Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 217

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Selection of the Mars Exploration Rover landing sites

Golombek, M. P., Grant, J. A., Parker, T. J., Kass, D. M., Crisp, J. A., Squyres, S. W., Haldemann, A. F. C., Adler, M., Lee, W. J., Bridges, N. T., Arvidson, R. E., Carr, M. H., Kirk, R. L., Knocke, P. C., Roncoli, R. B., Weitz, C. M., Schofield, J. T., Zurek, R. W., Christensen, P. R., Fergason, R. L., Anderson, F. S., Rice, J. W.·2003·Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets

Abstract

The selection of Meridiani Planum and Gusev crater as the Mars Exploration Rover landing sites took over 2 years, involved broad participation of the science community via four open workshops, and narrowed an initial ∼155 potential sites (80–300 × 30 km) to four finalists based on science and safety. Engineering constraints important to the selection included (1) latitude (10°N–15°S) for maximum solar power, (2) elevation (less than −1.3 km) for sufficient atmosphere to slow the lander, (3) low horizontal winds, shear, and turbulence in the last few kilometers to minimize horizontal velocity, (4) low 10‐m‐scale slopes to reduce airbag spin‐up and bounce, (5) moderate rock abundance to reduce abrasion or strokeout of the airbags, and (6) a radar‐reflective, load‐bearing, and trafficable surface safe for landing and roving that is not dominated by fine‐grained dust. The evaluation of sites utilized existing as well as targeted orbital information acquired from the Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Odyssey. Three of the final four landing sites show strong evidence for surface processes involving water and appear capable of addressing the science objectives of the missions, which are to determine the aqueous, climatic, and geologic history of sites on Mars where conditions may have been favorable to the preservation of evidence of possible prebiotic or biotic processes. The evaluation of science criteria placed Meridiani and Gusev as the highest‐priority sites. The evaluation of the three most critical safety criteria (10‐m‐scale slopes, rocks, and winds) and landing simulation results indicated that Meridiani and Elysium Planitia are the safest sites, followed by Gusev and Isidis Planitia.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2003je002074

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 217

Metadata

Authors
Golombek, M. P., Grant, J. A., Parker, T. J., Kass, D. M., Crisp, J. A., Squyres, S. W., Haldemann, A. F. C., Adler, M., Lee, W. J., Bridges, N. T., Arvidson, R. E., Carr, M. H., Kirk, R. L., Knocke, P. C., Roncoli, R. B., Weitz, C. M., Schofield, J. T., Zurek, R. W., Christensen, P. R., Fergason, R. L., Anderson, F. S., & Rice, J. W.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets
Published
2003-12
Volume
108
Issue
E12
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2120031583
Cited by
217
References
3
FWCI
10.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Selection of the Mars Exploration Rover landing sites. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2003je002074
The paper
Golombek, M. P., Grant, J. A., Parker, T. J., Kass, D. M., Crisp, J. A., Squyres, S. W., Haldemann, A. F. C., Adler, M., Lee, W. J., Bridges, N. T., Arvidson, R. E., Carr, M. H., Kirk, R. L., Knocke, P. C., Roncoli, R. B., Weitz, C. M., Schofield, J. T., Zurek, R. W., Christensen, P. R., . . . Rice, J. W. (2003). Selection of the Mars Exploration Rover landing sites. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003je002074

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.