Author Topic: Preferred Landing Sites  (Read 10005 times)

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1093
  • Australia
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 454
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #40 on: 12/11/2016 04:30 AM »
Do you want to live in New England (hills, valleys, waterfalls, lakes, forests, etc.) or in Kansas/Nebraska?

Given that people migrated from the north-east to the mid-west...

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 677
  • NH
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 193
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #41 on: 12/11/2016 02:57 PM »
Utopia Planitia may be boring BUT it has a basically unlimited water supply.  IMO, the ideal place to set up the solar and ISRU plants needed.  Plenty of area to build an initial base to establish a foothold.  Plenty of room to locate landing zones far enough away from other structures.  So what if you have to drive 10klm from the ITS to the base.  It's not hard with the right vehicles.

Land, get set up safe and comfortable and then worry about science and exploration.
Do you want to live in New England (hills, valleys, waterfalls, lakes, forests, etc.) or in Kansas/Nebraska?


Do you want to live, full stop?

I can see showman Musk saying in a deep voice, "Come with me if you want to live"
“When it looks more like an alien dreadnought, that’s when you know you’ve won.”

Offline mikelepage

Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #42 on: 01/09/2017 08:17 AM »
Wanted to draw attention to this:

A possibly interesting site for large payload landing is Hadriacus Palus, which is just east of Terby crater on the very northern edge of Hellas Planitia.  It has a latitude of 27.25 South which is within the 30S cutoff for solar power considerations - it also has probable water ice deposits, nearby mineral deposits, and generally high scientific value - leading to it being ranked 16th out of all the landing sites in the 2020 workshop:

Evaluation paper here:
http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/explorationzone2015/pdf/1052.pdf

Rough map here


As you can see, if the entry approach was from the direction of Rabe crater, you would have nearly 1000km (in a straight line) of some of the thickest atmosphere on Mars to slow your ITS down, before using your craft as a lifting body to get back up to a landing altitude of -2.6km.

Quick BOE you would cover those 1000km in about 200 s of 3xg deceleration (to get from 8km/s to 2km/s), and I'm hoping the ITS can do the rest by itself...

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 677
  • NH
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 193
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #43 on: 01/10/2017 11:25 PM »
Much discussion in other SX Mars threads about tunneling underground and Mars habitats.  One possible class of non-surface but proximate to surface habitats is living inside Yardangs as people have on Earth for thousands of years, e.g. Cappadocia Turkey.  These natural structures may be exploitable on Mars.  This site, Appolonarus Sulci, is only 12 degrees south of the equator and best of all has a soil containing 7.5% water in the upper centimeters.

http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/explorationzone2015/pdf/1043.pdf

A major advantage to landing a human mission near the Medusae Fossae is the potential to use the formation itself as a source of feedstock for civil engineering projects. The Medusae Fossae represents a vast source of fine-grained, easily mineable material that could be used to build landing pads, berms, roads, habitations, emergency shelters, equipment shelters, etc  In addition, dwellings could be dug directly into the side of yardangs, providing natural protection from temperature extremes, radiation, and small meteors. Volcanic tuff deposits have served as building material for human beings for milennia. Cities such as Rome and Naples sit above extensive tuff quarries and underground tunnels, cisterns, storerooms. In the Cappadocia region of modern Turkey, early Christians built and enlarged underground cities, some of which were capable of housing more than 20,000 people and their livestock...


“When it looks more like an alien dreadnought, that’s when you know you’ve won.”

Offline Paul451

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1093
  • Australia
  • Liked: 538
  • Likes Given: 454
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #44 on: 01/11/2017 11:06 AM »
Wanted to draw attention to this:
A possibly interesting site for large payload landing is Hadriacus Palus, which is just east of Terby crater on the very northern edge of Hellas Planitia.

The problem with Hellas Basin is that it's where the dust storms come from and most frequently occur.

If you're using solar power, you want to avoid Hellas like the plague.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1790
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #45 on: 03/18/2017 09:40 PM »
Quote
Paul Wooster, SpaceX, on Mars landing site selection: looking at sites at latitudes < 40˚, elevation as low as possible. #LPSC2017

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/843229275025227777

Quote
Wooster: identified several candidate sites, but many likely too rocky. Arcadia region looks promising. #LPSC2017

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/843229571642286081

Edit: from context I think he's talking about Red Dragon landing site
« Last Edit: 03/18/2017 09:52 PM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline Dalhousie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Liked: 224
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #46 on: 03/20/2017 02:18 AM »
Wanted to draw attention to this:

A possibly interesting site for large payload landing is Hadriacus Palus, which is just east of Terby crater on the very northern edge of Hellas Planitia.  It has a latitude of 27.25 South which is within the 30S cutoff for solar power considerations - it also has probable water ice deposits, nearby mineral deposits, and generally high scientific value - leading to it being ranked 16th out of all the landing sites in the 2020 workshop:

Evaluation paper here:
http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/explorationzone2015/pdf/1052.pdf


How do you know it was ranked 16th?
"There is nobody who is a bigger fan of sending robots to Mars than me... But I believe firmly that the best, the most comprehensive, the most successful exploration will be done by humans" Steve Squyres

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 254
  • Canada
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #47 on: 03/20/2017 02:27 AM »
Go to this page at JPL:

https://marsnext.jpl.nasa.gov/workshops/index.cfm

The top link on that page ('letter summarizing the findings...') gives a ranked list of sites from that workshop.  That was the first 2020 workshop, and Hadriacus Palus was only ranked 21st out of 21 in the second workshop, so it's not doing too well.

