NASA Spaceship Scouts Out Prime Mars Landing Spots

coondoggie writes "NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter this week sent back high-resolution images of about 30 proposed landing sites for the Mars Science Laboratory, a mission launching in 2009 to deploy a long-distance rover carrying sophisticated science instruments on Mars. The orbiter's high-resolution camera has taken more than 3,500 huge, sharp images released in black-and-white since it began science operations in November 2006. The images show features as small as a desk. The orbiter has sent back some 26 terabytes of data, equivalent to about 5,000 CD-ROMs."

Comments

nice

[wwmedia]

good thing that there are still people at NASA that realize the great return for dollars spent that robotic missions bring,

they may not be as glamorous as landing people on the moon etc
but at the end of the day its this "boring / tedious" type of science that moves us forward, not the "giant leaps" (that average people get bored of rather quickly as seen in the 60s) just steady progress..

Something I don't understand

[techpawn]

Why do we need Terabytes of information about landing sites about Mars but all it took was a telescope to pick a landing site on the moon? Maybe it's a distance thing and maybe there are just more difficulties with a Mars mission that I just don't understand or was there a few fly by missions to the moon I'm not remembering...

Re:Something I don't understand

[blueturffan]

There were more than just telescopes and fly-by missions to the moon.

As I recall, the Ranger missions came first -- taking close-up photos before impacting the moon. I don't recall whether or not they orbited.

The Surveyor missions came next. The Surveyor ships actually proved the feasibility of soft-landing on the moon. I believe it was Apollo 12 that landed close enough that the astronauts walked (hopped?) over and retrieved a portion of one of the Surveyors.

Apollo 8 orbited the moon something like 10 times. They weren't just there on a sightseeing mission, they were taking many, many pictures and movies of the surface of the moon.

Apollo 10 was called the "dry run", as they did everything but actually land on the moon. As I recall the Apollo 10 LM was called Snoopy because they were 'snooping' out a landing site for Apollo 11.

And even with all the available information, the Apollo 11 LM guidance computer was steering Neil and Buzz directly toward a field of boulders until Neil Armstrong took manual control and flew the LM to a safe landing space with less than a minute of fuel remaining.

Direct link to photos

[sighted]

All of the images from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (whether measured in discs or libraries of congress) are online. Fantastic resource.

NASA's landing site track record

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is my opinion of the NASA landing sites chosen to date:

• Viking 1, Chryse Planitia, boring rubble pile, but hey they got there.
• Viking 2, Utopia Planitia, boring high latitude plain. They should have been more aggressive with this. Lost opportunity.
• Mars Surveyor, Isidis Planitia, boring plain. Really dumb choice.
• Mars Polar Lander, Potentially great site on south polar layered terrain. Too bad they cocked up the landing.
• Spirit Rover, Gusev Crater, potentially interesting but turned out really bad. Thermal evidense suggested that this was a rubble pile. Don't NASA scientists look at their own results?
• Opportunity Rover, Meridiani Planum. Boring topography but fantastic geology. The discovery of sedimentary rocks and concretions (blueberries) are the most significant results yet of the NASA lander program. Best site by far!
• Phoenix Lander. Revert back to really boring, shity site. Why look for ground ice when there is a continental glacier a short distance away at the north pole? Pointless! The idiots are in charge of this one. A virtual replay of the Viking 2 mission.

As you can see, NASA has a pretty bad track record of selecting landing sites. Lets hope they are more aggressive with Mars Science Laboratory in an outflow channel region or a volcanic region (Elesium, Tharsus, Valley Marineris). I think it was a huge mistake not to stick with the wildly successful Spirit/Opportunity model of cheap and numerous rovers. My fear is they will be too conservative with the newest Battlestar Galactica.

Re:We did use robots to scout landing sites

[Guysmiley777]

Yep, they returned (among other things) the video camera and the sample scoop.
Here's the report: Surveyor III Parts and Materials/Evaluation of Lunar Effects