mars landing sites - crism web...

Debra Buczkowski, Kim Seelos,

and Wes Patterson

Mars Landing Sites:

Where would you go?

MSL launch has been delayed to at least 2011

NASA’s Mars Exploration Program

Strategy: Follow the water, assess habitability, return asample, prepare for humans

2

Types of Mars Missions

Orbital Missions

Instruments stay in orbit around Mars

Missions include:

Mariner, 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 Spirit

MER-B Opportunity

Phoenix (lander)3

Locations of successful landed missions

Phoenix

Viking 1

Viking 2

Pathfinder

MER B

OpportunityMER A

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


Elevation

The elevation restrictions of a landing site depend upon the method of landing

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

Parachute landings require low elevations so that there is more atmosphere to reduce velocity

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


Rock abundance

The size and quantity of rocks at a landing site is very important to quantify

Could damage the lander/rover upon landing

10

Viking 2 landing site

Rejected Phoenix landing site


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


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

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

12

Artist rendering of sky crane for MSL

Artist rendering of airbag system used for the MERs


Ellipse Size Number of possible landing sites scales with ellipse size

Beagle (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


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

15Image credit: NASA/JPL/JHUAPL/MSSS/Brown University.

A color-enhanced image of the delta in Jezero Crater

Once held a lake

Ancient rivers

ferried minerals

into the lakeClay-like minerals

are shown in green

Form the delta

Clays tend to trap and preserve organic matterDelta thus a good place to look for signs of ancient life on

Mars

Example of water related geomorphology


Engineering and science constraints aremapped 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

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

Unfortunately, this also where terrestrial organisms are likely to propagate

17

Phoenix arm bio-barrier

Phoenix robotic arm in lab

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 analyses22

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




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 martian surface and near-surface

geological materials

Interpret the processes that have formed and modified

rocks and regolith

24




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




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

• Each objective addressed by multiple investigations; each investigation

addresses multiple objectives; provides robustness and reduces risk.

Objective:Mast-

Cam

Chem-

CamMAHLI APXS SAM

Che-

MinMARDI DAN REMS RAD

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.

+ + ++

28

LANDING SITES PROPOSED TO FIRST MSL WORKSHOP

NAME LOCATION ELEVATION TARGET PROPOSER

Gale Crater 4.6 S, 137.2 E -4.5 km Interior Layered Deposits J. Bell, N. Bridges

Eberswalde 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 Chasma Various -4 to +3 km Sulfate Deposits N. Mangold

Melas Chasma 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

Aram Chaos 2.5 N, 338 E -1.6 to -3.8 km Hematite N. Cabrol

Iani Chaos 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. Sinus Meridiani 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 Arabia Terra 2-12 N, 355-348 E -1 km Sed. Rocks, Methane C. Allen

Becquerel Crater 21.8 N, 351 E -2.6 to -3.8 kmLayered Sedimentary

RocksJ. C. Bridges

Terby 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. Holden 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

Palos 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

Hale Crater 35.7 S, 323.4 E –2.4 km Gullies W. E. Dietrich

Wirtz Crater 48.6 S, 334 E 0.6 km Gullies W. E. Dietrich

Athabasca Vallis 10N, ?ºE -2.4 km Cerberus Rupes Deposits D. Burr

Nili Fossae 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

Dao Vallis 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

Juventae Chasma 5 S, 297 E -2 km Layered Sulfates J. Grotzinger30

Remaining MSL Landing Sites

• Holden Crater

• Mawrth Vallis

• Eberswalde Crater

• Gale Crater

• Northeast Syrtis

• East Margaritifer

FRT C1D1 31

Delta with phyllosilicates


• Holden Crater

• Mawrth Vallis


• Gale Crater



FRT 89F7 32

Extensive layered phyllosilicates


• Holden Crater

• Mawrth Vallis


• Gale Crater



FRT BA45 33

Delta with phyllosilicates


• Holden Crater

• Mawrth Vallis


• Gale Crater



FRT BA45 34

Giant stack of layered materials with sulfates and phyllosilicates


• Holden Crater

• Mawrth Vallis


• Gale Crater



Center Location 17.808 N, 77.076 ECenter elevation: -

2033 m

FRT 161EF 35

Carbonates and phyllosilicates in possible fluvial environment


• Holden Crater

• Mawrth Vallis


• Gale Crater



FRT 9ACE 36

Chlorides and phyllosilicates

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

some data and ask our

opinion!

38

Perspective view of proposed Mawrth Vallis landing site, created using

Mars Express, MOLA, MDM and THEMIS data

mars landing sites - crism web...

Documents