Where would you land on earth?

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

I just read this article: http://www.americaspace.com/?p=85212 And the places where they're thinking of landing are interesting, but what really hit me was this: If you could land on just one place on earth, assuming that there are no humans, where would you land? And how much could you discover, even if you landed on the single most scientifically interesting place?

Just something to think about.

[Scotius]

Somewhere near equator - close to a huge swath of rainforest. Anyone with space travel technology would be able to recognise it as richest and most diverse biome on the planet. But that's a human point of view. Alien species would look at our planet through their own bias - as such could be interested in steppe, tundra or our oceans.

[ChrisSpace]

Agreed. Probably the border between the andes and the amazon.

[peadar1987]

For a first "flags and footprints" landing, probably somewhere near-equatorial, flat, unforested, and not an ocean. For me, that would be the southern Sahara, Sudan, Chad, Mali, Niger etc. You definitely don't want to be coming down in a rainforest!

[Xannari Ferrows]

A very fertile area near the Nile, or whatever it would be named. Then we could help the first humans there build the Pyramids!

[Streetwind]

Other open and flat areas with attractive (for humans) climate and a greener flora than the African desert could be the North American prairies, or the Netherlands in central Europe.

[PringleMan]

I would land in the ocean!

We say that rain forests are the most bio-diverse, and they very well may be. However we also have a pitifully small sample of the ocean and the ocean floor.

Really though, my choice would be logistical. Even from what we ourselves know, you can get a good sampling of various branches in pretty much every kingdom, and the logistics of landing in water are much easier to contend with than the possibility of aiming to land in a flat tundra and ending up hitting a mountainous forest.

[SargeRho]

For colonization, probably in North America or Central Europe. For research purposes, probably close to the Amazon Rain Forest, or somewhere in South-East Asia. Also Antarctica and Greenland to study the climate history.

[lajoswinkler]

Mouth of Amazon is a nice choice from a geological, geochemical, botanical, zoological and other points of view. You get access to two different kinds of surface liquids and the life is plentiful.

[PB666]

I just read this article: http://www.americaspace.com/?p=85212 And the places where they're thinking of landing are interesting, but what really hit me was this: If you could land on just one place on earth, assuming that there are no humans, where would you land? And how much could you discover, even if you landed on the single most scientifically interesting place?

Just something to think about.

Antarctica, because if I am a super space-worthy alien, I can stop earths rotation, turn Antarctica sun facing, and respin the earth so that Greenland and Antarctica are now equatorial. I can then colonize unoccupied lands with my own plants and animals (after a small amount of herbicides on the coast). This can then be used as a point of expansion to other continents. Of course for science all I need to do is collect the stuff that the massive tidal waves I created have dislocated, so I don't need to move to do science.

Prime directive, don't interfere with already developed life, any contact is likely to be adverse to the contacted and will alter their evolutionary course. If I think about what is most efficient and manipulative for my own sake, taking 200,000 years of human evolution as an example, then it will not likely be advantageous for the sake of the biology investigated.

[pincushionman]

While landing on the ocean might be a logistically sane move, taking off again might be a whole different story.

I would say ideally you want to be near a large river delta. The ecological diversity in these areas is huge. By default you are on a coast, so you have access to any other coast area by water, given enough time. You also have a means to get, potentially, a long ways inland (the river), again by boat. This gives you a great deal of flexibility.

[o Atomsk]

This kind of feels like a question similar to a pre-game of Age of Empires or Civilization V.

If I could land anywhere on Earth with data already in store, then... I'm not sure. It all really depends on what time period? Is this when Pangaea is still a thing? If I land somewhere, will a T-Rex eat half my ship? Will I end up plopping down in North America during the Mesopotamian era?

Naturally if there's dinos down there then I'd nope right off the planet. I've seen enough Jurassic Park movies to figure I'd be helpless. If we are talking about no humans whatsoever, and the entire land is untouched... I don't know where I would go. Probably China, because the ecosystem and the terrain is so breathtakingly beautiful and unique to the rest of the world (in my humble opinion).

[AngelLestat]

in a coral reef or amazon.. if the goal is to find as many complex life forms as we can.

[StarStreak2109]

Roswell, NM

[cfds]

Other open and flat areas with attractive (for humans) climate and a greener flora than the African desert could be the North American prairies, or the Netherlands in central Europe.

The problem with this is that, without human interference, the temperate regions of the planet will probably densely forested. Doesn't make landing really easy....

[Heimdall5008]

I think it greatly depends on the mission and the available technology.

Near the equator is great, if you want to use as little dV as possible when you start again. But if you are able to do interstellar travel, maybe you do not care how much dV you need.

If you're landing vertical (e.g. with parachute and also start so like a "normal" rocket) you can basically land everywhere on land. Maybe even on water, when you land a swimming platform.

If you're landing horizontal (e.g. SSTO approach for take off), you need a large even runway. On a non human altered planet you will probably only find it in the ocean, big rivers and deserts (salt, sand, ice, ...). Sure it will be a bit challenging to start from water, but you have the advantage that you can directly use the water as basis for propellant. With enough energy available you can use the water to build LH and LOX.

