MSL landing sites |
MSL landing sites |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
![]() Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 428 Joined: 21-August 06 From: Northern Virginia Member No.: 1062 ![]() |
As there are some pictures being released from HiRISE of proposed MSL landing sites, I thought I'd give you what little I know about the process. As of the HiRISE team meeting a month ago or so, there were about 40 proposed sites to land MSL. These sites were prioritized, and are being photographed roughly in priority order. Each site requires a picture from each of the 3 main cameras (CTX, CRISM, and HiRISE) in their highest resolution in order to proceed. If it's determined that there can be a safe landing site, as well as interesting science targets, then they will advance to the next level, where I presume they will "wallpaper" the areas with HiRISE and CRISM (CTX, well, they get the whole landing ellipse in one shot, I think...). They likely will also photograph science areas near the proposed sites to look for interesting targets. After that, well, your guess is as good as mine. Note that none of this is official, but it's what I would expect. Also note that the landing site selection is still opened to new suggestions, the ones they have so far are not a complete list. The priority also doesn't mean anything right now other than they are the targets which will be photographed first, these priorities are still subject to change. But, well, I thought I'd send this out there for you all sink your teeth on, it really is quite interesting!
|
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 234 Joined: 8-May 05 Member No.: 381 ![]() |
I like the geology of Holden Crater and was glad to see it make the top three candidates list. However, there has been some talk in the past of the site being too cold for full operation at the time of landing. In the "Second MSL Landing Site Workshop" thread, tglotch said this in post #28:
"Holden and Terby came very close to not making the final list. They are both very interesting scientifically, but we were told by engineers that because of their high southern latitudes and cold temperatures that if MSL landed at one of those sites it would have to lie dormant for the first month or so and then operate at only a 30-50% duty cycle." Was anything said of this at the Third Workshop? And just out of curiosity, is there some reason why RHUs (radioisotope heater units) couldn't be used instead of electrical heaters for areas not warmed by the RTG waste heat on MSL? Wouldn't that allow for less dormancy after landing? |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd May 2024 - 02:22 PM |
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. |
![]() |