sign in sign up
<<
Home , Northeast Syrtis, Palos (crater), Wirtz (crater)

Mars Landing Sites: Where would you go?

Debra Buczkowski, Kim Seelos, and Wes Patterson NASA’s Exploration Program Strategy: Follow the water, assess habitability, return a sample, prepare for humans

MSL launch has been delayed to at least 2011 2 Types of Mars Missions

. Orbital Missions . Instruments stay in orbit around Mars . Missions include: . , Viking Orbiters, Mars Global Surveyor (MGS), Mars Odyssey, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) . Surface Missions . Instruments on lander or rover . Missions include: . Viking Landers (1 and 2) . Mars Pathfinder (rover) . Mars Exploration Rovers . MER- A . MER-B Opportunity

. Phoenix (lander) 3 Locations of successful landed missions

Phoenix

Viking 2

Viking 1 Pathfinder

MER B MER A Opportunity Spirit

4 Guiding Principles

. Landing site selection is critical to all aspects of mission and program success . No landing, no science . Final site recommendation, selection, and approval is the job of the Project, Science Team, and NASA headquarters . The broad expertise of the science community is crucial to the identification of optimal sites . Process can be open to all and has no predetermined outcome

5 Basis for Site Selection

. Landing Sites Must Meet All Engineering Requirements . Engineering requirements can include: . Latitude of landing site . Elevation of landing site . Size of landing ellipse . Slope of landing site surface . Rock abundance at the landing site . Wind speed at the landing site

6 Engineering Requirements . Latitude . The latitude of a landing site is generally constrained by the lander’s energy source or science goals . Some missions have a power constraint . Solar powered landers need more direct sunlight . MER was constrained to a latitude band of 10°N to15°S . MSL has a wide latitude band of ±60° because it is not solar powered . Phoenix was designed for polar science . latitude band was 65-72°N 7 Engineering Requirements . Elevation . The elevation restrictions of a landing site depend upon the method of landing . Parachute landings require low elevations so that there is more atmosphere to reduce velocity . MSL can land at elevations up to +2.0 km . Provides access to ~83% of Mars . Includes most of the highlands . VL1, 2 & MPF had to land below <-3 km . Only options are in the Northern Lowlands . MER landing site elevations had to be <-1.3 km 8 MSL Landing Site Access

Maps show -90º to 90º latitude; 180º to -180º W longitude; horizontal lines at 60º latitude; blacked out areas are > 2km elevation

9 Engineering Requirements

. Rock abundance . The size and quantity of rocks at a landing site is important to quantify Viking 2 landing site . Could damage the lander/rover upon landing

Rejected Phoenix landing site

10 Engineering Requirements

. Slope . Landing site can not be too steep or else the lander/rover will not be able to land safely . Wind Speed . Some regions of Mars are extremely windy . High winds could push the lander/rover into an unsafe area during landing . Unsafe areas could include cliffs, craters, extremely rocky regions, etc.

11 Engineering Requirements . Landing Ellipse Size . The ideal landing site, plus an allowance for error, defines the landing ellipse . Size of the landing ellipse depends upon the landing method, e.g., . Parachute w/ airbag . Reverse thrusters Artist rendering of airbag system used for the MERs . Sky crane . Goal is to land in the center of the ellipse but any other area within the ellipse needs to be safe . Low slope . Smooth . Not too windy Artist rendering of sky crane for MSL

12 Engineering Requirements . Ellipse Size . Number of possible landing sites scales with ellipse size . (Length 500 km = 1 Site) . MPF (Length 200-300 km = <10 Sites) . MER (Length ~100 km = ~150 Sites) . MSL has a small ~20 km diameter ellipse . Allows 103 to 109 potential sites plus “Go To” ability . Can traverse out of the landing ellipse to any area of interest . Future Missions Could Have Different Constraints….

MER-A Spirit Landing Ellipse 13 Basis for Site Selection

. Potential Landing Sites Must Also Meet Science Requirements . To determine if a site meets the science requirements we must be able to: . Characterize the geology of the region of interest . Assess the relative age compared to other regions of the planet . Assess biological potential . Morphology consistent with water-related activity . Geochemistry/mineralogy . Characterize climate history at region of interest . The role of water . Surface/atmosphere interaction

14 Example of water related geomorphology .A color-enhanced image of the delta in Crater

.Once held a lake .Ancient rivers ferried minerals into the lake .Clay-like minerals are shown in .Form the delta

.Clays tend to trap and preserve organic matter .Delta thus a good place to look for signs of ancient

Image credit: NASA/JPL/JHUAPL/MSSS/Brown University. 15 Basis for Site Selection

. Engineering and science constraints are mapped into potential landing sites on Mars . Use available remote sensing data . New orbital data of can be acquired . MSL sites have priority in the scheduling of MRO targets . All potential landing sites must be defendable . Must survive multiple reviews, so be thorough . Do everything to understand surface properties . Factor mission science objectives into selection . Selection must be done openly . Multiple opportunities for community involvement . Open workshops . Provide science community input to landing site

. Also educational opportunities & public outreach 16 Planetary Protection Requirements . There is a Planetary Protection Office . Landing sites must comply with guidelines . Must not have known water or water-ice within one meter of the surface . Some regions are special exceptions . Purpose of the Phoenix mission was to sample water ice . It had to be allowed to land in a water-rich area Phoenix robotic arm in lab . Robotic arm was sterilized and wrapped in bio-barrier . There are areas interpreted to have a high potential for the existence of native martian life forms . Missions looking for life would have to be allowed to land there Phoenix arm bio-barrier . Unfortunately, this also where terrestrial organisms

are likely to propagate 17 MSL Rover Overview

Conceptual Design

18 MSL compared with MER

Conceptual Design

19 Summary of Current Engineering Constraints on MSL Landing Sites

20 Scientific Objective of MSL

. Explore and quantitatively assess a local region on Mars’ surface as a potential habitat for life, past or present

21 Scientific Objective of MSL

• Assessment of present habitability requires: . An evaluation of the characteristics of the environment and the processes that influence it from microscopic to regional scales . A comparison of these characteristics with what is known about the capacity of life, as we know it, to exist in such environments . Assessment of past habitability also requires inferring environments and processes in the past from observation in the present . Requires integration of a wide variety of chemical, physical, and geological measurements and analyses 22 Scientific Objectives for MSL

Explore and quantitatively assess a local region on Mars’ surface as a potential habitat for life, past or present. . Assess the biological potential of at least one target environment. . Determine the nature and inventory of organic carbon compounds . Inventory the chemical building blocks of life (C, H, N, O, P, S) . Identify features that may represent the effects of biological processes

23 Scientific Objectives for MSL

Explore and quantitatively assess a local region on Mars’ surface as a potential habitat for life, past or present. . Characterize the geology and geochemistry of the landing region at all appropriate spatial scales (i.e., ranging from micrometers to kilometers) . Investigate the chemical, isotopic, and mineralogical composition of and near-surface geological materials . Interpret the processes that have formed and modified rocks and

24 Scientific Objectives for MSL

Explore and quantitatively assess a local region on Mars’ surface as a potential habitat for life, past or present. . Investigate planetary processes of relevance to past habitability, including the role of water . Assess long-timescale (i.e., 4-billion-year) atmospheric evolution processes . Determine present state, distribution, and cycling of

water and CO2

25 Scientific Objectives for MSL

Explore and quantitatively assess a local region on Mars’ surface as a potential habitat for life, past or present. . Characterize the broad spectrum of surface radiation, . Galactic cosmic radiation . Solar proton events . Secondary neutrons

26 Scientific Investigations Overview

Remote Sensing MastCam imaging, atmospheric opacity ChemCam chemical composition, imaging Contact APXS chemical composition MAHLI microscopic imaging Analytic Laboratory SAM chemical and isotopic composition, including organic molecules CheMin mineralogy, chemical composition Environmental DAN subsurface hydrogen MARDI landing site descent imaging REMS meteorology / UV radiation RAD high-energy radiation Total 10 • MSL also carries a sophisticated sample acquisition, processing and handling system. • >120 investigators and collaborators. • Significant international participation: Spain, Russia, Germany, Canada, France, Finland.

27 Summary: Investigations vs. Objectives

Mast- Chem- Che- MAHLI APXS SAM MARDI DAN REMS RAD Objective: Cam Cam Min

Determine the nature and inventory of + ++ + organic carbon compounds. Inventory the chemical building blocks of life (C, H, N, O, P, S). ++ ++ ++ ++ + Identify features that may represent the + ++ + ++ + effects of biological processes. Investigate the chemical, isotopic, and mineralogical composition of the Martian + ++ + ++ ++ ++ + surface and near-surface geologic materials. Interpret the processes that have formed ++ + ++ + + ++ + + + and modified rocks and regolith. Assess long-time scale atmospheric + + + ++ + + evolution processes.

Determine present state, distribution, and + + + + ++ ++ + cycling of water and CO2.

Characterize the broad spectrum of surface radiation, including galactic + + ++ cosmic radiation, solar proton events, and secondary neutrons. • Each objective addressed by multiple investigations; each investigation

addresses multiple objectives; provides robustness and reduces risk. 28 LANDING SITES PROPOSED TO FIRST MSL WORKSHOP NAME LOCATION ELEVATION TARGET PROPOSER Crater 4.6 S, 137.2 E -4.5 km Interior Layered Deposits J. Bell, N. Bridges Crater 24.0 S, 326.3 E -0.8 and -0.4 km Delta J. Schieber, J. Dickson Eberswalde Crater 23.8 S,326.7 E -1.48 km Delta J. Rice Candor Various -4 to +3 km Sulfate Deposits N. Mangold 9.8 S, 283.6 E -1.9 km Paleolake C. Quantin E. Melas Chasma 11.62 S, 290.45 E Below-2 km Interior Layered Deposits M. Chojnacki 2.5 N, 338 E -1.6 to -3.8 km Hematite N. Cabrol 2 S , ~342 E Below -2 km Hematite, Sulfate T. Glotch W. Meridiani 7.5ºN, 354ºE ~-1 to -1.5 km Layered Sediments A. Howard N. 5.6 N, 358 E ~-1.5 km Crater lake sediments L. Posiolova E. Meridiani 0 , 3.7 E ~-1.3 km Sedimentary Layers B. Hynek E. Meridiani 1.8 S, 7.6 E ~-1.0 to -1.5 km Sediments, Hematite H. Newsom W. Arabia 8.9 N, 358.8 E -1.2 km Sedimentary Rocks E. Heydari SW 2-12 N, 355-348 E -1 km Sed. Rocks, Methane C. Allen Layered Sedimentary Becquerel Crater 21.8 N, 351 E -2.6 to -3.8 km J. C. Bridges Rocks Crater 28 S, 73 E -5 km Layers in crater T. Parker Terby Crater 28˚S, 74 E -5 km Light-toned Outcrops Z. Noe Dobrea Terby Crater 28 S, 73 E -5 km Layered Material S. Wilson

