Kamil crater
Unreviewed draft
This page was built from a teammate-supplied list. The text is teammate-written, unreviewed. Sources pending.
This is a candidate: a suggestion that is not in our reference list.
Summary
not provided
Location
- Country
- Egypt (East Uweinat Desert)
- Coordinates
- 22.02, 26.09
- Elevation (m)
- 600
- Year first used as an analog
- not provided
Terrain and geology
not provided
Climate
not provided
Parameters matched
not provided
Why it is an analog
One of the few craters on Earth that keeps a well-preserved ray system, which makes it a direct analog of the small fresh craters that dominate landing hazards at lunar sites. The hyper-arid setting keeps it pristine. It was found by satellite imagery, the way GSOP proposes to list candidate sites for review.
Key differences: where the analogy breaks down
Tiny crater (45 m); sandstone target; hot; very remote.
Experiments done
Impact geology and meteorite recovery (~800 kg iron fragments; Folco et al., Science 2010); GPR survey.
Experiments proposed
Ray-system mapping as an analog for fresh small lunar craters (rays are almost unique on Earth); ejecta-block distribution vs LROC small craters; landing-hazard detection on fresh small craters; regolith-gardening studies.
How to adjust it
Spread basaltic simulant on part of the ray system to test spectral detection of fresh ejecta; add simulated boulders.
Access
not provided
Hazards
not provided
Sources
Sources pending (no sources in CSV).
v1 score, percentile and overlap flag
A descriptive lookup of scores v1 already stored. It is not a test, and a high percentile here does not show that this is a good analog.
v1 used this site
No. The nearest v1 site, "congo basin", is about 2526.2 km away.
| Score view | Result | Percentile | Score | Distance to tile (km) | Overlap flag |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connecting Ridge C1, Base | Scored | 71.3 | 2.8 | 7.2 | Not in a flagged tile |
| Connecting Ridge C1, Landing and mobility | Scored | 76.2 | 2.5 | 7.2 | Not in a flagged tile |
| Connecting Ridge C1, Power and night | Scored | 71.3 | 2.0 | 7.2 | Not in a flagged tile |
| Shackleton rim, Base | Scored | 76.4 | 28.0 | 7.2 | Not in a flagged tile |
| Shackleton rim, Landing and mobility | Scored | 83.8 | 32.0 | 7.2 | Not in a flagged tile |
| Shackleton rim, Power and night | Scored | 76.4 | 20.3 | 7.2 | Not in a flagged tile |
Overlap flag: whether the tile used for the score is one v1 flagged as stable in its top group across the Monte Carlo runs.
What these scores can and cannot tell you
- This is a lookup of scores v1 already stored. It is descriptive and is not a test of the method.
- A site is matched to the best-scoring tile that passed the gates within the match radius. A different radius would give different numbers.
- Tiles are large compared with most sites, so a score describes the surrounding area, not the site itself.
- Scores exist only for tiles that passed the land-cover and data gates. A gated-out or unscored site has no score, which says nothing about how good an analog it is.
- Percentile is the share of scored tiles in that view with a lower score.
- The Moon score is effectively terrain only. Mars is a low-confidence secondary result.
- v1 failed its negative controls, so a high percentile here does not show that a site is a good analog.
- The ranking is not checked against independent data. Gravity, air, dust and radiation are not scored.
- Sites are compared with views of their own body only.
- Match radius: 20 km, the radius v1 used.