledge of sedimentary geology, isotope geochemistry, and biology to decipher how ecosystems arise on planets and how biological processes are interacting with, and are recorded in, geological systems. Dr. Kah’s research has taken her to some of the most remote places on Earth, including more than 120 weeks of field work in the Canadian Arctic, Saharan West Africa, the Ural mountains of Russia, China, and the high Andes of Argentina. In 2004, Dr. Kah set her sites on an even more remote field locality when joined Malin Space Science Systems in their proposal to supply the Mars Science Laboratory mission with the MARDI, MAHLI, and Mast Cameras. Since August 2012, she has worked as a science team member and payload uplink lead in Curiosity’s investigation of Gale Crater.

 

This is Dr. Kah’s first involvement with GHOST team activities.  Fundamentally, Dr. Kah brings to the table her skill as a field geologist.  The last few years of rover mission activities, however, have opened her eyes to the necessity of human field simulations as a mechanism to advance our rover planning abilities.

 

Dr. Michelle Minitti

 

IMG_9074Michelle Minitti, a Senior Scientist at the Planetary Science Institute, began her academic career at the University of Arizona where she earned a B.S. in materials science and engineering in 1995. Through a planetary science elective at the University of Arizona, she discovered she could apply her materials science training to the study of planetary materials, and thus a career in geology was born. Michelle earned her M.Sc. (1998) and Ph.D. (2001) in geological sciences from Brown University, investigating a range of topics including the effect of impact shock on water and hydrogen isotopes in amphibole and potential links between the Martian meteorites and lithologies detected by both landed and orbital Mars missions.

 

After a one year postdoctoral fellowship at the Carnegie Institute for Science Geophysical Laboratory in 2001, Michelle began a ten-year tenure at Arizona State University (ASU). She gained research and management experience through a variety of roles including a postdoctoral research associate position in the NASA Astrobiology Institute, the interim and assistant director of the Center for Meteorite Studies and a faculty research associate. At ASU, her research interests focused on the interpretation of spectral and chemical data from orbital and landed Mars missions, but she also started her own involvement with a Mars mission as a Co-Investigator on the Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) investigation for the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission.

 

Since the successful landing of MSL’s Curiosity rover in Gale crater, Mars in 2012, Michelle has been involved with both MAHLI and the Mars Descent Imager (MARDI), supporting strategic planning and tactical use of both cameras through operations roles, and analyzing and interpreting their data to further our understanding of the Gale crater landing site.

 

Michelle joins the GHOST team for the first time, looking to apply her experience with Curiosity rover operations to the field test. In turn, she seeks to apply lessons learned in the field to maximizing the science return of Curiosity and future landed missions.

 

Dr. Rebecca Williams

 

IMG_9051“Why?” has been Becky’s favorite question since three years of age as she interrogated her geologist father conducing his dissertation research in Montana. To this day, she still enjoys teasing out answers from the rock record at field sites in Utah, California, Australia and the Atacama Desert in Chile. She received her training at Franklin & Marshall College for undergraduate and pursued a doctoral degree in planetary geology at Washington University in St. Louis. Becky is a senior scientist with the Planetary Science Institute and works from Madison, Wisconsin where she resides with her husband and two daughters. Becky is a science team member of the THEMIS and CTX instruments and a participating scientist with the Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity rover. This is Becky’s first GHOST mission as part of the Tiger Team. She is looking forward to advancing protocols that maximize the scientific return from future rover missions.

 

Tom Chidsey

 

IMG_9085Tom grew up in the Washington DC metropolitan area. As the “senior citizen” of the GHOST mission, Tom followed the early days of human space exploration throughout his childhood, from when in the third grade he watched Alan Sheppard blastoff in the Redstone rocket to the first landing on the moon to help celebrate his 17th birthday, July 20, 1969. Tom has been fascinated with planetary geology and is thrilled to help the Tiger Team of the GHOST mission. Tom graduated with Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in geology from Brigham Young University. For his thesis, Tom investigated the complex structures and mapped the surface geology of the House Range in western Utah under the direction of the late, great Lehi Hintze known as the “Father of Utah Geology.” After spending 13 years in the petroleum industry with Exxon in South Texas and Questar in the Rocky Mountain region, Tom joined the Utah Geological Survey in 1989 where he is a Senior Scientist. His research includes petroleum reservoir studies (especially carbonates including microbialites), oil and gas field summaries, carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, the geology of Utah’s parks, and outcrop reservoir and occasional Mars analog investigations. The Tiger Team is drawing on Tom’s many years of experience and extensive knowledge of Utah geology to assist with the GHOST mission.

 

Dr. Rebecca Thomas

 

IMG_9070Dr. Rebecca Thomas is a Research Associate in planetary geology at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

 

Rebecca grew up in Oxfordshire in the UK, and took a rather circuitous route to planetary geology. She initially gained her Masters in Archaeology from Edinburgh, Scotland, in the late 90s. She then spent 10 years as an internet entrepreneur in the Caribbean and Malta, before giving in to the urge for discovery and returning to the UK to gain a BSc in Earth Sciences from Birkbeck College, University of London. During these studies it became clear to her that she found the geology of other planets even more fascinating than that of our own, so, for her PhD, she moved to The Open University, UK, to research the planet Mercury. Using brand-new data from NASA’s MESSENGER spacecraft, then orbiting the planet, she made few discoveries about surprisingly recent explosive volcanism and active sublimation from Mercury’s surface.

