I believe what they mean by "closely monitor" is deep space communications with Chinese Mars probes.
I don't remember where I found these, but well... looks familiar, right?a translation of the panel would be welcome.
Mars omni-directional cushion landing airbag as the main object of study, mastered the airbag cushion landing system buffering rules and principles of engineering design, developed prototype of soft landing vehicle with cushion airbag, and conducted demonstration tests."
"But the time to go [to Mars] will depend on the country's budget and decision,"
from Xinhua (in Chinese), a model of the Chinese Mars probe exhibited in Chinahttp://news.xinhuanet.com/photo/2015-11/02/c_128385979.htm
Quote from: plutogno on 11/02/2015 01:49 pmfrom Xinhua (in Chinese), a model of the Chinese Mars probe exhibited in Chinahttp://news.xinhuanet.com/photo/2015-11/02/c_128385979.htmBeagle 2 sized lander?
Quote from: Dalhousie on 11/02/2015 10:48 pmQuote from: plutogno on 11/02/2015 01:49 pmfrom Xinhua (in Chinese), a model of the Chinese Mars probe exhibited in Chinahttp://news.xinhuanet.com/photo/2015-11/02/c_128385979.htmBeagle 2 sized lander?Bigger Viking, with a MER sized Rover
A one-third scale model according to gbtimeshttp://gbtimes.com/china/chinas-2020-mars-probe-unveiled
In 2028 or 2031 China will then launch a sample return mission reusing CE-5 technology and including a 2,500 kg lander and ascent vehicle and a 5,000 kg orbiter and "returner", carrying a CE-5-like subscale Shenzhou reentry capsule.
Quote from: plutogno on 11/08/2015 04:30 pmIn 2028 or 2031 China will then launch a sample return mission reusing CE-5 technology and including a 2,500 kg lander and ascent vehicle and a 5,000 kg orbiter and "returner", carrying a CE-5-like subscale Shenzhou reentry capsule.This could confirm earlier speculation that the over-complex Cheng-E 5 mission profile is a dummy-run for a mars sample-return mission.
I'm wondering if this is going to be launched on a new large launch vehicle, or will Earth orbit rendezvous be used.
Quote from: plutogno on 11/08/2015 04:30 pmIn 2028 or 2031 China will then launch a sample return mission reusing CE-5 technology and including a 2,500 kg lander and ascent vehicle and a 5,000 kg orbiter and "returner", carrying a CE-5-like subscale Shenzhou reentry capsule.That's 7.5 t to Mars, over three times that of the first mission. I'm wondering if this is going to be launched on a new large launch vehicle, or will Earth orbit rendezvous be used.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 11/09/2015 04:23 amQuote from: plutogno on 11/08/2015 04:30 pmIn 2028 or 2031 China will then launch a sample return mission reusing CE-5 technology and including a 2,500 kg lander and ascent vehicle and a 5,000 kg orbiter and "returner", carrying a CE-5-like subscale Shenzhou reentry capsule.That's 7.5 t to Mars, over three times that of the first mission. I'm wondering if this is going to be launched on a new large launch vehicle, or will Earth orbit rendezvous be used.LM-5 should be able to launch it in one piece
The delta-vs for a Mars sample return are much larger than for the lunar mission, thus the heavier launch mass.
theCZ-5 launch vehicle can launch Mars exploration payload about 5000kg
the paper says:QuotetheCZ-5 launch vehicle can launch Mars exploration payload about 5000kg
Quote from: plutogno on 11/10/2015 04:28 pmthe paper says:QuotetheCZ-5 launch vehicle can launch Mars exploration payload about 5000kgCould you help me find the paper? I find 5 tonnes to TMI too low if the 14 tonnes to GTO are to be believed. It is difficult to measure with respect to LEO since that uses the LM-5A without the hydrogen third stage.
That's quite a radical overhaul in design over just two years.
apparently there are also two competing designs, one from SAST and one from CAST. rumors say that the CAST proposal was the winning one
Quote from: Star One on 03/19/2016 02:24 pmThat's quite a radical overhaul in design over just two years.At first, Mars mission was not approved until a few days ago.So in the early pre-research, change is normal (I think the rover just looks like be amplified).The new design film was shown to the government on 19th January and named as "Explore&Start".After that, it was officially confirmed during the two sessions(NPC &CPPCC).
Fascinating that the back-and-forth translation morphs the name of the MER "Spirit" into "Courage"...
The probe will be in an elliptical orbit and the rover's landing position is not selected.
