Landing Site - Beam Me Down, Scotty

Palomar · 2003-03-21 07:23:54

*I checked back with _The Case for Mars_ (which I read 1-1/2 years ago), and I can't find a mention in the book as regards favored landing spots. But you know how it goes -- when you're specifically looking for something in a book, you can't find it <frumple>. I thought (searching memory very hard...which could be faulty, of course) that the Hellas region was considered a prime spot for a landing?

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2003-03-21 09:56:40

I do not believe Robert Zubrin discussed any exact landing location. He suggested landing multiple habitats at different locations until a location for a permanent base was chosen. Instead, NASA is using unmanned probes to learn enough information to choose a permanent base location.

Hellas Basin is the lowest spot on Mars, and therefore the lowest radiation risk. Remember the surface radiation from the Marie instrument estimated surface radiation between 10-20 rem per year, but the 10 rem per year was only in Hellas Basin. The original comparison to ISS stated it experiences 20-40 rem per year, but the radiation data published last week indicates ISS gets 20 rem per year.

Radiation is not the only concern for a base; you also have to address temperature. I would suggest a tropical latitude to prevent surface temperature getting too low, that means within 25.19? of latitude north or south of the equator. Although Mars Pathfinder only recorded temperature for 3 days, the temperature swung from -8?C to -77?C. That is cold enough; at the south pole in southern winter the temperature can get down to -140?C. You can check temperature statistics from MGS or Odyssey to get temperatures for Hellas.

Another concern is available resources. You really want a location that has lots of water so you can melt and filter it for drinking water, or electrolysize it into hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel.

The last concerns are to find a location that has something interesting to study, and to find some place safe to land. Often the guys concerned with landing look for flat, smooth ground while the geologists want a deeply cut valley that exposes several layers of strata.

So try looking at the various Mars maps and find a location that is within Mars tropics, or at least warm, has low altitude to reduce radiation exposure and provide atmosphere for meteoroid protection, and has a strong water deposit.

Palomar · 2003-03-21 11:06:17

I would suggest a tropical latitude to prevent surface temperature getting too low, that means within 25.19? of latitude north or south of the equator...{snip}...The last concerns are to find a location that has something interesting to study, and to find some place safe to land. Often the guys concerned with landing look for flat, smooth ground while the geologists want a deeply cut valley that exposes several layers of strata.

*Then I suppose the Cydonia area is out of the question? I have to admit I'm still intrigued by 'The Face' (and though I generally dislike conspiracy theories, I do wonder...) Anyway, I found a web page which says 'The Face' is "located at approximately 40.8? N, 9.6? W"...which is further north of what you indicate would be preferable. I'd like to personally walk over to that area and check it out.

As for landing in a "deeply cut valley," wouldn't that hamper efforts to explore surrounding areas on Mars by foot or rover? Would it involve climbing? I suppose a wide valley...hmmmm. Wouldn't a wide-open, flat expanse be more practical and less problematic overall to land on?

Robert, do you know how nervous I am in trying to discuss this with you?!

--Cindy

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-03-21 14:54:35

I would suggest Lunae Planum.

Zubrin does suggest it as a great spot for exploration at least. It is near 13 sites of geological interest. This is on page 142 of Case for Mars.

It is located in the tropics. It is at the datum (sea level). It is good for landing - very flat.

It is not the lowest or the wettest place on Mars. For that reason it would be a good place to test new equipment. It is an average place on Mars.

And hey, that's where the 'First Hundred' landed. We could call it 'Underhill'.

RobertDyck · 2003-03-22 00:59:39

Robert, do you know how nervous I am in trying to discuss this with you?!

You make excellent points, Cindy. I'm just another Mars enthusiast like you. I don't have a favourite spot to land, and I already described what I believe to be the criteria to select a spot. Both Cydonia and Lunae Planum sound good to me. I tried to find a strong water deposit, but the spot that stood out to me was Arabia Planetia: a lake sized deposit of water right on the equator. That is really too high for effective radiation protection.