 

On achieving her PhD, a life-long interest in Mars and a strong interest in future human presence there led her to seek a post-doctoral position where she could broaden her research to the Red Planet. Luckily, the GHOST mission’s Site God, Brian Hynek, was seeking a postdoctoral researcher to work on both Mercury’s and Mars’ geology in Boulder, CO – a perfect fit.  She has been at LASP since January 2016, getting stuck in to projects on both planets.

 

She will be lending her legs to the GHOST team as a rover (endeavoring to keep her geological interpretations to herself!) and looks forward to seeing how both the decision-making processes within teams and the trade-offs in time and science between teams pan out.

 

Dr. Geoff Gilleaudeau

 

IMG_9072Geoff was born in Queens, New York, and did not have natural sciences on his radar at all as a kid. He went to Binghamton University in rural upstate New York as an undecided major, and left with a newfound love for the outdoors and geology. A cross-country trip to Death Valley cemented his love for travelling and field geology. He did a PhD in sedimentology, stratigraphy, and geochemistry at the University of Tennessee, with an interest in the Precambrian Earth. Specifically, he became interested in the history of animal evolution, ocean chemistry, and the history of Earth surface oxygenation as recorded in sedimentary rocks. After his PhD, he taught Earth System History at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania, before moving on to a postdoc on metal isotope geochemistry at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. After two years in Scandinavia, Geoff is currently a NASA astrobiology postdoctoral fellow at Arizona State University. He brings an expertise in field sedimentology and stratigraphy to the GHOST team as his first experience in planetary geoscience.

 

Sarah Black

 

IMG_9065Sarah Black received her Geology BA in 2004, and Geology MS in 2006 – both from the State University of New York at Buffalo.  For her MS, Sarah worked with Dr. Tracy Gregg (who is 100% responsible for luring Sarah away from her original undergraduate plan of biomedical science and stem cell research – thank goodness), and conducted a morphological and statistical analysis of volcanoes on Io – the innermost moon of Jupiter.

 

After completing her MS, Sarah worked at Malin Space Science Systems, where she targeted the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) on the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft, and the Context Camera (CTX) on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) spacecraft.  She then returned to her hometown in Upstate New York, where she taught introductory geology courses at Skidmore College for several years.

 

Sarah is currently a third year Ph.D. student at the University of Colorado Boulder in Brian Hynek’s Surface Processes And Continuing Evolution of Contemporary Analogous TerraneS (SPACECATS) lab.  For her dissertation research, Sarah is studying hydrothermal systems in Costa Rica and Iceland, which may be useful analogs for early Mars.  Sarah’s current research focuses on instrumentation techniques (VNIR, XRD, Raman), mineralogy, geochemistry, and astrobiology.  She is also interested in physical volcanology, computer modeling, and geological mapping.  Sarah has fallen in love with fieldwork over the years, and has been fortunate enough to travel to Hawaii, Yellowstone, all over the desert southwest, New Zealand, Costa Rica, and now Iceland, and call it “work.”

 

Besides the trials and tribulations of grad school, Sarah enjoys time with her two crazy dogs, and exploring the beautiful trails all over Colorado.  She is currently training for her first 100 mile running race, because she does stupid things.

 

For this year’s GHOST project, Sarah will be operating the VNIR instrument and enjoying wandering the Utah desert.

 

John Gemperline

 

IMG_9067John Gemperline is beginning a PhD program in planetary geology at CU Boulder in the Fall of 2016 with Dr. Hynek.  He studied geology and geography as an undergraduate at both East Carolina University and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, and has also dabbled in classics and music.

 

John first began studying planetary geology in middle school when his science club participated in the Mars Student Imaging Project in 2002.  He interned at NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center in 2012 where he studied craters around Martian outflow channels and visited Mars analog sites in Arizona.  For the past year John has been mapping the area around the Rembrandt impact basin and studying lobate scarps on Mercury.

 

While sitting in on Dr. Hynek’s class, John was able to visit a previous GHOST field site on a class field trip that involved each student drawing a nominal rover traverse.  John is excited to be the XRD instrument and not on rover ops after his own imaginary rover ended up driving off a cliff last fall.  He has been honing his XRD skills and will be providing crystallographic and mineralogical analysis for the two rover teams and Tiger team.

 

Ruby Schaufler 

 

IMG_9045Ruby is an undergraduate student at Gustavus Adolphus College in St.Peter MN.  Ruby was brought on to the GHOST team this fall and plans to do some additional research with the team for her senior thesis.  She will be working as a rover in the field this week and is looking forward to meeting everyone!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Julie Bartley

 

Julie Bartley grew up in Southern California and completed an AB in Chemistry at Bryn Mawr College and an MS in Chemistry at UCLA before becoming a geologist and earning a PhD in Geology at UCLA. Following postdoctoral research at NASA Ames Research Center and Harvard University, Julie joined the faculty at the University of West Georgia. She moved to Gustavus Adolphus College in 2009, where she is now an associate professor and chair of the Geology Department.

