[meteorite-list] Odds of finding a meteorite on Mars

From: Sterling K. Webb <kelly_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed Jan 19 14:43:08 2005
Message-ID: <41EEB828.BF28671E_at_bhil.com>

Hi,

    Yes, but the contrast is between ONE data point and NO data point, and that's
a vast improvement in accuracy.
    Moreover, since there was no "intent" on the part of the experimenters to
look for meteorites, this is perfectly defined as a truly random sample. And
"random" is a synonym for "representative."
    I'm sure the error bars are at least an order of magnitude either way, but if
someone had proposed "how many meteorites per square kilometer on Mars" as a
topic to this list, there would have been answers over a wider range!
    For example, MexicoDoug suggested my allowance of a side-to-side range of 100
meters for a rover to spot a meteorite is way too big, as he doubts human eyes
could spot one more than 5 meters or so away. This would reduce the sample patch
by a factor of 20 and raise the fall/find rate accordingly.
    Interesting question: how far way was the rover when it "spotted" the
meteorite? (Or rather when its operators noticed the meteorite?)
    At any rate, what I was doing was not trying for conclusions per se. This was
just "back of the envelope" calculations to get an idea of the general likelihood
of spotting a meteorite on a square kilometer of Mars --- 100 to 1? 1,000,000 to
1? 50-50?
    I bet the odds are good enough that someone will want to look over MER
pictures again with this possibility in mind!

Sterling K. Webb
-----------------------------------------------------
Ron Baalke wrote:

> > Assuming that each rover has a useful "sidelong glance" of 75 to 100
> > meters to either side of their route in which they would be able to spot
> > a meteorite and allowing for some track reversals and turns, the total
> > area surveyed by the two rovers is probably about one square kilometer.
> > So the find rate is one big iron per square kilometer!
>
> Be careful about drawing conclusions when your data consists of just a single
> data point, and has large errors bars on it.
>
> Ron Baalke
Received on Wed 19 Jan 2005 02:42:32 PM PST