Quote from: Infinitesky on 03/24/2016 12:32 amThe probe will be in an elliptical orbit and the rover's landing position is not selected.Very Viking like in operation. Will be lander be released prior to or after MOI?For a start they could do worse then look at the MER, MSL, ExoMars, and 2020 mission landing site proposals, many of those not selected are still very interesting sites
Quote from: Dalhousie on 03/24/2016 12:54 amQuote from: Infinitesky on 03/24/2016 12:32 amThe probe will be in an elliptical orbit and the rover's landing position is not selected.Very Viking like in operation. Will be lander be released prior to or after MOI?For a start they could do worse then look at the MER, MSL, ExoMars, and 2020 mission landing site proposals, many of those not selected are still very interesting sitesI guess before that, you can refer to those pictures released before.Otherwise it will consume more fuel to change the orbit, because the total quality of probe and lander will reach more than 5 tons.
In fact I think it is risky to launch the probe and the lander at the same time in the first mission.Because there is even no high resolution Mars map available for landing(Unlike the lunar exploration project).But there is no choice, they must achieve more goals in a limited budget(In 2009, they had hoped to launch a probe in 2013 with LM3B, but the proposal has not been passed).Perhaps they will learn more from the experience of MER, MSL, and ExoMars.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 03/24/2016 12:54 amVery Viking like in operation. Will be lander be released prior to or after MOI?I guess before that, you can refer to those pictures released before.
Very Viking like in operation. Will be lander be released prior to or after MOI?
Quote from: Infinitesky on 03/24/2016 03:21 amQuote from: Dalhousie on 03/24/2016 12:54 amVery Viking like in operation. Will be lander be released prior to or after MOI?I guess before that, you can refer to those pictures released before.I remember seeing a few references (conference papers, mostly) where the lander would be released Viking-like after MOI
Quote from: plutogno on 03/24/2016 05:04 amQuote from: Infinitesky on 03/24/2016 03:21 amQuote from: Dalhousie on 03/24/2016 12:54 amVery Viking like in operation. Will be lander be released prior to or after MOI?I guess before that, you can refer to those pictures released before.I remember seeing a few references (conference papers, mostly) where the lander would be released Viking-like after MOIDo we know if NASA/JPL would accept HiWISH image requests from Chinese researchers?if not, and they decide to go somewhere new, then maybe it would make sense to release the lander after MOI and acquisition of some high resolution images with an onboard (MOC level) camera. Do we know yet whether the orbiter will carry a camera of such resolution?But IMHO there would have to be some compelling reason do do this, rather than choosing from the abundance of interesting sites already delineated. Even restricting ourselves to rover sites, more than 50 have been reviewed.
They are not going to be able to get imagery with a high enough spatial resolution to retire all the risk of hazards at a landing site. Only a sensor like HiRISE can resolve those objects. The second best sensor to be orbited around Mars was the Mars Orbiter Camera on MGS. It could resolve 1.4 meters but that wasn't good enough to spot smaller rocks which would be a hazard. Indeed Mars Phoenix was re-targeted when HiRISE showed an unacceptable rock count that MOC missed at its initially preferred landing site.
There are two reason I don't think they will get that HiRISE equivalent imagery. First is that HiRISE is a big sensor with an aperture of 50 cm and a mass of 64.2 kg. I'm not seeing an instrument that size on any of the notional models or pictures of the Chinese orbiter. Secondly the note about the orbit being elliptical would preclude the probe from being at an altitude conducive to mapping. Even if HiRISE were on this orbiter it would spend most of the time too far away from the martian surface to gather high resolution imagery.
You brought up the landing sites investigated for previous US landing missions. These areas have been extensively mapped at high resolution and those images are on the freely accessible Planetary Data Server. There are two reasons that these areas were not selected, they were dangerous to land in or they were not as interesting scientifically. QuoteIt's not as simple as that. Some sites were indeed dropped because they were deemed too risky at the time. Others because they were considered less interesting. However a great many excellent sites were dropped for really trivial reasons. The process is all documented, there are many sites that remain valid, especially at the round, but because you have to choose one site out of four, three have to be dropped.Circumstances change. More data, better modelling may render a site previously considered unsafe to be suitable. Improved technology may make a previously marginal site accessible - Gale crater for example, rejected for MER but chosen for MSL. New information comes comes to light and sites not previously considered get added. Gusev crater was not a candidate initially for 2020, but because of new data was added at the second meeting.QuoteThe Chinese have been operating their exploration program more as an engineering test program than a scientific one. A safe but less interesting site may be seen as just fine for their first lander.First of all the engineers always win, all the landing sites have to be safe. This is true for ESA and the US as well as China. Secondly it's wrong to imply that science is not a driver for Chinese target selection, all Chinese lunar and planetary missions have had science drivers, and extensive results.
