Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T22:30:10.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Field astrobiology research in Moon–Mars analogue environments: instruments and methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2011

B.H. Foing*
Affiliation:
ESA ESTEC, Postbus 299, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG), c/o BH Foing, ESTEC PO Box 299, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
C. Stoker
Affiliation:
Space Science Division, M.S. 245-3, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA
J. Zavaleta
Affiliation:
Space Science Division, M.S. 245-3, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA
P. Ehrenfreund
Affiliation:
Leiden Institute of Chemistry, Einsteinweg 55, PO Box 9502, 2300 Leiden, The Netherlands Space Policy Institute, Elliott School of International Affairs, Washington, DC, USA
C. Thiel
Affiliation:
International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG), c/o BH Foing, ESTEC PO Box 299, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands Institute of Medical Physics and Biophysics, CeNTech, University of Münster, Heisenbergstrasse 11, D-48149 Muenster, Germany
P. Sarrazin
Affiliation:
inXitu Inc., 2551 Casey Ave, Ste A, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
D. Blake
Affiliation:
Space Science Division, M.S. 245-3, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA
J. Page
Affiliation:
ESA ESTEC, Postbus 299, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
V. Pletser
Affiliation:
ESA ESTEC, Postbus 299, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
J. Hendrikse
Affiliation:
ESA ESTEC, Postbus 299, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
S. Direito
Affiliation:
Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
J.M. Kotler
Affiliation:
Leiden Institute of Chemistry, Einsteinweg 55, PO Box 9502, 2300 Leiden, The Netherlands
Z. Martins
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK
G. Orzechowska
Affiliation:
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
C. Gross
Affiliation:
Institute of Geological Sciences, Planetary Sciences and Remote Sensing, Freie Universitaet Berlin, D-12249 Berlin, Germany
L. Wendt
Affiliation:
Institute of Geological Sciences, Planetary Sciences and Remote Sensing, Freie Universitaet Berlin, D-12249 Berlin, Germany
J. Clarke
Affiliation:
Mars Society Australia, c/o 43 Michell St, Monash, ACT 2904, Australia Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Ground Floor, Biological Sciences Building, Sydney, NSW, Australia
A.M. Borst
Affiliation:
Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands International Lunar Exploration Working Group (ILEWG), c/o BH Foing, ESTEC PO Box 299, 2200 AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
S.T.M. Peters
Affiliation:
Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
M.-B. Wilhelm
Affiliation:
Space Science Division, M.S. 245-3, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA
G.R. Davies
Affiliation:
Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We describe the field demonstration of astrobiology instruments and research methods conducted in and from the Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS) in Utah during the EuroGeoMars campaign 2009 coordinated by ILEWG, ESA/ESTEC and NASA Ames, with the contribution of academic partners. We discuss the entire experimental approach from determining the geological context using remote sensing, in situ measurements, sorties with sample collection and characterization, analysis in the field laboratory, to the post sample analysis using advanced laboratory facilities.

We present the rationale for terrestrial field campaigns to strengthen astrobiology research and the link between in situ and orbital remote sensing data. These campaigns are supporting the preparation for future missions such as Mars Science Laboratory, ExoMars or Mars Sample Return. We describe the EuroGeoMars 2009 campaign conducted by MDRS crew 76 and 77, focused on the investigation of surface processes in their geological context. Special emphasis was placed on sample collection and pre-screening using in-situ portable instruments. Science investigations included geological and geochemical measurements as well as detection and diagnostic of water, oxidants, organic matter, minerals, volatiles and biota.

EuroGeoMars 2009 was an example of a Moon–Mars field research campaign dedicated to the demonstration of astrobiology instruments and a specific methodology of comprehensive measurements from selected sampling sites. We discuss in sequence: the campaign objectives and trade-off based on science, technical or operational constraints. This includes remote sensing data and maps, and geological context; the monitoring of environmental parameters; the geophysical context and mineralogy studies; geology and geomorphology investigations; geochemistry characterization and subsurface studies.

We describe sample handling (extraction and collection) methods, and the sample analysis of soils and rocks performed in the MDRS laboratory using close inspection, initial petrological characterization, microscopy, Visible-NIR spectrometry, Raman spectrometry, X-ray diffraction/X-ray fluorescence spectrometry, soil analysis, electrochemical and biological measurements.

The results from post-mission analysis of returned samples using advanced facilities in collaborator institutes are described in companion papers in this issue. We present examples of in-situ analysis, and describe an example investigation on the exploration and analysis of endolithic microbial mats (from reconnaissance, in-situ imaging, sampling, local analysis to post-mission sample analysis).