MGS daily temperature profiles
Odyssey water map
Odyssey surface radiation estimate

dicktice · 2003-03-22 10:30:18

Cindy: Like Grand Canyon: "deeply cut valleys" would give access to strata for geological research, regarding Mars's past. Covered over with reinforced transluscent canopies (alternative to domes) to pressurize with breathable air and filter-out harmful radiation, provide solar heating (aligned north/south), melt-water lakes, terraced communities and crop spaces, resource tunnels for mining and processing minerals and smelting metals.... It sounds a lot more interesting than "wide-open, flat expanses" to me, kid.

soph · 2003-03-22 15:57:17

I like 0, 0 to land. A cliche, perhaps, but it's apparently one of the wetter areas, and its in the crater zone, so there's plenty of scenery. To the west is Tharsis, and to the east is more cratered regions, and then flatland.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-22 23:38:47

Robert, you wouldn't happen to know how much protection the mini-magnetosphere regions (places where crustal magnetism still exists) afford, would you? I once recall reading that they are ?as strong? as Earth's at a certain altitude, but I don't think this necessarily means that they afford any protection, since they're so small. I saw a Q&A about future Mars rovers awhile back, and someone actually asked if these crustal magnetic regions could protect astronauts, and the answer from one of the scientists was no. I don't know if he was really knowledgable about that particular subject, though. Then again, it could be obvious... the size of a field being moreimportant than the strength, etc...

RobertDyck · 2003-03-23 12:58:12

Robert, you wouldn't happen to know how much protection the mini-magnetosphere regions (places where crustal magnetism still exists) afford, would you? I once recall reading that they are ?as strong? as Earth's at a certain altitude, but I don't think this necessarily means that they afford any protection, since they're so small. I saw a Q&A about future Mars rovers awhile back, and someone actually asked if these crustal magnetic regions could protect astronauts, and the answer from one of the scientists was no. I don't know if he was really knowledgable about that particular subject, though. Then again, it could be obvious... the size of a field being more important than the strength, etc...

I don't have any numbers, but I heard the magnetic fields on Mars are weak. More importantly, Earth's magnetosphere is more than just a magnetic field. The magnetic field traps charged plasma, which orbits the Earth, and that rotating electric current creates a new magnetic field, which expands the magnetic field, which traps more plasma from solar wind, etc. Earth's rotation helps induce an electric current in the orbiting plasma, increasing the magnetic field created by that rotating current. This interaction between charged plasma and magnetic field inflates to create a field several times larger than the magnetic field would be alone. This combination is the magnetosphere.

A static magnetic field in a valley or mountain will not have the plasma interactions, so it will be much less effective. Furthermore, high speed particle radiation takes significant distance to deflect with a magnetic field. The magnetopause (outer most limit) of Earth's magnetosphere extends thousands of kilometres, one source states the magnetopause extends 23 Earth radii, which is roughly 150,000km; the Moon is just 384,400km from the Earth. The strongest portion is the Van Allen belts, but that is just the portion closest to the Earth. Radiation deflection starts at the magnetopause. The inner Van Allen belt stretches from 7,600km to 13,000km altitude, the outer belt is from 19,000km to 41,000km altitude. A weak magnetic force applied over hundreds of kilometres will cause greater deflection than force applied over just a few metres; the magnetopause is typically between 400km and 900km thick. Furthermore, deflection of just a few degrees at hundreds of kilometres distance will cause the radiation to miss the Earth.

I still think that the best application of mini-magnetosphere technology would be to provide radiation protection for a manned spacecraft. Mini-magnetosphere plasma propulsion (M2P2) may be extremely weak and slow, but the point is to inflate a magnetosphere with a magnetopause very far from the spacecraft. Propulsive effects of M2P2 would have to be integrated in navigation, but primary propulsion would come from something a lot faster. A magnetosphere can actually cause increased radiation in the magnetic poles, but can design the spacecraft to keep the crew away from those areas.