29 LANDING SITES PROPOSED TO FIRST MSL WORKSHOP NAME LOCATION ELEVATION TARGET PROPOSER S. Crater ~26.4ºS, 325.3ºE -2.25 km Lacustrine Layers M. Malin Holden Crater 26.4ºS, 325.3ºE -2.3 km Layered Materials R. Irwin, J. Grant Holden Crater 26.1ºS, 326ºE -2.2 km Layered Materials J. Rice Crater 2.7ºS, 110.8ºE -0.75 km Layered Materials J. Rice Argyre 56.8ºS, 317.7ºE -1.5 km Glacial Features J. Kargel S. Hemisphere 49 S, 14 E Above -0.5 km Recent Climate Deposits M. Kreslavsky Crater 35.7 S, 323.4 E –2.4 km Gullies W. E. Dietrich Crater 48.6 S, 334 E 0.6 km Gullies W. E. Dietrich Athabasca Vallis 10N, ?ºE -2.4 km Rupes Deposits D. Burr Crater 18.4ºN, 77.68ºE -2.6 km Valley Networks, layers J. Rice NE Syrtis Major ~10ºN, ~70ºE ~0.5 to 1.5 km Volcanics R. Harvey Margaritifer basin 12.77ºS, 338.1ºE -2.12 km Fluvial Deposits K. Williams Margaritifer basin 11.54ºS, 337.3ºE -2.535 km Fluvial Deposits K. Williams Avernus Colles 1.0ºS, 169.5ºE Below -2 km High iron abundance L. Crumpler 40ºS, 85ºE Below -2 km A major valley L. Crumpler Isidis Basin floor 5-15ºN, 80-95ºE Below -2 km Volatile sink L. Crumpler Hypanis Vallis 11ºN, 314ºE Below -2 km Delta L. Crumpler NW Slope Valleys Various Above 0 km? Flood Features J. Dohm Nili Fossae ~22ºN, ~75ºE -0.6 km Phyllosilicates J. Mustard Marwth Vallis 22.3ºN, 343.5ºE ~-2 km Phyllosilicates J-P Bibring 5 S, 297 E -2 km Layered Sulfates J. Grotzinger 30 Remaining MSL Landing Sites

Delta with phyllosilicates • Holden Crater • • Eberswalde Crater • Gale Crater • • East Margaritifer

FRT C1D1 31 Remaining MSL Landing Sites

Extensive layered phyllosilicates • Holden Crater • Mawrth Vallis • Eberswalde Crater • Gale Crater • Northeast Syrtis • East Margaritifer

FRT 89F7 32 Remaining MSL Landing Sites

Delta with phyllosilicates • Holden Crater • Mawrth Vallis • Eberswalde Crater • Gale Crater • Northeast Syrtis • East Margaritifer

FRT BA45 33 Remaining MSL Landing Sites

Giant stack of layered materials with sulfates and phyllosilicates • Holden Crater • Mawrth Vallis • Eberswalde Crater • Gale Crater • Northeast Syrtis • East Margaritifer

FRT BA45 34 Remaining MSL Landing Sites

Carbonates and phyllosilicates in possible fluvial environment • Holden Crater • Mawrth Vallis

Center Location • Eberswalde Crater 17.808 N, 77.076 E Center elevation: - 2033 m • Gale Crater • Northeast Syrtis • East Margaritifer

FRT 161EF 35 Remaining MSL Landing Sites

Chlorides and phyllosilicates • Holden Crater • Mawrth Vallis • Eberswalde Crater • Gale Crater • Northeast Syrtis • East Margaritifer

FRT 9ACE 36 Where would you go?

. Pick future landing (or human settlement) sites . Use MSL engineering constraints to find other interesting place on Mars that might make good future landing sites . Use CRISM spectral data to find:

. Regions of interesting mineralogy . Signs of past water . Areas of potential habitibility . Can incorporate other data sets

. HiRISE 37 Next Week’s Meeting

. Next week we will give a detailed description of the potential MSL landing site at Mawrth Vallis . There will be a 30 minute Q&A session afterward . If you’ve had a chance to look at any areas, bring us Perspective view of proposed Mawrth Vallis landing site, created using some data and ask our Mars Express, MOLA, MDM and THEMIS data opinion!

38