MSL landing site: Gale Crater |
MSL landing site: Gale Crater |
Jun 23 2011, 05:13 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
-------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Jun 23 2011, 05:21 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 754 Joined: 9-February 07 Member No.: 1700 |
Looks like Gusev. How does it compare?
|
|
|
Jun 23 2011, 05:29 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Totally different. A central peak that exposes 5km of layered rock, for starters. A delta in the landing ellipse.
Ryan et.al. have by far the best analysis and study of the place. http://martianchronicles.wordpress.com/201...aper-published/ |
|
|
Jun 23 2011, 05:52 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member Group: Admin Posts: 4763 Joined: 15-March 05 From: Glendale, AZ Member No.: 197 |
...and here's a little mind-blowing 3D animation flyover that Doug put together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh_bfrl9wk0 not to mention this one that our friend MARS3D did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq0Z3cKJaGQ -------------------- If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
|
|
|
Jun 23 2011, 06:02 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 715 Joined: 22-April 05 Member No.: 351 |
I had been hoping for Mawrth Vallis, since it appears to be the oldest, and the mineralogy seems clearest (at least to this non-geologist). Any of the sites would be great for science, though, and Gale would probably be the most scenic.
The Nature article talks about the sedimentologists, who favored the three crater sites, and the mineralogists who favored Mawrth. Perhaps the 2018 rover, will visit a mineralogy site. I think Mawrth may be too far north for that mission, but there are other interesting sites being considered. If MSL strikes organics at Gale, we may get two rovers to the same location. -------------------- |
|
|
Jun 23 2011, 06:10 AM
Post
#6
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
A longer animation involving more data from HRSC/CTX/HiRISE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvXHu-U02UE
|
|
|
Jun 23 2011, 06:38 AM
Post
#7
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
Although it appears to be about mineralogists vs geomorphologists all over again, this time there is abundant evidence that the geomorphologically interesting site of Gale also includes interesting mineralogy.
-------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Jun 23 2011, 07:09 AM
Post
#8
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3516 Joined: 4-November 05 From: North Wales Member No.: 542 |
Very nice, Doug. Is that with or without vertical stretch?
I was surprised by this from the Nature article: "Mawrth Vallis has been ruled out, even as they acknowledge that its lack of scenic vistas — important in drawing the public into a mission — could be a major failing." That's quite a strong statement. Did this really carry any weight in the selection process? If so, it would be saying a lot about the public impact the MERs have achieved. That's something to cheer certainly, but at the same time it's rather sobering. Much as I love the vistas, I find myself wondering how far I'd want planetary exploration to move in the direction of crowd pleasing. |
|
|
Jun 23 2011, 07:17 AM
Post
#9
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Is that with or without vertical stretch? Without. QUOTE Did this really carry any weight in the selection process? The conclusion of the 5th landing site meeting was this - ALL the sites were scientifically interesting and all met the engineering requirements. There was no scientific consensus that puts one above the other. So - did aesthetics play into it? They were certainly mentioned at the landing site meeting - and all other things being equal, I don't know why they shouldn't. If you have four safe, interesting landing sites that the science community can't choose between, then why not go to the most spectacular one? One good side-effect of Gale - it's a very very low landing site. This could offer lots of spare time margin for EDL. |
|
|
Jun 23 2011, 10:23 AM
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 593 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 279 |
Much as I love the vistas, I find myself wondering how far I'd want planetary exploration to move in the direction of crowd pleasing. Science obviously has to come first - but I personally found the Phoenix "vistas" utterly soulless. Flat arctic, as far as the camera could see. With a nod to The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu, it really was "grim up north". Andy |
|
|
Jun 23 2011, 12:19 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 1-October 06 Member No.: 1206 |
Fair enough, but just about everything else about the Phoenix mission was absolutely fascinating AND important. Although I too was disappointed with the terrain, I wouldnt want to exchange a visible mesa or two for everything else that mission gave us.
Plus - if it had been a rover, really interesting terrain would have been within a reasonable traverse anyway. p |
|
|
Jun 23 2011, 12:22 PM
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 715 Joined: 22-April 05 Member No.: 351 |
Although it appears to be about mineralogists vs geomorphologists all over again, this time there is abundant evidence that the geomorphologically interesting site of Gale also includes interesting mineralogy. All four sites have abundantly interesting mineralogy. I believe the difference is that with Mawrth, it was more obvious that the clays, etc. were formed in place. The concern I read about the other sites was that the minerals may have been carried in and may not represent substantial deposits. However, I'm not a geologist! So these thoughts really should be read as a question. Any geologists care to comment on whether this is actually a concern? However, my real reason for favoring Mawrth was that it was the oldest of the sites, and sites like it may be the only records of the earliest processes on a world with a (then) significant atmosphere and available water. The world's experts on these issues also knew this, and went with a different site, so this was not a compelling argument. So Gale it apparently will be. -------------------- |
|
|
Jun 23 2011, 12:44 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2173 Joined: 28-December 04 From: Florida, USA Member No.: 132 |
...So Gale it apparently will be. Or not. From the same article:"The scientists' endorsement of Gale Crater does not ensure that it will be selected by NASA management. Another site, Eberswalde Crater, which contains a relic river delta and — perhaps — buried evidence of organics in the lakebed deposits into which the river flowed, was ranked a very close second." |
|
|
Jun 23 2011, 01:24 PM
Post
#14
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 2785 Joined: 10-November 06 From: Pasadena, CA Member No.: 1345 |
Eberswalde is still my favorite. It has the advantage of having the whole drainage network pretty much defined. So you know how much stuff washed out and where it washed out from.
That's a neat little tidy package that would remove one unknown from the system. (Thus avoiding the "Where the heck did this come from?" question) -------------------- Some higher resolution images available at my photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31678681@N07/
|
|
|
Jun 23 2011, 01:44 PM
Post
#15
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd September 2024 - 06:01 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |