-5
$\begingroup$

The photos transmitted by the Viking 2 lander and those taken by the Chinese rover show quite different landscapes. They do not corroborate each other, also they should look similar, as long as they present the same Utopia Planitia. So, there exist no mutual independent confirmation of landings in the above mention plain, up to the present moment.

"Utopia Planitia is a large plain within Utopia, the largest recognized impact basin on Mars and in the Solar System with an estimated diameter of 3300 km. It is the Martian region where the Viking 2 lander touched down and began exploring on September 3, 1976, and the Zhurong rover touched down on 14 May, 2021, as a part of the Tianwen-1 mission." Source

USA

enter image description here

Utopia Planitia. Image taken by Viking 2 US Lander.

China

enter image description here

enter image description here

"The first photograph, a black and white image, was taken by an obstacle avoidance camera installed in front of the Mars rover. The image shows that a ramp on the lander has been extended to the surface of Mars. The terrain of the rover's forward direction is clearly visible in the image, and the horizon of Mars appears curved due to the wide-angle lens.

The second image, a color photo, was taken by the navigation camera fitted to the rear of the rover. The rover's solar panels and antenna are seen unfolded, and the red soil and rocks on the Martian surface are clearly visible in the image."

Source: China's Tianwen-1 probe sends back Mars landing visuals - Date:2021-05-19

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ ...you realize Utopia Planitia is a few thousand km across, right? $\endgroup$ May 19 at 21:57
  • $\begingroup$ Since NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has imaged many other landers it would be a risky fraud to attempt. $\endgroup$ May 19 at 22:13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ -1 Stack Exchange questions need to be questions. This is a conspiracy theory-pushing argument only pretending to be a question. "They do not corroborate each other, also they should look similar, as long as they present the same Utopia Planitia. So, there exist no mutual independent confirmation of landings in the above mention plain, up to the present moment." You can't use Stack Exchange questions to "announce things" or push theories. Can you edit your post and remove the part I've quoted and simply ask a question? Otherwise this may be heavily down voted and/or closed. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 19 at 22:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @uhoh: This 'question' was previously an 'answer' (quotes intentional) to another question. That previous question was also pushing some conspiracy theory, inevitably. $\endgroup$
    – user21103
    May 19 at 23:00
  • $\begingroup$ @tfb I'd read recently about a conspiracy theory circulating in Chinese social media that the US Moon landings were fake, and China would be first. Although prefaced by "evil empire" characterizations, the "internet minders" there did stamp out the conspiracy theories, saying that despite the US being inherently inferior and doomed to collapse, they did land on the Moon. So we here in Stack Exchange can return the favor (minus the color) and stamp out these as well. :-) $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    May 19 at 23:13
11
$\begingroup$

Utopia Planitia has a diameter of about $3300\,\mathrm{km}$. That means its area is around $8.5\times 10^6\,\mathrm{km^2}$. The area of the 48 contiguous states of the US is about $8.1\times 10^6\,\mathrm{km^2}$: this feature is about 5% bigger than the entire 48 contiguous states of the US.

We know that Zhurong landed something like $1700\,\mathrm{km}$ from Viking 2.

It would be deeply astonishing if the terrain over the vast area of Utopia Planitia was anything like uniform. It would be as astonishing as if, say, the terrain in Kansas was the same as it is in the Rockies (I have not visited either region but I am assured they are not similar), or as if the terrain in Norfolk was the same as Tignes (hint: people ski in Tignes, they din't in Norfolk)

And, entirely unsurprisingly, the terrain is not, in fact, uniform.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ -1 from me because you say the same things as Tom Goodfellow. You answer is not original. It belongs to somebody else. $\endgroup$
    – user39593
    May 19 at 22:54
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @duofilm: I tegard it as a badge of honour to get downvotes from you. Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – user21103
    May 19 at 22:58
5
$\begingroup$

Pick any area or larger crater on Mars (Hellas, Isidis, Elysium, Argyre...) and go to inspect them under high res visible imaging on Google Maps Mars, or better on the 3-D version of that, Google Earth and then Mars.

You will find that any of those regions contains a large variety of terrains on the scales of tens to 100s kms, smooth ones, chaos terrains, mesas, dune fields etc.

So no, there is absolutely no need for them to look similar.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ The rocks, in that photo taken by Viking 2, are too small. The resolution of MRO is not high enough to put them in evidence. A picture taken by MRO will show a flat terrain in both cases, of the Chinese lander and Viking 2. $\endgroup$
    – user39593
    May 19 at 23:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @duofilm: You are right, but my answer goes along the direction of the other answers, i.e. "there is no reason to believe they should look the same, so your conspiracy theory doesn't hold." $\endgroup$ May 19 at 23:20
  • $\begingroup$ Basically, you imply that your answer is the third saying the same thing?! Then, what is it good for? It should have been just a comment to the first answer saying that you agree with what that user wrote there. $\endgroup$
    – user39593
    May 19 at 23:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @duofilm: If you want to post an answer supporting the conspiracy theory, you are free to do so. As you might have noticed from actually reading my answer, it is not saying the same thing, merely supporting the same viewpoint. $\endgroup$ May 19 at 23:38
4
$\begingroup$

Utopia Planitia is a large plain, some 3560km in diameter. That's only a little less than the distance from New York to Seattle, so a variety of terrains within it shouldn't be surprising.

I didn't find coordinates for the actual landing site of the Zhurong rover, however the target site was reported earlier, which is 1758km from the Viking 2 location. So they aren't at all close neighbours.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Those coordinates offered by China, of the possible landing site, were just an intention: "information published in an article (in Chinese) in the official China Space News publication following launch in July provides a specific primary landing site. The article reported landing coordinates of 110.318 degrees east longitude and 24.748 degrees north latitude, within the southern portion of Utopia Planitia. Online versions of the article have since been edited to remove the coordinates". The precise position is not available. MRO will need years to locate the Zhurong rover and lander. $\endgroup$
    – user39593
    May 19 at 22:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hence "target" - probably the CNSA doesn't yet know the exact location either: those initial photos don't suggest conspicuous landmarks. Perhaps analysis of the rover radio signals across successive orbits will box an area? [might be a new question: how accurately were the Viking (or any) lander sites located before direct imaging, and how was it done?] $\endgroup$ May 19 at 22:55

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.