Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to Atmosphere as filter, and landing site predictions...

re: Atmosphere as filter, and landing site predictions...
DTB — (archived)

Nick,

Thanks for the predictions -- most clear and consise I've seen but sounds consistent with what I've read about the sites.

Question on the Gusev site: are the crater walls actually below the horizon, or are you assuming (reasonably) that they'll be obscured due to dust over that distance?

On Isidis, the Beagle 2 website sounds more optimisic than you about the chance of one of those pedestal craters or rootless cones or whatever being visible -- I think they suggest something like 1 in 5 of being in the vicinity of one.

I understand the engineering constraints and the science goals for the sites, but it is a bit sad that these might be less photogenic than any of the previous three sites. Viking 2 was flat as Kansas but at least it had plenty of rocks.

Of course, I think Pathfinder got lucky. The "Twin Peaks" did a huge amount for the view, but my sense is that it ended up much closer to a hill than an average random draw from the landing elipse. Correct me if that's wrong.

I'm just dying for the day that we send a ballon or airplane or whatever over some interesting landscapes. Doesn't even have to be Valles Marineris or one of the giant channels, just some eroded butte-and-mesa topography would be interesting.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (52 posts)