First Mars landing at Meridiani Planum

[Dalhousie]

Recently published paper discussing the attractions of Meridiani Planum for the first crewed mission to Mars.  Based on presentations at the first landing site workshop last year.

Highlights

• The Meridiani Planum area is an excellent candidate for crewed missions to Mars.

• It provides an accessible and safe area for landing and exploration.

• Potential water resources exist in the form of poly-hydrated magnesium sulphates.

• There are diverse science features that meet crewed Mars mission science goals.

Media story http://www.seeker.com/risks-on-mars-mean-humans-should-follow-the-tracks-of-opportunity-rove-2293053488.html

Link to paywalled paper at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576516307202

ABSTRACT

Astronauts working on the surface of Mars have the capability to explore efficiently, rapidly, and flexibly,
allowing them to perform a wide range of field investigations. NASA has begun an open international process to
identify and evaluate candidate locations where crews could land, live and work on the martian surface,
beginning with the First Landing Site/Exploration Zone Workshop for Human Missions to the Surface of Mars
in October 2015. Forty seven sites were proposed, including several at or near the Meridiani area, the subject of
this paper. We consider the Meridiani area an excellent candidate for the first missions to Mars. It is accessible,
safe, contains potential water resources in the form of poly-hydrated magnesium sulphates, has diverse science
features with high likelihood of meeting all science goals, has other potential resources and potential for further
longer-ranged exploration. The presence of hardware from previous missions will be of benefit to studies of
materials to martian conditions, assessing the effectiveness of historic planetary protection strategies, and
engaging public interest. Lastly, parts of the Meridiani region have been well studied from the surface by the
Opportunity mission, providing ground truth for orbital data. As one of the best documented regions of Mars
this will allow a “Go where you know” approach for the first crewed missions, especially with regard to safety,
trafficability, and water resource potential.

I have the full paper if people are interested in discussing.

[Dalhousie]

Media story https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17352184_10154685297953229_3030715504822221947_n.jpg?oh=09dea0a9877e42c338a417ad7866d7a9&oe=59676E52

[Dalhousie]

Surprised nobody finds this interesting.

[bknight]

It is difficult to address the prospects of a mission that may be ten years off, coupled by the tasks of developing shielding to protect the astronauts for 2+ years.  Additionally the effects of micro gravity on the body could be daunting to the them.

For all here is a link to the newly linked curious droid videos covering the same issues.

One hopes that NASA has enough data to work around the problems.

EDIT: Forgot to post the link

[Dalhousie]

It is difficult to address the prospects of a mission that may be ten years off, coupled by the tasks of developing shielding to protect the astronauts for 2+ years.  Additionally the effects of micro gravity on the body could be daunting to the them.

The issues surrounding landing site selection are being addressed now, it's entirely realistic to discuss them.  They were the subject of a well attended workshop in 2015, this paper is one of the outcomes of that.  See  http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/explorationzone2015/ .  Nearly 50 sites were proposed and discussed and there were several hundred delegates in person and many more watching online.

There's nothing particularly daunting about radiation and microgravity, the issues are reasonably well understood and countermeasures are well in hand.

For all here is a link to the newly linked curious droid videos covering the same issues.

One hopes that NASA has enough data to work around the problems.

EDIT: Forgot to post the link

I found the issues are unsatisfactorily addressed in that video.  The usual scare mongering and failure to recognise the massive strides that have been made over the last 40 years in these areas.  It's frustrating when people still repeat conclusions from 20 or 30 years ago as if they were still valid.  It's as if all the missions to Salyut 6 and 7, Mir and the ISS didn't happen.

[bknight]

I think that the effects of micro gravity are fairly well understood, but measure to mitigate them are not very successful.  Look at Scott Kelly's post flight medical.  Loss of muscle mass that may more may not be rectified by the return to 1G and his mission was only a year.  The eyes were distorted reducing his vision somewhat and I believe that was rectified by retuning to 1G.
So yes there is a lot of studying, but I'm not sure that measures are in place to prevent the effect, mitigate perhaps.