The atmosphere of Mars would prevent any rotating rings of charged plasma to be stable over any magnetic mountains. The charge would dissipate as lightning, leaving just a simple magnetic field rather than a large magnetosphere. A friend of mine would like to create an artificial magnetosphere over a valley with the hope that it would not only deflect radiation, but could be used to hold in atmospheric pressure. This would literally be a force field to hold an atmosphere over a valley. It would always be leaky, but could be maintained by pumps. I am sceptical it would be able to hold any significant pressure, and the charge necessary to hold any measurable pressure would probably dissipate as lightning.

Hmm. It might be scientifically interesting to correlate Mars lightning storms with its magnetic fields. Could I be wrong? Could lightning storms provide radiation protection?

Palomar · 2003-03-23 17:47:13

I would suggest Lunae Planum.
Zubrin does suggest it as a great spot for exploration at least. It is near 13 sites of geological interest. This is on page 142 of Case for Mars...{snip}...
And hey, that's where the 'First Hundred' landed. We could call it 'Underhill'.

*Hi MarsGuy; thanks for the reference. I checked it out. It's actually 14 sites listed, but Zubrin tells us that if the surface mobility were limited to a 500 km range, 4 missions would be required to visit them all. Okay, so it might take at least 4 missions -- I'm game

What is the "First Hundred" that landed? What is this in reference to, if you don't mind my asking?

--Cindy

Palomar · 2003-03-23 17:49:06

Cindy: Like Grand Canyon: "deeply cut valleys" would give access to strata for geological research, regarding Mars's past. Covered over with reinforced transluscent canopies (alternative to domes) to pressurize with breathable air and filter-out harmful radiation, provide solar heating (aligned north/south), melt-water lakes, terraced communities and crop spaces, resource tunnels for mining and processing minerals and smelting metals.... It sounds a lot more interesting than "wide-open, flat expanses" to me, kid.

*Sounds good, Dicktice. And now you know that it was my claustrophobia speaking.

--Cindy

MarsGuy2012 · 2003-03-24 09:38:44

The First Hundred are the first colonists to land on Mars in the book "Red Mars". They called there first home (on Lunae Planum) 'Underhill'.

By the way, this message board is set up using names from that book - 'Acheron Labs', 'Dorsa Brevia', 'Underhill'.

It's a good read. I highly recommend it.

Palomar · 2003-03-24 10:26:17

By the way, this message board is set up using names from that book - 'Acheron Labs', 'Dorsa Brevia', 'Underhill'.
It's a good read. I highly recommend it.

*Ah, so that's where Adrian came up with the names of sections here...I'd wondered.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-03-21 07:23:54

Re: Landing Site - Beam Me Down, Scotty

#2 2003-03-21 09:56:40

Re: Landing Site - Beam Me Down, Scotty

#3 2003-03-21 11:06:17

Re: Landing Site - Beam Me Down, Scotty

#4 2003-03-21 14:54:35

Re: Landing Site - Beam Me Down, Scotty

#5 2003-03-22 00:59:39

Re: Landing Site - Beam Me Down, Scotty

#6 2003-03-22 10:30:18

Re: Landing Site - Beam Me Down, Scotty

#7 2003-03-22 15:57:17

Re: Landing Site - Beam Me Down, Scotty

#8 2003-03-22 23:38:47

Re: Landing Site - Beam Me Down, Scotty

#9 2003-03-23 12:58:12

Re: Landing Site - Beam Me Down, Scotty

#10 2003-03-23 17:47:13

Re: Landing Site - Beam Me Down, Scotty

#11 2003-03-23 17:49:06

Re: Landing Site - Beam Me Down, Scotty

#12 2003-03-24 09:38:44

Re: Landing Site - Beam Me Down, Scotty

#13 2003-03-24 10:26:17

Re: Landing Site - Beam Me Down, Scotty

Board footer