Vortex‐Dominated Aeolian Activity at InSight's Landing Site, Part 1: Multi‐Instrument Observations, Analysis, and Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We report the aeolian changes observed in situ by NASA's InSight lander during the first 400 sols of operations: Granule creep, saltation, dust removal, and the formation of dark surface tracks. Aeolian changes are infrequent and sporadic. However, on sols, when they do occur, they consistently appear between noon to 3 p.m., and are associated with the passage of convective vortices during periods of high vortex activity. Aeolian changes are more frequent at elevated locations, such as the top surfaces of rocks and lander footpads. InSight observed these changes using, for the first time, simultaneous in‐situ and orbital imaging and high‐frequency meteorological, seismological, and magnetic measurements. Seismometer measurements of ground acceleration constrain the timing and trajectory of convective vortex encounters, linking surface changes to source vortices. Magnetometer measurements show perturbations in magnetic field strength during the passage of convective vortices consistent with charged‐particle motion. Detachment of sand‐scale particles occurs when high background winds and vortex‐induced turbulence provide a peak surface friction wind speed above the classic saltation fluid threshold. However, detachment of dust‐ and granule‐scale particles also occurred when the surface friction wind speed remained below this threshold. This may be explained by local enhancement of the surface roughness and other effects described here and further studied in Part 2 (Baker et al., 2021). The lack of saltation and bright dust‐coated surfaces at the InSight landing site implies surface stability and the onset of particle motion may be suppressed by dust “cushioning.” This differentiates the InSight landing site from other areas on Mars that exhibit more aeolian activity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".