[Dalhousie]

I think that the effects of micro gravity are fairly well understood, but measure to mitigate them are not very successful.  Look at Scott Kelly's post flight medical.  Loss of muscle mass that may more may not be rectified by the return to 1G and his mission was only a year.  The eyes were distorted reducing his vision somewhat and I believe that was rectified by retuning to 1G.
So yes there is a lot of studying, but I'm not sure that measures are in place to prevent the effect, mitigate perhaps.

Quite the contrary, zero gravity mitigation techniques are now quite effective.  People return after six months in space with only 1-2% loss in bone density and little loss of muscle tone.  20 years ago is was 6-7%,  sometimes more.

Scott Kelly, returned in good condition, he was able to walk, climb and descend stairs on landing.  People have returned from even longer trips without major issues.

Remember that when people go to Mars they will spend only 6 months at a stretch in microgravity.  The rest will be at 0.38G which is enough to impose substantial loads.

Anyway this is old, well travelled ground.  Why not discuss landing sites, which are the whole reason we want to go to Mars! 

[Dalhousie]

Still surprised that on a space forum there is almost no interest in this.

Here is a map of the sites of scientific and resource interest in the exploration zone.

[Glom]

This is the future. We're all about the past here.

[Geordie]

[...] People return after six months in space with [...] little loss of muscle tone.[...]

Anyway this is old, well travelled ground.  Why not discuss landing sites, which are the whole reason we want to go to Mars!

  In 1999 I suffered a tibial plateau fracture, which they screwed back together with stainless steel wood screws. The bone is as good as new, but over three days in hospital I lost about 25mm of circumference of my leg, divided I guess between my quadricep and hamstring, which never returned.

  An oddity which has never caused any problems....

  But on the subject of Mars landings, I hope I live to see my children travel to and work there. Cuz that would be cool.

[Obviousman]

I disagree.

When I watched the original lunar landings - live - I thought that I might get a chance to go to the Moon myself. No doubt there would be some permanent station there but hopefully it would be bigger and I'd get a chance to go there. I was also certain that I would see the first manned Mars mission (and landing) in my lifetime.

Now, I doubt I'll live to see any manned attempt at Mars and probably won't even see a return to the Moon.... and that is not a reflection on my health!

[Peter B]

Still surprised that on a space forum there is almost no interest in this.

Here is a map of the sites of scientific and resource interest in the exploration zone.

I think I'm with bknight here. The plans for a manned mission to Mars are still too embryonic for there to be much sense of anticipation. Especially seeing as Presidents since Bush I have been touting Mars missions (or some expansive space program) in some form or other but without committing anywhere near enough money. So there's a bit of a sense of Boy Who Cried Wolf - it's all too theoretical and there's little feeling of impending reality: there's no timeline for a mission, there's no mission profile, there's no plan for a manned Mars lander, the SLS hasn't flown, and space still seems to be treated as a boondoggle opportunity for members of Congress.

By contrast, companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX are actually achieving things (even if with NASA money): they've reached tangible goals in the last few years and months, and that gives them credibility when they speak about their impending goals. Sure, Elon Musk's Interplanetary Transport System looks even more optimistic than NASA's plans for Mars, and absurdly so, and SpaceX has slipped behind on its schedule (still waiting for Falcon Heavy). But they can point to solid records of achievement in the steps towards these goals. That gives them a greater sense of impending reality than discussions on where to land humans on Mars.

[Geordie]

Still surprised that on a space forum there is almost no interest in this.

Here is a map of the sites of scientific and resource interest in the exploration zone.

I think I'm with bknight here. The plans for a manned mission to Mars are still too embryonic for there to be much sense of anticipation. Especially seeing as Presidents since Bush I have been touting Mars missions (or some expansive space program) in some form or other but without committing anywhere near enough money. So there's a bit of a sense of Boy Who Cried Wolf - it's all too theoretical and there's little feeling of impending reality: there's no timeline for a mission, there's no mission profile, there's no plan for a manned Mars lander, the SLS hasn't flown, and space still seems to be treated as a boondoggle opportunity for members of Congress.

By contrast, companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX are actually achieving things (even if with NASA money): they've reached tangible goals in the last few years and months, and that gives them credibility when they speak about their impending goals. Sure, Elon Musk's Interplanetary Transport System looks even more optimistic than NASA's plans for Mars, and absurdly so, and SpaceX has slipped behind on its schedule (still waiting for Falcon Heavy). But they can point to solid records of achievement in the steps towards these goals. That gives them a greater sense of impending reality than discussions on where to land humans on Mars.