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011
Figure 0

Fig. 1. (a) Google Earth satellite image showing the location of the MDRS station (near F) and sampling areas at Kissing Camel Ridge (near G). (b) Geology for the EuroGeoMars campaign, and positions of sampling areas (Wendt et al. 2009).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. (a) Southward view towards MDRS with Henry Mountains background. (b) Landscape and stratigraphy near MDRS station looking North, showing the resistant layer formed by sandstones of the Dakota sandstone formation at the top of the ridge and the shale slopes of the Brushy Basin member of the Morrison formation below.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Context panoramic imaging of salt wash side view.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Rover used for navigation tests, reconnaissance and EVA assistance (courtesy Carnegie Mellon University/NASA Ames).

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Biomarkers on rocks at the base of ‘Kissing Camel Ridge’ (position G in Fig. 1) (left) field colour image of rock surface with lichens with three main green, yellow and orange constituents. Right: The ‘Cyborg astrobiologist’ novelty algorithm detects automatically colour special signatures from the same image (McGuire et al. 2010; Gross et al.2010).

Figure 5

Fig. 6. (a) Field inspection of calcite evaporite rocks. (b) Display and documentation of samples from one EVA before laboratory analysis.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Raman spectrometer box (silver) and horizontal Raman fiber feed to be placed on sample holder, the vertical fiber feeds to the Ocean-optics visible NIR spectrometer.

Figure 7

Fig. 8. (a) X-ray Diffraction and fluorescence spectrometer XRD/XRF (orange case). The sample is crushed into powder and placed in a container inserted in the central upper slot for X-ray illumination. (b) Diorite sample (left), crushing (right) and sieving (middle) device before XRD-XRF analysis.

Figure 8

Fig. 9. (a) Installed biology and astrobiology laboratory. (b) Glovebox and sample handling. (c) Precision balance, centrifuge and PCR Peqlab. (d) MDRS microscopes. (e) Soil analysis kit.

Figure 9

Fig. 10. MDRS measured Raman spectrum of gypsum CaSO4·2H2O.

Figure 10

Fig. 11. XRD spectra analysed in MDRS with match from database minerals: (a) XRD spectrum of Dakota Formation sandstone sample indicating gypsum and quartz (top), (b) XRD spectrum of Morrison sample indicating quartz and montmorrillonite clay (middle), (c) XRD spectrum of calcite evaporate (bottom).

Figure 11

Fig. 12. (top) Extracted drill core in 4 segments of 8–12 cm, (bottom) XRD spectrum of a core extract measured in the Hab, indicating the specific peaks of gypsum (purple), Quartz (yellow) and montmorillonite clay (green).

Figure 12

Fig. 13. Set of samples collected and documented in situ for mineral, organic and biology MDRS laboratory and post-mission analysis.

Figure 13

Fig. 14. (a) Context and protocol for endolith imaging and sterile sampling. The white paper was imaged for balance control allowing calibration of quantitative colour information. (b) Zoom of endolith (20 cm field of view) in natural balance colours. (c) Zoom (enhanced colour balance, 15 cm field of view) where endoliths appear as 3 distinct colour units clearly, after detachment of the crust and varnish layers. (d) Zoom of the same 15 cm field of view in black & white, where the endoliths are much harder to distinguish.

Figure 14

Fig. 15. Study of endolithic microbial communities in the MDRS lab: (top) sample view before microscopic inspection (FOV 2.5 cm), (bottom) optical microscope MDRS lab image of green and brown endolith communities in relation to minerals (field of view 3 mm).

Figure 15

Fig. 16. Post-campaign study of endolithic microbial communities performed at NASA Ames: sample close-up context, FOV 1 cm (top), SEM magnification×250 , FOV 600 μm (middle) and SEM ×4000 FOV 40 μm (bottom).

Figure 16

Fig. 17. Endolith images taken with an autofluorescence microscope. The red colour is due to chlorophyll autofluorescence. These images indicate that the endoliths are comprised of photosynthetic coccoid cells that are approximately 1 μm in size. They mainly form in clusters perhaps indicating the formation of a biofilm, potentially confirmed by the SEM images.

Figure 17

Fig. 18. SEM view of endolith coccoid cells (smooth round features) together with sandstone micron particles (jagged shapes).

Figure 18

Fig. 19. SEM image of clump of coccoid cells, with abiotic particles suspended in a matrix possibly made of extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) from within an endolith.