 

Julie’s research interests lie in the interface of biology, chemistry, and sedimentary processes on the early Earth. She studies microbial ecosystems, the fossilization of microbes, and the geologic structures left behind by microbes. This interest in ancient and microbially-dominated ecosystems has taken her to saline lakes in the Andes and to spectacular microbial reefs of West Africa and the Canadian Arctic. Recently, she’s worked on relatively young microbialites in Wyoming and relatively old ones in southern Ontario. This is her first GHOST project, and she’s sitting out this round of fieldwork because her hobby, judo, got in the way of geology in the form of a broken leg. She’ll remain firmly “planet-side” as the GHOST team explores its Mars-analog region.

 

Other 2016 GHOST rover posts:

2016 Utah “Rover” Tests: Our Mission

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Our Tools

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 1

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 2

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 3

 

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Our Tools

Instruments onboard the MSL rover in Gale Crater (Image: JPL/NASA)

Instruments onboard the MSL rover in Gale Crater        (Image: JPL/NASA)

While we are out in the field pretending to be Mars rovers, we need to be able to gather the same kind of data that we acquire on Mars.  There are many impressive instruments on both Spirit and Opportunity – the Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) – as well as Curiosity – the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL).  For this week, we are limited to those instruments which we are capable of taking out into the field, and many of the MER and MSL instruments do not have field-portable analog instruments here on Earth.

 

Fortunately, we have two field-portable instruments that are excellent analogs for those on board the current Mars rovers:

 

Visible Near Infrared Spectroscopy (VNIR)

 

VNIR spectroscopy measures the spectrum of light that is reflected by a material between 0.35 and 2.5 um (350 – 2500 nm).  This range of wavelengths covers all of the visible light spectrum (0.38 to 0.78 um) and into the near-infrared wavelengths.

The electromagnetic spectrum. (Image source)

The electromagnetic spectrum. Note: Here, visible light wavelengths are written as nm. (Image source)

Every material on Earth (or Mars, in this case) has its own characteristic pattern in the wavelengths of light that it reflects.  A spectrometer measures the reflected light coming off a material, and displays it as a reflectance spectra:

 

Reflectance spectra of hematite - a common iron-oxide mineral.

Reflectance spectra of hematite – a common iron-oxide mineral.  Hematite appears red to the human eye because it reflects light around 0.7 um – the red wavelength in the visible light spectrum.  The light that it reflects at longer wavelengths is not visible to the human eye.

The dips in the spectra are called absorption bands, and are due to the material – whatever it may be – absorbing light at that particular wavelength.  The wavelengths that a material absorbs are determined primarily by its chemical composition, crystal structure, and grain size.  By comparing the reflectance spectra from a material of unknown composition – such as a rock on Mars – to reflectance spectra of known composition (called library or reference spectra), we can match each of the absorption features and determine the composition of our mystery material.

 

VNIR on Mars

 

CRISM image of Jezero crater showing variations in mineralogy represented as different colors. (image credit: NASA/JPL/JHUAPL/MSSS/Brown University)

CRISM image of Jezero crater showing variations in mineralogy represented as different colors. (image credit: NASA/JPL/JHUAPL/MSSS/Brown University)

VNIR is a commonly used tool for planetary science, and is used at a variety of scales.  VNIR instruments are on satellites, such as the Compact Reconnaissance Imaging Spectrometer for Mars (CRISM) on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO), and the Observatoire pour la Minéralogie, l’Eau, les Glaces et l’Activité (OMEGA) on the Mars Express (MEx) orbiter.  VNIR from orbit allows planetary scientists to gather compositional data across a wide area, up to a resolution of about 18 m/pixel (for CRISM).  The ability to measure large areas provides excellent context for in-situ (ground-based) measurements, allows us to gather compositional data where we don’t have ground-based rovers, and can show large scale variations in surface composition.  However, orbital VNIR measurements do not allow us to observe small-scale details, since all the materials in that 18 meter wide pixel add together into one spectra, and often things are lost.  Additionally, orbital measurements have to deal with the effects of looking through Mars’ atmosphere.  The gas (primarily CO2) and dust in the atmosphere also absorb light energy and need to be corrected for before any surface compositions can be identified.

 

In addition to orbital measurements, VNIR is also incorporated into each of the current rover cameras.  Both the MER PanCam and MSL ChemCam (via the passive LIBS function) are capable of taking images in the VNIR spectral window.  These ground-based instruments allow planetary scientists to investigate rock compositions on a much finer scale than what we can see from orbit, which allows us to delve deeper into the geologic history of Mars.  These rover-mounted spectrometers are the ones we are simulating in Utah.

 

Variations in mineralogy across Home Plate in Gusev Crater, measured by the Spirit rover's PanCam instrument. (Figure adapted from Schmidt et al., 2009)

Variations in mineralogy across Home Plate in Gusev Crater, measured by the Spirit rover’s PanCam instrument. A: False color image of Home Plate; B: Various mineralogies – interpreted from the measured spectra – represented by different colors (see original paper for details); C; Pie charts showing the changes in mineralogy across Home Plate, based on the sampled spectra.  (Figure adapted from Schmidt et al., 2009)

 

Our instrument: Field-portable VNIR

 

The TerraSpec Halo VNIR instrument (image source: ASD, Inc.)

The TerraSpec Halo VNIR instrument (image source: ASD, Inc.)

