LIVE: Proton-M ESA ExoMars I (Trace Gas Orbiter/EDM) - March 14 2016 (09:31 UTC)

[russianhalo117]

LINK: http://esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Shaking_ExoMars

ExoMars/EDM/TGO UPDATE ARTICLE:
Shaking ExoMars

8 April 2013

The structural model of the Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module, or EDM, of ESA’s 2016 ExoMars mission has been subjected to a series of intense shaker tests to simulate the rigours of launching into space.

EDM will be launched to Mars together with the Trace Gas Orbiter and will test key landing technologies in preparation for the 2018 ExoMars rover mission and subsequent missions to Mars.

The orbiter will search for evidence of methane and other atmospheric gases that could be signatures of active biological or geological processes. It will also act as a relay for EDM and the ExoMars rover, which will search the planet’s surface and drill to depths of 2 m, looking for signs of life, past and present.

Before being launched to the Red Planet, each component of the mission must undergo thorough testing to certify it for the journey from Earth to the surface of Mars, and for the harsh space environment.

EDM arrived at ESTEC, ESA’s technical centre in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, in mid-February, on a lorry from the Turin facility of Thales Alenia Space in Italy.

After unpacking in one of ESTEC’s cleanrooms, it was subjected to a leak-test, to verify the bio-seal between its main structural elements, the aeroshell, front shield and back cover.

The bio-seal prevents contamination of the inside of EDM from Earth-borne organisms during ground transportation and testing.

After that, EDM has undergone a series of vibration tests on the ESTEC Test Centre Multishaker and QUAD shaker. These intense tests qualify the spacecraft design by ensuring that it will be able to withstand the vibrations it will experience when it lifts off on a Proton rocket in 2016.

During the tests, EDM was mounted on a table where it was shaken up and down or from side to side for several minutes over a frequency range of 5 Hz to 2 kHz.

Afterwards, another leak demonstrated that the bio-seal had not been degraded by the vibration tests.

The EDM structural model has now returned to the Turin factory, where it will undergo further structural testing. This will include tests to simulate entering the martian atmosphere and deploying the module’s parachutes.

At Mars, EDM will hit the atmosphere at 21 000 km/h, decelerating to just 15 km/h in less than 8 minutes.

The ExoMars missions in 2016 and 2018 are being performed by ESA in partnership with Russia’s Roscosmos space agency.

[sdsds]

What is the role of NPO Lavochkin? Is Lavochkin responsible for the Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module? Does the recent ESA investigation regarding Fregat assembly techniques add concern about this mission?

[russianhalo117]

LINK: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Four_candidate_landing_sites_for_ExoMars_2018

ExoMars/EDM/TGO UPDATE ARTICLE:
Four Candidate Landing Sites for ExoMars 2018

1 October 2014

Four possible landing sites are being considered for the ExoMars mission in 2018. Its rover will search for evidence of martian life, past or present.

ExoMars is a joint two-mission endeavour between ESA and Russia’s Roscosmos space agency. The Trace Gas Orbiter and an entry, descent and landing demonstrator module, Schiaparelli, will be launched in January 2016, arriving at Mars nine months later. The Rover and Surface Platform will depart in May 2018, with touchdown on Mars in January 2019.

The search for a suitable landing site for the second mission began in December 2013, when the science community was asked to propose candidates.

The eight proposals were considered during a workshop held by the Landing Site Selection Working Group in April. By the end of the workshop, there were four clear front-runners.

Following additional review by an ESA-appointed panel, the four sites have now been formally recommended for further detailed analysis.

The sites – Mawrth Vallis, Oxia Planum, Hypanis Vallis and Aram Dorsum – are all located relatively close to the equator.

“The present-day surface of Mars is a hostile place for living organisms, but primitive life may have gained a foothold when the climate was warmer and wetter, between 3.5 billion and 4 billion years ago,” says Jorge Vago, ESA’s ExoMars project scientist.

“Therefore, our landing site should be in an area with ancient rocks where liquid water was once abundant. Our initial assessment clearly identified four landing sites that are best suited to the mission’s scientific goals.”

The area around Mawrth Vallis and nearby Oxia Planum contains one of the largest exposures of rocks on Mars that are older than 3.8 billion years and clay-rich, indicating that water once played a role here. Mawrth Vallis lies on the boundary between the highlands and lowlands and is one of the oldest outflow channels on Mars.

The exposed rocks at both Mawrth Vallis and Oxia Planum have varied compositions, indicating a variety of deposition and wetting environments. In addition, the material of interest has been exposed by erosion only within the last few hundred million years, meaning the rocks are still well preserved against damage from the planet’s harsh radiation and oxidation environment.

By contrast, Hypanis Vallis lies on an exhumed fluvial fan, thought to be the remnant of an ancient river delta at the end of a major valley network. Distinct layers of fine-grained sedimentary rocks provide access to material deposited about 3.45 billion years ago.

Finally, the Aram Dorsum site receives its name from the eponymous channel, curving from northeast to west across the location. The sedimentary rocks around the channel are thought to be alluvial sediments deposited much like those around Earth’s River Nile.

