Search USGSSearch

Geology topics

R. Beyer

Publications and source records attributed to R. Beyer.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Selection of the InSight landing site

The selection of the Discovery Program InSight landing site took over four years from initial identification of possible areas that met engineering constraints, to downselection via targeted data from orbiters (especially Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) Context Camera (CTX) and High-Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) images), to selection and certification via sophisticated entry, descent and landing (EDL) simulations. Constraints on elevation ( &#x2264; &#x2212; 2.5 &#xA0; km "> ≤ − 2.5 km ≤−2.5 km for sufficient atmosphere to slow the lander), latitude (initially 15°S–5°N and later 3°N–5°N for solar power and thermal management of the spacecraft), ellipse size (130 km by 27 km from ballistic entry and descent), and a load bearing surface without thick deposits of dust, severely limited acceptable areas to western Elysium Planitia. Within this area, 16 prospective ellipses were identified, which lie ∼600 km north of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover. Mapping of terrains in rapidly acquired CTX images identified especially benign smooth terrain and led to the downselection to four northern ellipses. Acquisition of nearly continuous HiRISE, additional Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS), and High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) images, along with radar data confirmed that ellipse E9 met all landing site constraints: with slopes <15° at 84 m and 2 m length scales for radar tracking and touchdown stability, low rock abundance (<10 %) to avoid impact and spacecraft tip over, instrument deployment constraints, which included identical slope and rock abundance constraints, a radar reflective and load bearing surface, and a fragmented regolith ∼5 m thick for full penetration of the heat flow probe. Unlike other Mars landers, science objectives did not directly influence landing site selection.

Space Science Reviews

Selection of the Mars Science Laboratory landing site

The selection of Gale crater as the Mars Science Laboratory landing site took over five years, involved broad participation of the science community via five open workshops, and narrowed an initial >50 sites (25 by 20 km) to four finalists (Eberswalde, Gale, Holden and Mawrth) based on science and safety. Engineering constraints important to the selection included: (1) latitude (&plusmn;30&deg;) for thermal management of the rover and instruments, (2) elevation (<-1 km) for sufficient atmosphere to slow the spacecraft, (3) relief of <100-130 m at baselines of 1-1000 m for control authority and sufficient fuel during powered descent, (4) slopes of <30&deg; at baselines of 2-5 m for rover stability at touchdown, (5) moderate rock abundance to avoid impacting the belly pan during touchdown, and (6) a radar-reflective, load-bearing, and trafficable surface that is safe for landing and roving and not dominated by fine-grained dust. Science criteria important for the selection include the ability to assess past habitable environments, which include diversity, context, and biosignature (including organics) preservation. Sites were evaluated in detail using targeted data from instruments on all active orbiters, and especially Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. All of the final four sites have layered sedimentary rocks with spectral evidence for phyllosilicates that clearly address the science objectives of the mission. Sophisticated entry, descent and landing simulations that include detailed information on all of the engineering constraints indicate all of the final four sites are safe for landing. Evaluation of the traversabilty of the landing sites and target “go to” areas outside of the ellipse using slope and material properties information indicates that all are trafficable and “go to” sites can be accessed within the lifetime of the mission. In the final selection, Gale crater was favored over Eberswalde based on its greater diversity and potential habitability.

Space Science Reviews