The VNIR spectrometer we will be using this week is the TerraSpec Halo from ASD, Inc.  This instrument also measures reflectivity – just like the MER PanCam and MSL ChemCam, and allows us to make the same types of geological interpretations as the planetary scientists who are working with the Mars rover data.

 

To sample a rock, the sensor of the Halo gun is placed in contact with the material.  When the trigger is pulled, the Halo shines a light onto the rock, and measures what wavelengths are reflected back.  The internal computer then cycles through all the library (known) spectra and finds those that best match the sample.  Very often, more than one spectra can be considered a match, since rocks often consist of more than one mineral.  If further analysis (or confirmation) is needed, the spectra are then exported and manually investigated in the spectral analysis software, ENVI.

 

MER and MSL rovers are capable of gathering VNIR spectra across a wide field of view, such as a large rock outcrop, while the Halo’s contact probe only samples a small circle (about 1 cm diameter).  To simulate PanCam and ChemCam’s ability to gather data on the outcrop scale, we will gather several spectra both horizontally and vertically across any outcrops of interest.  This will allow our science team to see any spatial variations in the mineralogy, just like we do on Mars.

 

X-Ray Diffraction (XRD)

 

X-Ray diffraction also measures the mineralogical composition of a sample, but through a different process, and on a very small scale.  To analyze a sample with XRD, it must first be ground into a powder.  On Mars, this can be done with the MSL drill.  The powdered sample is then loaded into the XRD instrument, where it is bombarded with x-rays.

 

When a sample is shot with x-rays, the majority of the x-rays are scattered.  But when the x-rays hit the sample at just the right angle (which is dependent on the crystal structure of the material), the diffracted x-rays result in constructive interference.  (Start here for a more detailed description, including Bragg’s Law.)  This constructive interference is recorded as peaks in the resulting diffraction pattern, such as the one seen here:

 

The X-Ray Diffraction pattern for quartz - a common silicate mineral. (image source: RRuff)

The X-Ray Diffraction pattern for quartz – a common silicate mineral. (image source: RRuff)

 

Just like with VNIR, each mineral has its own characteristic diffraction pattern.  For XRD, the diffraction pattern is dependent on the crystal structure of the mineral – specifically, the spacing of the atoms (the “d-spacing”) within the crystal.  Because XRD is so sensitive to slight variations in the atomic structure of a mineral, it is useful for identifying elemental substitution, which can subtly alter the d-spacing within a crystal.

 

XRD is a commonly used tool for sample identification because it provides a bulk rock analysis (the act of grinding up the rock should homogenize the sample), does not require a large amount of material for analysis, and can be used to identify complex samples that may contain several different minerals.  One place XRD tends to fall short is phyllosilicate (clay) identification.  The complex and often poorly-ordered crystal structure of phyllosilicates, combined with the abundance of elemental substitution within their structures makes identification very difficult with this analytical method.  Often, XRD is used in conjunction with VNIR (which is excellent for phyllosilicate identification)  in order to get a more complete analysis.

 

XRD on Mars

 

The MSL CheMin instrument is currently conducting XRD analysis in Gale Crater.  CheMin has the ability to do 74 XRD analyses, and possibly more, since the sample cells (where the powder is loaded to be analyzed) can potentially be re-used beyond their original design.

 

For analysis, powdered drill tailings are loaded into the body of the rover where CheMin is located.  A small amount of sample is loaded into a sample cell and inserted into the instrument, where it is shot with a high-powered x-ray and the diffractogram is gathered.

 

The Buckskin drill hole and corresponding XRD pattern. Peaks marked with a T are attributed to the mineral tridymite - a high temperature polymorph of SiO2 (image source: JPL/NASA)

The Buckskin drill hole in Gale Crater, and corresponding XRD pattern. Peaks marked with a T are attributed to the mineral tridymite – a high temperature polymorph of SiO2. (image source: JPL/NASA)

 

Our instrument: Field-portable XRD

 

The Terra Portable XRD instrument deployed in the field.

The Terra XRD deployed in the field.

The XRD instrument we will be using this week is the Terra Portable XRD from Olympus.  This instrument was designed in conjunction with CheMin, with the goal of being a functional analog instrument for planetary geologists to use here on Earth.

 

To analyze a sample with the Terra, it must first be ground into a powder.  Once the sample is powdered, a small amount (~ 15 mg) is loaded into one of the sample windows, and then inserted into the instrument.  While the sample is being hit with x-rays, the Terra also vibrates it to ensure that the crystals are being hit from every possible angle, which will provide the most accurate diffraction pattern.

 

During analysis, the diffraction pattern is displayed on the associated laptop, which connects to the Terra via its own wireless signal.  Once analysis is complete, the diffraction pattern may be saved, and further analyzed in software such as XPowder.

 

Other 2016 GHOST rover posts:

 

2016 Utah “Rover” Tests: Our Mission

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Our Team

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 1

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 2

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 3

2016 Utah GHOST “Rover” Tests: Our Mission

On April 18th, a group of us will descend on a mystery location in Utah where will will spend five days roaming around the desert pretending to be Mars rovers for the GeoHueristic Operational Strategies Testing (GHOST) program.  These rover tests have no actual rovers, as those are extremely expensive and logistically difficult to get out in the field.  Rather, we have people pretending to be the rovers, and others (myself included) acting as the instruments onboard those rovers.

 

This year’s objective is to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of utilizing a walkabout approach to investigate the field site, instead of the commonly-used linear traverse.

 

Walkabout approaches simulate what a human geologist would do if plunked down at a site, and tasked with interpreting the geologic history of that area.  Instead of starting to take detailed measurements, samples, etc. right off the bat, a geologist would first walk around the whole area to get a feel for what is there.  They would then go back to key points and make more detailed observations to fill out the data set.  This method was first utilized on Mars just recently, when Curiosity reached Pahrump Hills in Gale Crater.

 

Curiosity's walkabout at Pahrump Hills (image source: JPL/NASA)

Curiosity’s walkabout at Pahrump Hills (image source: JPL/NASA)

 

Linear traverses have been used by Mars rovers because they allow the science team to go to a spot, gather data, and quickly move along to a new location, never to return again.  While this may be faster, it might not be the best method, since something far more interesting/useful may go unnoticed if an initial site survey is not done.

 

Our 2016 field test will have three teams: one team of human geologists, and two separate “rover” teams.  One rover team will conduct a linear traverse of our field site, while the other will assess the site using a walkabout approach.  Both rover teams have “science teams” (AKA: Earth-based humans) who will be sequestered at base camp – unable to wander the site themselves.  The science teams will have to interpret the geologic history of the area based solely on the data they get from their “rover” – just like planetary geologists do for Mars.  At the end of the week, the rover teams will compare their results with each other, as well as with the team of human geologists that were allowed to wander the field site (and should therefore have the most complete picture).  The accuracy and completeness of the rover interpretations will be assessed in conjunction with how much time their analysis would have taken if this were an actual Mars rover and science team.  We may find that a walkabout approach results in a more complete geologic interpretation and is worth the extra bit of time it takes to double back to a location, which could influence how we conduct rover operations in the future.

 

Other 2016 GHOST rover posts:

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Our Tools

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Our Team

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 1

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 2

2016 GHOST Rover Tests: Day 3

Thinking about grad school in the sciences? Information for prospective and new grad students

I am currently a third year Ph.D. student in geology.  Lately, I’ve found myself talking with a lot of prospective grad students and friends interested in going back to school.  By now, I’ve managed to sort through my thoughts and experiences from the past few years, and have found some things I really wish I had known or thought to do back when I started.  So in an effort to reach as many prospective grads as possible, I thought I would take some time to put together something that I hope people find useful.  Some of these things may be geology-specific, but I’ve tried to keep it applicable to the sciences in general.

 

So you’re thinking about grad school?

 

Before applying

 

If you still have some time before you will finish your undergraduate degree, there are several things you can do to make yourself as competitive as possible when you go to apply to programs:

 

Take whatever courses you can that apply directly to the field you are interested in.  This will not only help develop your skills and knowledge base, but it will also help you confirm whether or not this is a field you want to pursue.

 

Learn how to really read a journal article. (See below for some helpful articles and tips.)  Read up on the topic(s) you find interesting and see where your interest takes you.

 

Do a summer REU/internship.  This gives you great experience and connections, and allows you to continue investigating a topic or subfield that you might be thinking about for your grad program.

 

Do some fieldwork!  If possible, get yourself out in the field.  Take advantage of the experience and learn as much as you can.  Ask lots of questions.  Learn how to take good field notes (hint: write down EVERYTHING, and be SUPER thorough in your descriptions).  This fieldwork could be part of a research project, or a field camp.  Just get out there and get dirty.

 

Do a senior thesis project.  This shows that you are capable of doing research, and have at least learned some of the basics.  No one will expect you to be an expert, but it’s great experience as an undergrad.

 

Attend and present your work at a conference.  If you can, give a talk.  Posters are great, but talks are more prestigious, and giving a talk at a conference as an undergrad is extremely impressive.  But if nothing else, do a poster.  They are a great – low stress – chance to talk with people one-on-one and get some excellent feedback on your work.

 

Publish your thesis work.  Getting your name on a paper as an undergrad is AWESOME.  Especially if your adviser will allow you to be first author (this would mean you do most of the work and writing).  That’s HUGE.

 

Some things to consider when you are narrowing down your list of schools to apply to:

 

What are you interested in working on?  You don’t need to have a whole project figured out before applying to a program.  It’s really a matter of narrowing down what field you are interested in.  Start by thinking about courses you took that you really enjoyed, or what types of news/journal articles you find yourself drawn to.  Are you seeing a theme?  Start reading everything you can get your hands on within that subject area.  The more you read, the more you will start to refine your area of interest.  Once you have narrowed in on a particular topic, see what names keep appearing as authors on the papers you are reading.  Those would be good potential advisers.