This region experienced both sustained water activity followed by burial, providing protection from radiation and oxidation for most of Mars’ geological history, also making this a site with strong potential for finding preserved biosignatures.

“While all four sites are clearly interesting scientifically, they must also allow for the operational and engineering requirements for safe landing and roving on the surface,” adds Jorge.

“Technical constraints are satisfied to different degrees in each of these locations and, although our preliminary evaluation indicates that Oxia Planum has fewer problems compared to the other sites, verification is still on going.”

The next stage of analysis will include simulations to predict the probability of landing success based on the entry profile, atmospheric and terrain properties at each of the candidate sites.

The aim is to complete the certification of at least one site by the second half of 2016, with a final decision on the landing site for the ExoMars 2018 rover to be taken sometime in 2017.

Notes for Editors

Download the full report: Recommendation for the narrowing of ExoMars 2018 landing sites

More ExoMars images, including digital terrain models of the candidate landing sites, are available here.

For further information, please contact:

Markus Bauer

ESA Science and Robotic Exploration Communication Officer

Tel: +31 71 565 6799

Mob: +31 61 594 3 954

Email: [email protected]

Jorge Vago
ESA ExoMars 2018 project scientist
Scientific Support Office
Directorate of Science and Robotic Exploration
Email: [email protected]

[russianhalo117]

What is the role of NPO Lavochkin? Is Lavochkin responsible for the Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module? Does the recent ESA investigation regarding Fregat assembly techniques add concern about this mission?

This might be of use:
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/53642-exomars-orbiter-core-module-completed/

Also EDM is now known as Schiaparelli – entry, descent and landing demonstrator module

TAS and OHB are in charge of TGO and Schiaparelli systems and integration. TAS is the lead for all SC's flying on the 2016 Mission. I asked and "there is no currently concern from the ExoMars teams at this time regarding the involvement NPO Lavochkin." The launcher is being built through higher set of standards that is being monitored by ESA and ROSCOSMOS during regular meetings.

LINK for Schiaparelli: http://exploration.esa.int/mars/47852-entry-descent-and-landing-demonstrator-module/

[Stan Black]

Payload: Exomars-2016
Rocket: Proton-M 8К82КМ with improved energy-mass characteristics
Upper stage: Briz-M 14С43 with improved energy-mass characteristics
Fairing: 14С75

State Centre for Space Research and Production, in the name of M.V. Khrunichev
Государственный космический научно-производственный центр имени М.В. Хруничева

Proton-M

Изготовление и поставка ракеты-носителя «Протон-М» для запуска КА «Экзомарс» (8К82КМ-0000-0ТУ-У)

1 509 826 000 Russian ruble
Order placed: 2nd April 2013
Contract number: 100-С025/13/136
Contractual period: January 2013 to November 2015
[source]

Briz-M

Изготовление и поставка разгонного блока «Бриз-М» для запуска КА «Экзомарс» (14С43-0000-0ТУ)

461 258 300 Russian ruble
Order placed: 14th December 2013
Contract number: 100-С029/14/3
Contractual period: up to 25th November 2015
[source]

Fairing 14С75 and payload adapter

Изготовление головного обтекателя типа 14С75 с переходной системой для запуска КА «Экзомарс» (14С75-0000-0, 14С326-0000-0)

172 001 200 Russian ruble
Order placed: 6th July 2014
Contract number: 100-С063/14/244
Contractual period: 1st November 2015
[source]

[Stan Black]

The Federal Space Agency has issued a tender for the launch campaign, to the Centre for Operation of Land-Based Space Infrastructure (TsENKI):-

Подготовка и запуск ракеты-носителя «Протон-М» и разгонного блока «Бриз-М» с космическим аппаратом «Экзомарс-2016». Проведение послепусковых работ.

776 300 000 Russian ruble
http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/ep44/view/common-info.html?regNumber=0173100007015000035

[Stan Black]

The Federal Space Agency has issued a tender for the delivery of the Briz-M upper stage to the launch site.

Авиаперевозка разгонного блока «Бриз-М» и транспортно-экспедиторские работы по отправке разгонного блока «Бриз-М» для запуска КА «Экзомарс»

15 844 700 Russian ruble
Schedule of completion by 25th December 2015.
http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/ep44/view/common-info.html?regNumber=0173100007015000044

[Stan Black]

The Federal Space Agency has issued a tender for the delivery of the Proton-M rocket and 14С75 fairing to the launch site.

Подготовка к транспортировке, транспортировка эшелона с РН «Протон-М» и ГО 14С75 на космодром Байконур и возврат порожнего транспорта на предприятие

24 853 500 Russian ruble
Schedule of completion by 25th December 2015.
http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/ep44/view/common-info.html?regNumber=0173100007015000048

[Stan Black]

It looks like the Proton-M ordered for the launch of Exomars has been donated to GLONASS.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33804.msg1360882#msg1360882

[dkovacic]

It looks like the Proton-M ordered for the launch of Exomars has been donated to GLONASS.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33804.msg1360882#msg1360882

I do not see this in the original post, can you elaborate how you came to this conclusion?

