Mars Landing Sites:
Where would you go?
Debra Buczkowski, Kim Seelos,
and Wes Patterson
NASA’s Mars 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:
 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 2
Viking 1
Pathfinder
MER B
Opportunity
MER 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
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 very important to
quantify
 Could damage the lander/rover
upon landing
Viking 2 landing site
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
 Sky crane
Artist rendering of airbag system used for the MERs
 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
 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
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 Jezero Crater
Once held a lake
Ancient rivers
ferried minerals
into the lake
Clay-like minerals
are shown in green
Form the delta
Clays tend to trap and preserve organic matter
Delta thus a good place to look for signs of ancient life on
Mars
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
 Robotic arm was sterilized and wrapped in bio-barrier
Phoenix robotic arm in lab
 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
Phoenix arm bio-barrier
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 martian surface and near-surface
geological materials

Interpret the processes that have formed and modified
rocks and regolith
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
Contact
Analytic Laboratory
MastCam
imaging, atmospheric opacity
ChemCam
chemical composition, imaging
APXS
chemical composition
MAHLI
microscopic imaging
SAM
chemical and isotopic composition,
including organic molecules
Environmental
Total
CheMin
mineralogy, chemical composition
DAN
subsurface hydrogen
MARDI
landing site descent imaging
REMS
meteorology / UV radiation
RAD
high-energy radiation
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
Objective:
MastCam
Determine the nature and inventory of
organic carbon compounds.
ChemCam
MAHLI
SAM
CheMin
++
+
++
++
++
APXS
+
Inventory the chemical building blocks of
life (C, H, N, O, P, S).
++
Identify features that may represent the
effects of biological processes.
+
++
+
++
+
MARDI
+
++
+
++
++
++
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.
•
+
REMS
RAD
+
+
++
++
+
+
+
++
+
Investigate the chemical, isotopic, and
mineralogical composition of the Martian
surface and near-surface geologic
materials.
+
DAN
+
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
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
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 km
Layered Sedimentary
Rocks
J. 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
M. Chojnacki
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. Grotzinger
30
Remaining MSL Landing Sites
• Holden Crater
Delta with phyllosilicates
• Mawrth Vallis
• Eberswalde Crater
• Gale Crater
• Northeast Syrtis
• East Margaritifer
FRT C1D1
31
Remaining MSL Landing Sites
• Holden Crater
Extensive layered phyllosilicates
• Mawrth Vallis
• Eberswalde Crater
• Gale Crater
• Northeast Syrtis
• East Margaritifer
FRT 89F7
32
Remaining MSL Landing Sites
• Holden Crater
Delta with phyllosilicates
• Mawrth Vallis
• Eberswalde Crater
• Gale Crater
• Northeast Syrtis
• East Margaritifer
FRT BA45
33
Remaining MSL Landing Sites
• Holden Crater
Giant stack of layered materials with sulfates and phyllosilicates
• Mawrth Vallis
• Eberswalde Crater
• Gale Crater
• Northeast Syrtis
• East Margaritifer
FRT BA45
34
Remaining MSL Landing Sites
• Holden Crater
Carbonates and phyllosilicates in possible fluvial environment
• Mawrth Vallis
• Eberswalde Crater
Center Location
17.808 N, 77.076 E
Center elevation: 2033 m
• Gale Crater
• Northeast Syrtis
• East Margaritifer
FRT 161EF
35
Remaining MSL Landing Sites
• Holden Crater
Chlorides and phyllosilicates
• 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
some data and ask our
opinion!
Perspective view of proposed Mawrth Vallis landing site, created using
Mars Express, MOLA, MDM and THEMIS data
38