 

  I'd call it wishful thinking rather than crying wolf and its implication of lying. It's funny that you mentioned SpaceX - a google search with the terms '"wishful thinking" mars' produced this article:

  https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/20/spacex-is-working-with-nasa-to-identify-landing-spots-on-mars/amp/

  I'll believe it when I see it, but until then it is, I think, okay to be optimistic and take papers etc. on the subject at face value.

[Dalhousie]

Still surprised that on a space forum there is almost no interest in this.

Here is a map of the sites of scientific and resource interest in the exploration zone.

I think I'm with bknight here. The plans for a manned mission to Mars are still too embryonic for there to be much sense of anticipation. Especially seeing as Presidents since Bush I have been touting Mars missions (or some expansive space program) in some form or other but without committing anywhere near enough money. So there's a bit of a sense of Boy Who Cried Wolf - it's all too theoretical and there's little feeling of impending reality: there's no timeline for a mission, there's no mission profile, there's no plan for a manned Mars lander, the SLS hasn't flown, and space still seems to be treated as a boondoggle opportunity for members of Congress.

However a substantial number of people in the space community disagree with you.  This paper is the result of work presented at a conference with more than 200 delegates and several thousand more people viewing on line (I was one of them). Here is the conference link https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/explorationzone2015/ - there are links to conference abstracts, videos of presentations, and supporting material.

The view of the conference organisers and participants is that this is not premature, the time is right.  We know enough about Mars and the requirements for a crewed mission to start the process of selection of sites suitable for crewed missions. There has been a substantial volume of work generated on the subject of NASA Mars missions over the the past 2-3 years and a number of key decisions have been made about approach and architecture.

By contrast, companies like Blue Origin and SpaceX are actually achieving things (even if with NASA money): they've reached tangible goals in the last few years and months, and that gives them credibility when they speak about their impending goals. Sure, Elon Musk's Interplanetary Transport System looks even more optimistic than NASA's plans for Mars, and absurdly so, and SpaceX has slipped behind on its schedule (still waiting for Falcon Heavy). But they can point to solid records of achievement in the steps towards these goals. That gives them a greater sense of impending reality than discussions on where to land humans on Mars.

Sigh. If I had wanted to discuss Blue Origin or SpaceX I would have titled the post accordingly!

First, the site selection process is not unique to NASA.  It is applicable to any organisation interested in going to Mars.  The proposals is as relevant  for China, ESA, or even SpaceX as they are for NASA.  the requirements for Mars missions will still be driven by safety and engineering,and by what you want to do on Mars, both in terms of science and resources.

Secondly, for these reasons This is not crying wolf.  Its reporting on what is happening now. 

Blue Origin have no Mars plans at all.   Bezos has specifically stated that he is not interested in Mars. 

Thirdly, SpaceX plans, other than the Red Dragon concept for unmanned missions, are little more than powerpoint and a couple of test articles.  They won't be landing people on Mars anytime soon.  Any progress by them on this front will need substantial funding from NASA, much more than the 7.7 billion they have received to date.

So let's avoid obsessing about SpaceX, Blue Origin, and the rest,and discuss the paper.  Have you (or anyone else) actually looked it, or are just dismissed it without reading? 

[Dalhousie]

  I'd call it wishful thinking rather than crying wolf and its implication of lying. It's funny that you mentioned SpaceX - a google search with the terms '"wishful thinking" mars' produced this article:

  https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/20/spacex-is-working-with-nasa-to-identify-landing-spots-on-mars/amp/

I'll believe it when I see it, but until then it is, I think, okay to be optimistic and take papers etc. on the subject at face value.

It's neither crying wolf nor wishful thinking, but a step on the road. An important step in the view of the conference organisers and participants.

So how about you read the paper and discuss it?

BTW The SpaceX link is not relevant as they are looking at a landing site for the proposed unmanned 2020 Red Dragon mission. Nothing todo with people (at this stage).  There's no need to drag SpaceX into every discussion about Mars!