[Hagen von Tronje]

Interesting question!

I suppose it depends on what landing options your craft has. If you can splashdown, and especially if you can move around on the water or in the air afterwards, somewhere like the Mediterranean would give you access to a broad array of natural biomes and potentially access up the Nile to access subsaharan Africa, while presenting minimal landing hazards. Keep in mind that a pre-human Europe would be just about as interesting as Africa, whether we're talking prehistoric megafauna or simply modern era biodiversity minus the existence of humans (Europe had lions in recorded history, keep in mind!). Another good site, particularly if sea or sea/air travel are viable, is anywhere around the Indonesian archipelago. Really significant biodiversity on the islands themselves as well as geological activity, access to Australia (self explanatory), access to Asian mainland not too distant. With underwater survey equipment, Marianas Trench is also not far distant from this corner of the world, as well as the fact that you'd have access to both Indian and Pacific Oceans, which are distinct from each other without being separated by continents.

Otherwise, Panama is a great site for a terrestrial landing. Assuming you can cross the jungle, you have land or air access to two oceans with a natural separation greater than almost any on earth, so this has strategic as well as biological significance. You can go north into the North American continent or south into, well, South America. Two continents, two oceans, geologically active, equatorial access, pretty much all you can ask for for either science or colonization. Further, this isn't terribly far from Yucatan, which is significant if you have any inkling of the Chixulub crater's existence (and you might if you can perform orbital surveys).

If you for some reason have a very limited operational range, say 100km radius, then I suppose you couldn't do much better than the plains of either Africa or, interestingly, Florida, as both would give you potential access to forest, tropics, savannah, ocean, freshwater, and maybe mountains or a second major body of water, depending on site.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Wow! There are some very interesting and detailed responses! I guess, since I haven't said anything yet, I would pick somewhere near Yellowstone, or a similarly geologically active place, or perhaps somewhere in the amazon for maximum biological diversity. In some ways, you could say that the ocean is the most interesting, as it has such diversity, but it is spread out so much. Since I'm imagining something like the mars rovers, we're not talking about covering even 40 miles. Of course, the amazon would be very hard for rovers or robotic probes to cover, so maybe a desert makes the most sense?

Really, though, my point is that rovers have explored so little. If you saw even a couple of these places, you still would be missing so much of life/geology/stuff on earth. There could be something like Carlsbad caverns or the giants' causeway on mars!

I can't wait to see what every new rover turns up with!

[Streetwind]

The problem with this is that, without human interference, the temperate regions of the planet will probably densely forested. Doesn't make landing really easy....

The prairies were never densely forested, that's what makes them prairies

But admittedly, not sure about northern Europe.

[HoloYolo]

Err...Maybe England or the East Coast of America. You can grow stuff there, it's not very forested for the most part and it's not too hot or cold for both locations. You could start colonies on the beaches and explore inward as you get more settled. A coast line is viable as a secondary source of food if crops fail, seeing as you can fish with the way more than abundant fish and seaweed. The coast has a shipping ability to transfer resources. The coast also has rocks and minerals for settlements, and water for drinking if you brought a purifier with you. The lack of trees makes wind, solar, and wave power more useful then an inland or desert landing point. That's where I would land if I had the choice.

[NovaSilisko]

Are we talking robotic exploration? For robotic, I wouldn't land at all, really. I would place a solar-powered robotic aircraft into the atmosphere to fly high above any inclement weather, and scout across wide swaths of landscape. Perhaps include some hard-impact drop probes to dump into interesting areas.

If we're staying with only soft landing, anywhere with vegetation would be very very risky. So the best option in that case would be to land something softly in a plain region that borders an area of dense population of organisms. The African Savannah would be a great choice. Huge biodiversity, large, open landscapes, and nearby rainforests that a rover or short-range aircraft could easily reach. Assuming it doesn't get smashed by an elephant or something. Also, powered landing via thrusters should be avoided so as to not incinerate several hundred square kilometers of your landing site in a forest fire. But parachutes are unpredictable - something with a skycrane and airbags might be preferred.

[Cydonian Monk]

No humans? Can land anywhere? If it's a stationary lander I'd absolutely target someplace that's lush - to look for life. Even the rainforest is ok here, provided you can punch through the canopy and still survive.

If it's a rover I'd land on the edge of any desert on the largest connected landmass, meaning Africa-Europe-Asia. Probably somewhere near large vegetation areas and away from extreme mountains and deep rivers, maybe in the far Southern Sahara or near the upper Tigris/Euphrates. Maybe the Eastern Gobi. Then you can [hopefully] drive wherever you need. Having driven across both uncut grass and open sand (and having forded a river or three) - I'll take sand any day.

If I want to get back into orbit - I'd land on some other rock instead.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Are we talking robotic exploration? [...]

No humans? Can land anywhere?[...]

That's what I was imagining, as that's the current state of Mars exploration. Yes.

[Superfluous J]

The deserts, in Arizona or maybe Death Valley.

Because we all know the Badlands science is always the hardest to nail.

[Glaran K'erman]

Somewhere inland of the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf in Australia