MSL landing sites Options

[djellison]

No.

[nprev]

Hmm. You know, final targeting doesn't really have to happen very long before launch (maybe even for a substantial period afterward?), so I don't see any urgency about selecting a site right now.

Heck, who knows; with MSL's precision landing capability, MRO might spot a really choice location that blows the others away literally any time between now & then.

[elakdawalla]

Although the final choice doesn't need to be made before launch, if MER is any guide, then a latitude band will need to be chosen at launch, so a downselection will need to be made.

Anyway, the upcoming meeting is one for the Mars science community to make input. There'll be a straw poll held at the end of it I'm sure. But the final decision won't even be made by the mission. It'll be made by HQ, based on presentations on both engineering and science constraints made by the mission.

Nick, I doubt they'll be looking at any new sites. They have brought so many assets to bear on the current list of options, from HiRISE to CRISM to CTX stereo to THEMIS to god knows how many atmospheric models, that it's probably too late in the game for something new to come to the fore. Which isn't to say that there aren't any scientists who won't TRY to make a new suggestion. That'll be sort of fun to watch, but mostly just a waste of everyone's time.

I'll be going to at least some of this meeting, yay.

[nprev]

Looking forward to your dispatch from the front, Emily! I imagine that these can be quite contentious.

[brellis]

Think of Emily doing a live play-by-play ustream of the event, a la Monty Python's World Cup match between the Philosophers

[monty python]

For some reason the Python link didn't work for me so I did a

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...+monty+python=1

and chose the second option.

I hope it works or I shall taunt you a second time you son of a window dresser!

[Eluchil]

The 4th MSL landing site workshop is ongoing and Emily has a thorough and insightful write-up on her blog at http://planetary.org/blog/article/00002685/

Eluchil

[tharrison]

Hmm. You know, final targeting doesn't really have to happen very long before launch (maybe even for a substantial period afterward?), so I don't see any urgency about selecting a site right now.

Most of the urgency comes from a need to focus the efforts of the scientific community. Right now there's so much that still needs to be done pertaining to all four landing sites. If the list were shortened to two sites, it would bring more focus to those two and hopefully encourage more people to work on them and tackle the outstanding questions. For example, most of what's been done at Mawrth has focused on the mineralogy of the area, leaving the geology and geomorphology side of things a bit neglected (and it's a complicated place!).

[Gsnorgathon]

And for those of us who can't get enough MSL landing site workshop news, Ryan Anderson's also blogging it at The Martian Chronicles.

[RonJones]

Are additional MSL landing site workshops (i.e, 5th, 6th) already scheduled for 2011?

[elakdawalla]

The next (and final) one is in mid-May.

[RonJones]

The next (and final) one is in mid-May.

Emily - Thanks for the update. Do you think the location of the methane "hot spots" or any other recent science findings will play a strong role in the final site selection, or will the safety of MSL be the overriding factor in picking among the remaining candidates?

By the way, why no daughter + daughter photo, or do you think the forum members would just go cross-eyed trying to view it as a stereoscopic pic?

[Phil Stooke]

Methane won't figure into it. The selection is mostly based on looking at ancient clays and other water-altered or -deposited materials, plus (of course) site safety and accessibility of the outcrops. The new landing site workshop will be about identifying specific outcrops for study at each site, traverses which give access to them, and maybe potential for extended missions. Methane needs to be much better characterized by future orbiters before it can be a factor in site selection. It might just possibly affect selection for the 2018 rovers.

Phil

[tharrison]

Do you think the location of the methane "hot spots" or any other recent science findings will play a strong role in the final site selection, or will the safety of MSL be the overriding factor in picking among the remaining candidates?

The methane story (which may not even be real ) has nothing to do with any of the 4 candidate landing sites, and they aren't going to add any more to the list at this point.

With the extreme cost of the rover, I have a feeling that we'll end up going to a "safe" site rather than which of the 4 may be the most scientifically interesting/important site. Many folks are convinced we're going to Mawrth for this very reason (Mawrth also seems to have the most vocal advocates).

[ZLD]

Just curious, which landing site do you see as the most scientificly rich?