Confirmation

Dear Dialog,

Zumba Update: Catherine helped confirm and deny some of my mapped melt pools which was a useful exercise. Further, I added a DTM to the Zumba project and then, at Livio’s suggestion, created a slope raster based off of it. The idea is that where the slope is 0-10 degrees (white to pink/purple), is where the melt pools should also exist since pooling of the melt would be unlikely at high slope angles. So here are the results:

DTM Slope without mapped melt

DTM Slope without mapped melt

DTM Slope with mapped melt

DTM Slope with mapped melt

I’d say that looks like confirmation to me! I am glad to be validated by the results I have produced so far for Zumba! My mapping is a bit generous but there are distinct overlaps with the major areas of melt. The added component adds extra confidence to the large areas of melt.

Ames Stereo Pipeline

I have created my first DTM at UWO! With the help and trailblazing of my colleague, Carolina R SV, I was able to successfully navigate the Ames Stereo Pipeline this week. After looking at Zumba’s elevation map, I wanted to try another project with my own DTM. I choose my project craterNEAscraeusMons, which has about a 10 km crater as the focus. HiRISE imagery does not cover the full crater, but CTX imagery does. I choose a pair of good CTX stereo images and then executed only the following commands using isis3:

$ mroctx2isis from=[image1Name].IMG to=[image1Name].cub

$ mroctx2isis from=[image2Name].IMG to=[image2Name].cub

$ spiceinit from=[image1Name].cub ck=[pathToKernel]

$ spiceinit from=[image2Name].cub ck=[pathToKernel]

$ cam2map4stereo.py [image1Name].cub [image2Name].cub

$ stereo [image1Name].cub [image2Name].cub results/out

$ point2dem out-PC.tif out-DEM.tif

crater NE of Ascraeus Mons with CTX DTM

crater NE of Ascraeus Mons with CTX DTM

crater NE of Ascraeus Mons with DTM and mapped melt.

crater NE of Ascraeus Mons with DTM and mapped melt.

And that’s it! I loaded the DEM to ArcMap and ran the Slope tool producing the image above. The melt pools aren’t nearly as clear this time around, so my mapping may need some adjusting. This is great progress and good way for me to independently verify my own results. In the path ahead that I see for myself, a lot of work has been carved out: ID candidate craters, collect all viable data, request HiRISE/CaSSIS images, create organized project, create DTMs, map and edit the melt pools. And once all of that is completed then I can start performing analyses on the topographic lows and impactor angles. That’s a lot to do but I am excited for all of it and dare I say I feel like a planetary scientist?

Feminist Fervor of the Week

This biweek update comes with an article I would like to take a critical eye towards. This article from the NY Times could use some unpacking. The synopsis is this: a consequence of #MeToo movement is men are fearful of mistepping when it comes to mentoring/managing women. Two surveys showed “almost half of male managers were uncomfortable engaging in one or more common work activities with women, such as working one on one or socializing.” As the article further states, along the same lines is “The Pence Rule“, where Pence will not go to a one-on-one dinner with a women unless his wife is present (negating the one-on-one aspect, but I digress). This article amplifies the voice of an invalid argument: woe is men. It sympathizes with male managers being too afraid to grow professionally close to their female colleagues. It correctly states how this is a negative practice and ultimately hurts the future, perhaps increasing the gender rift more. My bone to pick in particular is how the author lands too in the middle of a clearly asymmetric argument. Being that women historically have had it harder in the workplace and have often had to carry the burden of male impropriety. Not once was idea that women have to tiptoe around their male colleagues today and in the past because of this. But instead, the author validates the idea of male higher-ups “think[ing] twice about spending one-on-one time with a young female colleague“. I have personally seen this sentiment while working with the USDA between the scientists and the field workers. This is crap. It assumes that as a male, one isn’t able to do their job without harassing a female colleague (and it’s ageist to boot). It’s not even a valid argument, of course you should be able to do your job in a professional manner without harassment, if not, you should be replaced. Sorry. This problem happens within academia, too. There’s a UWO policy of having meetings with doors open or in a communal space because of fear of abuse of power. While this may be a starting point, it’s subverting the issue almost entirely. The real problem lies in a lack of education and behavior training for faculty and grad students when it comes to mentoring/holding office hours.

Until the next rant,

-W