 

What is the program’s reputation?  Just because a university is well-respected doesn’t necessarily mean that this particular program/department has an equivalent reputation within that field.  Look at rankings by program (like this one and this one) and see how this particular program stacks up against others.  But even more importantly…

 

What is your potential adviser’s reputation?  The name of the school might be important, but your potential adviser’s reputation is even more important.  This is the person you are considering to have as your “professional parent.”  They will help you network, and your association with them will either help or hurt you.  Do people know who they are?  Do people know who they are because they do good work, or because people think they are a kook?  (One useful tool for this is Web of Science.  Look up your potential adviser on here and generate a “citation report.”  This site does require university access, so if there’s a school near you, you could potentially log in from the library there.  Or, if you are currently a student somewhere, ask faculty members in similar areas of interest what they know about your potential adviser.)  Age can sometimes be a helpful indicator, but is not the bottom line.  My adviser is rather young (he was in his late 30s when I started working with him), but he is freakishly prolific, so he has established a very strong and positive reputation in a short time.  Also, how many grad students have they had, and what have their former grad students gone on to do?  Someone who hasn’t had many students might not be a bad choice, but it’s a good thing to keep in mind, because they are likely still getting used to advising.  You can still have an excellent time working with someone like this, but you may need to be more aware of what you need from them, and don’t be afraid to ask for it.

 

What is your motivation for pursuing a graduate degree?  In geology, you are your most marketable with a masters degree.  This allows you to teach, work in industry, and even some research labs.  A Ph.D. is far more specialized, and is generally something you pursue only if you are interested in working purely in research/academia.

 

You’ve narrowed down your list of schools to apply to.  Great!  In geology programs (and possibly other science programs), it is typical to contact the faculty member you are interested in working with via email before applying to the program.  This email is meant to introduce yourself and start up the conversation about their research and what you are interested in working on.  This is a good time to find out what kind of funding they have available for grad students, and what sort of things they are currently working on.  If you feel that you would be a good fit with this adviser/program, you then submit an application.  Contacting the faculty member first serves two purposes: 1) to find out if you would work well with this person and if they have funding available for new grad students, and 2) to prevent you from being a random name when your application appears on their desk.

 

Applying

 

When putting your application together, it’s all about properly presenting yourself and your skills.  No two prospective grads are the same, and everyone has something unique to bring to a research group.  Maybe you did a bunch of research during undergrad.  Maybe you didn’t, but you have other skills or work experience that you’ve gathered along the way.  Yes, today people really seem to like undergrad research experience, but if you have some other relevant work experience or skill set, that’s a great thing to set you apart as well.  If you know people in graduate programs or former grad students in your field, ask them to take a look at your CV and personal statement.  Feedback from others is always extremely useful.

 

An additional suggestion from my friend Dr. Shannon Kobs-Nawotniak at Idaho State University (from her comment on the original post):

 

Something I like to see in application materials and/or personal interaction with prospective grad students: an explanation of how grad school will get you to your real goals. Being my student isn’t your long term goal, and it shouldn’t be. If I understand your plan a) I can help tailor the project to support your plan, and b) I have the reassurance that your own motivation will carry you through the rough patches.

 

Campus visit

 

Think of your campus visit as a mini job interview. You don’t need to go in a full suit, or be able to give faculty members a critique of their papers, but it’s good to look professional and polished, and be familiar with their work – especially if they have done previous work on the topics you are interested in. You’re both feeling each other out.  It’s not just them checking you out.  It’s like professional dating.  You want to make sure that you feel comfortable with your potential adviser, and the prospect of working with them.

 

When you sit down to chat with your potential adviser, there are many things that are good to find out:

 

What is their advising style?  Are they very hands off?  Do they like to micromanage?  Better yet, talk with their grad students about this.  They are the ones who can give you the best sense of what it’s like to work with this person.

 

What they are most interested in for research right now?  Old publications might not give you a good idea of where their interests have gone in the more recent (yet unpublished) years.

 

What are their expectations for grad students?  Everyone should have that conversation with their adviser – preferably before they decide to work with them, but if not then, at least in the first month or so.  This may include certain benchmarks (getting things done by a certain deadline, or whether they expect you to be on campus at certain times/days, or publish things by some deadlines, etc.), or other things that may go unsaid if you don’t specifically ask.

 

At some point, you will likely sit down with some of their current grad students, or go out for a lunch with a group of them.  This is incredibly valuable time!  They will be the ones to give you the honest truth about how it is to work with this faculty member.  Take advantage of this time and ask lots of questions!  Good things to ask current students:

 

  • What is your potential adviser’s advising style?  (This is where you will get the honest answer.)
  • What are your potential adviser’s expectations for their grad students? (Again, more honesty here)
  • What is it like working with this faculty member?
  • What kind of resources are available for students?
  • What is their funding situation like?
  • What challenges have they faced?
  • What have they learned since starting this program that they wished they knew before?

 

Congratulations!  You’re a grad student!  Now what?

 

You’ve been accepted into a program and have finally arrived on campus!  Where to begin?

 

Get to know the other grad students.  You and the other students in your cohort will likely be at similar stages during the upcoming years, so it’s nice to have some people you can turn to for feedback, or to simply lend an ear when you need to vent.  Those in more advanced stages of their degree will be extremely useful when it comes to the ins and outs of the program, feedback on proposals, or suggestions of things to try that worked well for them in the past.

 

Get to know the faculty.  Though you may feel like the faculty members are way out of your league, that couldn’t be further from the truth.  One very helpful thing to remember when interacting with faculty members (or anyone, really) is to not act like a student.  The point of this degree is to prepare yourself to enter the academic/professional world.  So begin to act like the academic/professional you want to be in the future.  This doesn’t mean be a snobby egomaniac who thinks they know everything.  It’s good to ask questions and admit when you don’t know or understand something.  But presenting yourself with an air of professionalism will go a long way.

 

Get to know the office administrative staff.  Administrators are the key to everything in the professional world!  Treat them kindly and get to know them!  They are a fantastic resource when you have questions about something in the department, and can be incredibly helpful.

 

If you haven’t already, have a talk with your adviser regarding their expectations for you.  Will they only be happy if you are on campus certain hours or days of the week?  Do they have specific deadlines they expect you to meet?  Are there specific classes they want you to take?  These things can easily go unsaid if you don’t have this talk, and can lead to frustration for both of you down the road.  This is also the time to create a “road map” of sorts – what should you do during your first year, second year, etc?  What do you need to do/create/submit/present to pass your comprehensive exam?  What do you need to do/create/submit/publish/present to eventually pass your dissertation defense?  Knowing these things from the start will help you plan out your time, and give you solid benchmarks towards which you can work.

 

Set up a regular meeting time with your adviser.  This could be weekly, monthly – whatever works well for both of you.  This is a time to sit down and talk about your research, questions you may have, and things you are struggling with.  Establishing this routine from the very beginning will help you out in the long run.

 

Don’t be afraid to tell your adviser what you need from them.  This doesn’t mean “I need pizza, beer, and a million dollars.”  Rather, if you need them to check in with you, if you need feedback on something, if you have questions for them – make sure they know!  Advisers aren’t mind readers.  And neither are you.

 

Set up some sort of system to back up all your files – immediately.  Do not wait on this.  Every single grad student has some horror story of someone they know who lost all of their graduate research work because their computer crashed/died/fell off a cliff/got beer spilled all over it and had to start over and lost copious amounts of time and sanity.  Google Drive and Dropbox are both great for this, and I’m sure there are several other options out there as well.  (It’s also worth checking out if your school has any agreement with one of these – ours actually provides free unlimited storage with your school email.)  The time it spent (roughly a day) to switch everything over and get all my files copied was hefty up front, but well worth it.  All files are stored directly on my laptop, but any time I make a change to a file and then save it, it immediately syncs the new version to my online storage, so everything gets backed up automatically.  That combined with saving regularly while working means if something were to happen, I should only lose 20-30 minutes of work instead of months/years of work.  Do it from the beginning and save yourself the heartache.  Also, come up with a file naming and organization scheme from the beginning to save yourself some digital heartache.  Every grad student laments not being good about this back when they started and inevitably spend a lot of time looking for certain files, folders, etc.  Step 1: Name things very specifically.  You should be able to tell exactly what it is just by looking at the file name.  Have 8 different versions of a figure you made for a paper?  Put the details in the file name!  If you do this from the beginning, you can keep that disorganization and confusion to a minimum.  Example folder layout:

 

  • School
    • Research
      • Data
        • Project 1
        • Project 2
      • Images
      • Notes
      • Papers/books (I keep all my journal articles in this folder, which is the one Mendeley – see below – sources)
      • Writing
    • Classes and TAing
      • Semester X
        • Class A
        • Class B
      • Semester Y
        • Class C

 

Start using a reference manager program.  Do this from the very beginning and save yourself a LOT of time and heartache!  I am completely in love with the Mendeley reference manager.  These programs allow you to search all the papers you have collected (and will likely be scattered across multiple folders on your computer), write notes on them, search those notes, find the folder that actually contains the pdf you’re looking for, and creates and manages your bibliography when you are writing papers.  It’s a miracle worker.  Just use it.  Seriously.  I can’t stress this enough.  I spent the first year and a half of my program without this thing, and I can’t believe I did that. (For the record, I have no affiliation with Mendeley.  I just love it and tell everyone about it because it’s awesome and I wish I had known about that from the start.)

 

While we’re on the topic of journal articles…

 

Read – a lot.  Then read more.  One of the things that kept me from pursuing a Ph.D. sooner was the worry that I wouldn’t be able to come up with an original research project idea.  I knew the general area I was interested in, but beyond that I couldn’t think of anything that hadn’t been done or needed to be expanded on.  I feared that I would never be able to come up with a project idea.  You don’t need to have a developed project when you start a graduate program – you just need to know what area you are interested in.  Reading everything you can get your hands on in that particular field will help you begin to see the holes, and come up with questions that have yet to be answered.  The more you read, the more you will see these things.  And those questions will lead you to read other papers, which will help you develop your idea further.  Once you have your project idea, keep reading!  There are always new papers coming out that you should be familiar with, and you will keep stumbling across old relevant papers you didn’t find earlier.  However much you think you should be reading, it should really be about three times as much.  You can never read enough.  If you aren’t already adept at reading scientific journal articles, learn how!  It’s not like reading a regular book or news article.  Check out these resources:

 

 

Another really great resource is The Craft of Research, by Booth, Colomb, and Williams.  This book covers a wide range of topics from beginning your project and formulating a research question all the way through writing up and publishing your results.  It’s definitely worth checking out.

 

Don’t be afraid to reach out to collaborators.  Science isn’t done in a vacuum.  You will often need to turn to other people besides just your adviser.  Start building these relationships from the very beginning (your adviser may or may not help you with this – don’t sit around and wait on them) and save yourself a lot of time later.  These people may help you learn how to analyze samples or data, or teach you some new technique.  They are a wonderful resource, and are generally happy to help you.  It’s easy to get caught up in feeling like you are supposed to do everything all by yourself, but that’s not actually the case.  Use the resources around you!