I am asking because Proton launches have significant problem (15% failure rate since 2010, which is 3 times bigger than 4.5% Soyuz/R-7 and much bigger than any major LV on the west). ESA might be trying to opt-out from launching ExoMars on Proton. Risking 1.2 billion euro investment on almost 30% combined failure rate of dual Proton launch seems too much.

[Star One]

It looks like the Proton-M ordered for the launch of Exomars has been donated to GLONASS.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33804.msg1360882#msg1360882

I do not see this in the original post, can you elaborate how you came to this conclusion?

I am asking because Proton launches have significant problem (15% failure rate since 2010, which is 3 times bigger than 4.5% Soyuz/R-7 and much bigger than any major LV on the west). ESA might be trying to opt-out from launching ExoMars on Proton. Risking 1.2 billion euro investment on almost 30% combined failure rate of dual Proton launch seems too much.

Agree & could they even do something like that without annoying ESA as no doubt they would want to monitor their particular launcher the whole way through the process.

[WindnWar]

Are there any other launchers available that can carry out the mission in the window they have to launch in? Or do they have to miss the window and wait two years for the next one?

[Ben the Space Brit]

Are there any other launchers available that can carry out the mission in the window they have to launch in? Or do they have to miss the window and wait two years for the next one?

A lot depends on the through-TMI mass. Falcon Heavy might be able to manage it but selecting it would be a seat-of-the-pants decision. Ariane-5 could do it effortlessly but I think all the production is already earmarked through 2016.

Of course, sometimes, to change the LV requires some changes to the spacecraft too.

Bottom line: Any launcher-associated schedule slip, even if they stick with Proton, may lead to them missing the 2016 launch window.

[Star One]

Are there any other launchers available that can carry out the mission in the window they have to launch in? Or do they have to miss the window and wait two years for the next one?

A lot depends on the through-TMI mass. Falcon Heavy might be able to manage it but selecting it would be a seat-of-the-pants decision. Ariane-5 could do it effortlessly but I think all the production is already earmarked through 2016.

Of course, sometimes, to change the LV requires some changes to the spacecraft too.

Bottom line: Any launcher-associated schedule slip, even if they stick with Proton, may lead to them missing the 2016 launch window.

Couldn't they juggle the Ariane 5 payloads around, or would the Ariane 5 for this mission have particular requirements?

[baldusi]

Are there any other launchers available that can carry out the mission in the window they have to launch in? Or do they have to miss the window and wait two years for the next one?

A lot depends on the through-TMI mass. Falcon Heavy might be able to manage it but selecting it would be a seat-of-the-pants decision. Ariane-5 could do it effortlessly but I think all the production is already earmarked through 2016.

Of course, sometimes, to change the LV requires some changes to the spacecraft too.

Bottom line: Any launcher-associated schedule slip, even if they stick with Proton, may lead to them missing the 2016 launch window.

Couldn't they juggle the Ariane 5 payloads around, or would the Ariane 5 for this mission have particular requirements?

The Ariane 5 that ESA has earn marked for Galileo could be used for TGO. But it's the ES type, which I ignore the TMI performance. Moving around a dedicated ECA will be, above all, mighty expensive. They'll need a dedicated launch, and that's on the order of 200M. That would buy you an Atlas V 551 on the commercial market. Or a Falcon 9 AND a Falcon Heavy. Or an H-2A 204. But seeing how press for funds they are on the Galileo program, and how difficult it was to get the last 50M Euro or so of financing, I simply don't see a move from Proton-M. I'd rather see a lot of ESA engineers going through the production and documentation with a honey comb.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I simply don't see a move from Proton-M. I'd rather see a lot of ESA engineers going through the production and documentation with a honey comb.

The problem is that I simply can't see the Russians tolerating that. They'll scream 'state security' or something similar.

[dkovacic]

It is likely that Atlas V could be ready. The problems are securing funding AND bailing out from agreements with Roscosmos. Staying with Proton might bring political backlash to ESA in case of (quite possible) failure. So it seems to me that buying time by moving TGO to 2018 is the "optimal" strategy for ESA.

EDIT: based on the the_other_Doug comment changed "quite probable" to quite possible.

[Graham]

I don't want to speak for SpaceX, but it may serve them well to offer a deeply discounted launch of TGO. Musk has stated his goal is to send people to Mars, this would be an amazing opportunity to show that their rocket can perform a Mars mission successfully and given that this may be the only Mars mission they can launch before the end of the decade it would be their only chance. It would also be great PR as well as great practice for SpaceX.

[Stan Black]

It looks like the Proton-M ordered for the launch of Exomars has been donated to GLONASS.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33804.msg1360882#msg1360882

I do not see this in the original post, can you elaborate how you came to this conclusion?

The rocket for Exomars has been swapped with another. It is not uncommon for rockets to be swapped. It does suggest there is no additional inspections, or certifications for such prestige payloads than for domestic payloads.

[WindnWar]

The weight listed for the first mission is just shy of 3800 kilos for the TGO and the lander combined. So you need a vehicle with enough capacity to handle that. Since they went with batteries instead of an RTG for the lander nothing else should present an issue export wise to launch it on a different vehicle other than vehicle availability and there is very little time.