Gale Crater on target to become next Mars landing site

Looks like Gusev. How does it compare?

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/

...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

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.

A longer animation involving more data from HRSC/CTX/HiRISE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvXHu-U02UE

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.

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.

Without.




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.

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

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

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.

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."

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)

Clearly not an advantage, or it would have risen above the other sites on scientific merit.

The more of those stunning "flyover" animations I see, the more I wish we had a plane, or an airship, or a balloon, flying low over Mars taking images like that, Red Mars style...

Sigh... Maybe one day...

Of course its an advantage. Each site has its unique advantage as well as disadvantage. The disadvantage of the Eberswalde site is that it may have formed over a short period of time and not represent much of an historical record.

Quite clearly I meant an advantage over the other sites.

No site had that.

Really great stuff, Doug. Thanks!

I had a chance to talk with one of the MSL Co-Is about the landing site selection a few months ago and expressed a strong hope that Gale would be selected. She was a bit taken aback and asked why? I said it was dramatic and pretty. She didn't care much about that. From your animation, Doug, it also looks "cool."

"Nature has learned that it rose to the top last month following a secret ranking"
Oops, did someone let the cat out of the bag?...

Yea!! I was soooo rooting for Gale!
GO MSL!

I see that those who have been lobbying for GALE seem to be having it their way at last! I was more keen on Mawrth which didnt seem to have been favoured for most of the time ..thats my impression ! Oh well, despite this, Gale seems to be an exciting destination and now just hope that Curiosity gets to MARS!

Hopefully the good stuff isnt bured like at Gusev.

well said sunspot..I feel that NASA wants to make up for the disappointment of landing Spirit in Gusev and now we get Gale.

To be fair, there seems to be a lot of traversibility for the rover to do and thus years of work on Mars which is exciting in itself.

Guys, it's not the same as Gusev. CRISM sees plenty of evidence for interesting mineralogy at Gale. We KNOW the clay and sulfate minerals are there.

Having sulphates and clays at the same site could be interesting in identifying climatic changes that occurred 3-4 billion years ago not to mention dinosaur bones!

Was there not enough orbital data to avoid the "crushing disappointment"(S.Squyres) after landing at Gusev ?

Not even close. CRISM wasn't in orbit, remember. CRISM can do two things that THEMIS couldn't: it has much much higher resolution (so it can spot deposits with smaller spatial extent) and it's near-infrared, which makes it much easier to pick up the presence of water and hydroxyl, which is how you identify the presence of clays.

I do believe the fact that Gale is by far the closest to the Martian equator of the four candidate landing sites was a factor (and not a minor one) in its presumed choice. The recent OIG audit of MSL, mentioned on another thread, said that "expected performance of the rover's power generation system, the...MMRTG, has been reduced." That brings back the question of how much of the energy budget is needed to electrically heat actuators all over the rover each morning, and that makes a near-equator landing site very attractive again.

That said, I have absolutely nothing against Gale as a science site. It has lots of interesting features, and the phyllosilicates that are probably the best hope for finding organics.

The above quote was from page 6 of: http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/IG-11-019.pdf

I think you're right that that might have entered into their decisionmaking process. The southern sites especially would see pretty big extremes over the course of the year. Nothing that the rover couldn't handle, of course -- it would have been fine -- but it does make planning more complex when your power fluctuates so much over the course of a year.

I should've said it looks the same size as Gusev.

Thanks for the exciting details. Gotta stock up on the popcorn, this should be a great show!

There is one thing Gale has that Gusev is lacking. Can you pick it out?
Click to view attachment

What is the green line supposed to indicate, Doug?

A 'notional' traverse route.

Phil

Yup - a couple of possible traverse routes from Bell/Anderson.

I vote for the rightside squiggly-looking traverse route

So does driveability analysis based on HiRISE DTM's and other data.

Interesting...it seemed like the rougher terrain was in that direction from your video. Looks can be deceiving.

"The terrain has accurate vertical scaling and is not exaggerated."

Wauw.

That area is outside the landing ellipse, fyi.

http://www.universetoday.com/87047/gale-cr...l-landing-site/

We are now in this "next week" so, any rumors on NASA Associate Administrator Ed Weiler's final words? Also I wondered if they planed to organize streamed video conference abut this?

NASA mulls targeting decision for Mars rover - June 27, 2011
The decision on where to land Curiosity, the super-sized roving science laboratory bound for Mars later this year, isn’t expected for at least another two weeks...

NASA headquarters was prepared to roll out an official announcement as early as today, had the council and Weiler come to an easy decision. But Weiler, who will make the final call, has instructed the council to study the information that was presented to them for the next two weeks.

Looks like the choice now is between two sites: Gale and Eberswalde, according to this.
See also here.

Landing site should be interesting for scientist and for normal US tax payers. Eberswalde is interesting for scientists, like 10 000 other sites on Mars, but not for ordinary person. In my opinion selection of Eberswalde crater will be a strategic mistake. Public interest will be short-lived and minimal. Without the support and interest of ordinary people further studies of Mars will not be possible. I hope this post does not initiate any discussion, I want only to express my disappointment and frustration. Mawrth was my favorite and it's hard for me to agree with the rejection of this wonderful place.

Then it's a bit stupid posting it in a discussion forum. Perhaps it would be better suited to a personal blog.

Every one of the four sites is a wonderful place. And all is not lost - the ones which are not chosen are still there for future missions.

Phil

Until Phobos takes care of them.

... and creates a whole new set of amazing sites!

Phil

Circle your calendars for Friday at 10 AM EDT--landing site will be announced then.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=34138