 

Start using some kind of system to organize your weekly/daily goals, and keep yourself productive.  I love this productivity planner I found on Kickstarter a while back.  (I am also not affiliated with this.  I just like it and have found it to be helpful.)  Breaking your day into smaller segments is also a really helpful technique to try (check out the links for more details and the science behind the Pomodoro Technique).  It’s really easy to get distracted in a grad program, and all of a sudden it’s three weeks later and you have nothing to show for your time.  Breaking your tasks up and laying everything out in whatever format works best for you can help you maximize your time and not fall way behind.

 

Speaking of falling way behind…

 

Remember that you are not alone.  Grad school – and Ph.D. programs in particular – are rife with depression, anxiety, guilt, and impostor syndrome.  You will likely feel all these things at some point.  These feelings can be extremely isolating.  It seems like everyone around you is so smart, is getting so much done, is working so much harder than you, is further along, and actually understands what they’re working on.

 

Truth is, they are feeling exactly the same way you are.

 

Talk with your grad student friends about your mental state.  Everyone has gone, or is going through the same thing.  You are not alone.  It’s really unfortunate that this is normal for grad programs, but the fact of the matter is we all deal with these feelings of inadequacy at some point.  Sometimes, simply talking with your fellow grad students and hearing that they have felt/are feeling the same way can alleviate some of your worries.  Don’t be afraid to ask for help if you are struggling with any of these feelings.  There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.  Everyone is faking it until they make it.

 

More on impostor syndrome:

 

 

In an effort to make your life not 100% about grad school, make a few friends that have nothing to do with school.  Meetup (or other similar sites) is great for this.  These people can be wonderful when it comes to taking a mental break, or providing some perspective when you’re up to your eyeballs in research and are stressed to the max.

 

Remember to take care of your physical health in addition to your mental health.  Grad school goes hand in hand with lots of time sitting at a computer, mindlessly snacking, late nights, and (often) lots of beer.  Remember to get outside regularly (fresh air and seeing the sun can do wonders for your mental state) and do something fun and active to counteract all that time spent on the computer.  If you can, invest in a sit-to-stand desk (or make your own!).  Sometime around the end of my second year I started having some pretty major sciatica problems from all the time I spent sitting.  It was interfering with my work and my sleep.  I finally sprung for an adjustable desk (this one) and it was better within a week and has never come back.  It sounds simple and silly, but it really does make a difference.

 

When preparing for your comprehensive exams, talk with current and former grad students who had the same adviser or committee members as you.  These people will be exceedingly helpful when it comes to knowing what to expect.  They may even be happy to send you copies of their research proposals, comps talks, follow up talks, etc.  These people are an incredibly valuable resource!  Use them!  They know what you are going through – they were there not that long ago.

 

Attend conferences/workshops and network as much as possible.  Your reputation is your professional currency.  The more you can build your network now, the better it will be later when you’re looking for collaborators, postdoc positions, or a job.

 

Once you’ve published something (a conference abstract, journal article, etc.), make yourself a ResearchGate and Google Scholar account.  These are an excellent way to virtually network with people both within and outside your field.  ResearchGate also encourages you to post full-text versions of your work, so it’s a great way to have all your publications accessible and in one place (great for getting yourself some visibility within your field!).  You can also post PDFs of conference posters and talks, which is really useful for people wanting to see more than just your abstract. (Again, I have no affiliation with these.  They’re just handy.)

 

Overall, grad school can be a really great experience, and you will grow and learn more than you ever thought was possible over the course of a few years.  There will be ups and downs, and I hope you find some of these things helpful in the process.  If you think of any others, please add them in the comment section below!

 

Some other useful sites/posts:

 

 

Useful books:

 

  • The Slight Edge: Turning simple disciplines into massive success and happiness, by Jeff Olson: A bit cheesy, and not grad school oriented, but good overall messages about making the most of your time, and doing things every day to work toward your ultimate goals.  The ideas in this book are most certainly applicable to grad school, even though that’s not what it’s about.
  • The Power of Habit: Why we do what we do in life and business, by Charles Duhigg: Same as above – interesting book, not about grad school, but the ideas are most definitely applicable.  About how habits form and operate, and how to go about creating new (desired) habits.
  • The Craft of Research, by Booth, Colomb, and Williams: Covers looking at grad school, choosing an adviser, applying, entering a program, figuring out your project, figuring out how/where to start, going through the research process, writing, defending, finding a job
  • Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day, by Joan Bolker: Despite the title, this is a good thing to read right from the beginning.  I thought this was more for an end-of-program student, but it turns out it’s coming at it right from the very beginning.  Includes how to use freewriting to help you sort through your thoughts on a project, form questions, figure out where to go from there, etc.  Also covers the actual end-of-program writing as well.
  • Getting What You Came For, by Robert Peters: Good for prospectives and first year grad students.  Basics about navigating a grad program and making the most of your time in one.  One would hope that by your 2nd year and beyond you’ve pretty much figured this stuff out so it wouldn’t necessarily be as helpful at that point.
  • How to Write a Lot, by Paul Silva: General overview of academic writing.

 

This post was originally published on my racing and training blog: veggie-runner-girl.com.

 

Was this post helpful?  Add your suggestions in the comments below, and keep checking back for more updates!