Offline Dalhousie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Liked: 224
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #48 on: 03/20/2017 02:33 AM »
Thanks!
"There is nobody who is a bigger fan of sending robots to Mars than me... But I believe firmly that the best, the most comprehensive, the most successful exploration will be done by humans" Steve Squyres

Offline Dao Angkan

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #49 on: 03/20/2017 02:45 AM »
Amazonis Planitia. < 40˚ latitude, low elevation, not too rocky, and highest water ice concentrations at that latitude.

Circled;


Offline redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1506
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #50 on: 03/20/2017 10:02 AM »
Amazonis Planitia. < 40˚ latitude, low elevation, not too rocky, and highest water ice concentrations at that latitude.

That's pretty sweet to learn.  If the priority is ice not a bad choice.  It looks like a mix of both Amazonis and Arcadia technically; then again most of the northern plains may as well just be counted as one giant extension of Vastis Boreallis.  As I stated in the Red Dragon thread, other regions could just as easily suffice if this is just an engineering test but I have to admit if the priority is ice (and eventually setting up a colony) the region is a very fair choice.

That map you posted also show a surprising number of southerly sites.  What is known about them?
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25508
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5667
  • Likes Given: 4251
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #51 on: 03/20/2017 11:30 AM »
But if there's lots of water in other forms, then focus should be on power. And if you're using solar, you'd really like to be close to the equator (within 10-30 degrees), as you can generate a lot more power especially in winter compared to more polar sites. What if you're only saving, say, 1MJ/kg to extract water from hydrated minerals if you pick a 45 degree latitude site with ice, but you produce half as much solar energy and most of your water needs to be electrolyzed at ~20MJ/kg? Then a more Equatorial site is far better... Especially when launch delta-V is taken into account.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1790
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #52 on: 03/20/2017 11:39 AM »
Here's Jeff Foust's write-up of Paul's Woosters comments:

http://spacenews.com/spacex-studying-landing-sites-for-mars-missions/

Offline sghill

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1249
  • United States
  • Liked: 1364
  • Likes Given: 1817
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #53 on: 03/20/2017 11:41 AM »
But if there's lots of water in other forms, then focus should be on power.

IMHO, site selection should focus on the the preponderance of minerals and their ease of extraction. Energy is cheap, creating a viable economy is not.
Bring the thunder Elon!

Offline rsdavis9

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 439
  • exeter, nh
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #54 on: 03/20/2017 01:50 PM »
Isn't it "easy" to tip the solar panels making higher latitude almost as good. I would think dust on the panels or in the air might be a more important power consideration.
bob

Offline redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1506
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #55 on: 03/20/2017 02:57 PM »
Here's Jeff Foust's write-up of Paul's Woosters comments:

http://spacenews.com/spacex-studying-landing-sites-for-mars-missions/

Judging from Paul's (and the spacenews writer Foust's) commentary, we ought to keep an eye out regarding Arcadia Planitia.  An impression is given that the Red Dragon could still be sent anywhere on Mars, but obviously icy and flat seems preferred.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Dao Angkan

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #56 on: 03/20/2017 03:40 PM »
Amazonis Planitia. < 40˚ latitude, low elevation, not too rocky, and highest water ice concentrations at that latitude.

That's pretty sweet to learn.  If the priority is ice not a bad choice.  It looks like a mix of both Amazonis and Arcadia technically; then again most of the northern plains may as well just be counted as one giant extension of Vastis Boreallis.  As I stated in the Red Dragon thread, other regions could just as easily suffice if this is just an engineering test but I have to admit if the priority is ice (and eventually setting up a colony) the region is a very fair choice.

That map you posted also show a surprising number of southerly sites.  What is known about them?

Yes, it's borderline Amazonis/Arcadia. It may well be where Paul Wooster was referring to. The white squares are where presumed water ice was seen sublimating after fresh impacts, it's thought to be close to the surface. Red Dragon might expose some from landing.

The more southerly sites with high water concentrations are generally high elevation and cratered or rocky terrain, so difficult to get to. The Northern plains also look to be easier to travel about for any future human explorers.

Arabia Terra has some lower elevation craters near to the equator with higher concentrations of water ice, but difficult to get to.


Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 677
  • NH
  • Liked: 347
  • Likes Given: 193
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #57 on: 03/20/2017 04:44 PM »
Not good for solar power in winter.  Not exactly exciting topography for settlers. The "fun" factor Elon oft mentions.
Perhaps SpaceX wants earliest RD missions to have easiest ice access to validate ISRU tech and then proceed to base selection forays.
Also NASA landing site priority criteria are not likely SpaceX's priorities.
“When it looks more like an alien dreadnought, that’s when you know you’ve won.”

Offline Dalhousie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Liked: 224
  • Likes Given: 267
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #58 on: 03/20/2017 09:10 PM »
Not good for solar power in winter.  Not exactly exciting topography for settlers. The "fun" factor Elon oft mentions.
Perhaps SpaceX wants earliest RD missions to have easiest ice access to validate ISRU tech and then proceed to base selection forays.
Also NASA landing site priority criteria are not likely SpaceX's priorities.

First of all we don't know the conop for the mission. It might not be intended to survive the winter.  Or it might be powered down over winter.  Or the panels might be tilted to allow winter operations. We don't even know whether Red Dragon will run on solar power.  It might rely on batteries and have a surface mission that lasted only a few days.

"There is nobody who is a bigger fan of sending robots to Mars than me... But I believe firmly that the best, the most comprehensive, the most successful exploration will be done by humans" Steve Squyres

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25508
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 5667
  • Likes Given: 4251
Re: Preferred Landing Sites
« Reply #59 on: 03/20/2017 09:22 PM »
Isn't it "easy" to tip the solar panels making higher latitude almost as good. I would think dust on the panels or in the air might be a more important power consideration.
The problem is the low power in winter.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0