It's not as simple as that. Some sites were indeed dropped because they were deemed too risky at the time. Others because they were considered less interesting. However a great many excellent sites were dropped for really trivial reasons. The process is all documented, there are many sites that remain valid, especially at the round, but because you have to choose one site out of four, three have to be dropped.Circumstances change. More data, better modelling may render a site previously considered unsafe to be suitable. Improved technology may make a previously marginal site accessible - Gale crater for example, rejected for MER but chosen for MSL. New information comes comes to light and sites not previously considered get added. Gusev crater was not a candidate initially for 2020, but because of new data was added at the second meeting.QuoteThe Chinese have been operating their exploration program more as an engineering test program than a scientific one. A safe but less interesting site may be seen as just fine for their first lander.First of all the engineers always win, all the landing sites have to be safe. This is true for ESA and the US as well as China. Secondly it's wrong to imply that science is not a driver for Chinese target selection, all Chinese lunar and planetary missions have had science drivers, and extensive results.
The Chinese have been operating their exploration program more as an engineering test program than a scientific one. A safe but less interesting site may be seen as just fine for their first lander.
I am happy to see the Jupiter probe is still in there. Is that going to be touring the Jupiter system like Galileo?
Quote from: Star One on 03/25/2016 08:03 amI am happy to see the Jupiter probe is still in there. Is that going to be touring the Jupiter system like Galileo?I hope the reason why the launch is so late is because the mission requires heavy rocket LM9, so that they can launch a huge and complex(also expensive) probe (contains some sub probes).
Do we know what the LM9's capability is as far payloads to Jupiter?
While the higher the resolution the better, you don't need HiRISE. The Vikings and Pathfinder landing sites were chosen without any high resolution imagery.
Of course you can always just roll the dice and hope for the best, if you don't NEED to be SURE.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 03/24/2016 08:34 pmWhile the higher the resolution the better, you don't need HiRISE. The Vikings and Pathfinder landing sites were chosen without any high resolution imagery.Yeah, you pretty much do need HiRISE to be sure that your selected site is safe. The Vikings worked basically because they got lucky. See this discussion of the Viking landing site selection process for details.Of course you can always just roll the dice and hope for the best, if you don't NEED to be SURE.
CE-3 had autonomous hazard avoidance, which no US Mars lander has ever used. Assuming they do the same for Mars and it works reasonably well, it would improve the odds significantly.
Remember that HiRISE can't usefully see individual rocks much smaller than 1 m (three pixels).
That's why radar scatterometry and polarimetry is used because it enables estimates of surface roughness cto be made, though not able to locate individual boulders.
Has that system ever been described in detail?
As a US spacecraft engineer pointed out to me, the Moon is a much less rocky surface than Mars, so hazard avoidance in general is easier. Designing a hazard avoidance system for Mars is tougher than one for the Moon, and so the Chinese may still want to opt for a smoother surface rather than leave it to the autonomous system to handle the risk.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 03/25/2016 08:29 pmRemember that HiRISE can't usefully see individual rocks much smaller than 1 m (three pixels). This is true in the sense of actually *imaging* rocks, but that's not the only way estimate hazards.Quote That's why radar scatterometry and polarimetry is used because it enables estimates of surface roughness cto be made, though not able to locate individual boulders.You can get roughness at significantly better than meter scale from HiRISE imagery (e.g. www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/8thmars2014/pdf/1182.pdf)Interesting approach, but they are assuming that brightness variation at the pixel scale is due to roughness. there may be other reasons. I guess it does provide a conservative estimate. But I would be looking at other evidence to back it up.Contrary to your suggestion, my understanding is that MSL rock hazard analysis relied primarily on HiRISE data. See http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-012-9916-y
But I suspect that there's no direct communication and that any communication is done through international forums like COSPAR.
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/26/2016 11:23 amBut I suspect that there's no direct communication and that any communication is done through international forums like COSPAR.A very interesting question, I think China will pay attention to avoid the Mars microbial contamination.It is a pity that NASA was banned from all forms of direct communication with China.
Quote from: hop on 03/25/2016 08:00 pmCE-3 had autonomous hazard avoidance, which no US Mars lander has ever used. Assuming they do the same for Mars and it works reasonably well, it would improve the odds significantly.Has that system ever been described in detail?
So, I talked to a coworker who said that last Friday was a multilateral discussion in Paris about planetary protection issues. China, Russia and ESA sent representatives (I was a little unclear, but I think that he said that there were no NASA people there, which I find a little odd--but it may be that the U.S. was represented by non-government people). He confirmed that NASA cannot communicate directly with China on this issue. He did say he got some material about the Chinese program that he will share and I'll post here.
Yes, I know that although CASC can not communicate directly with NASA..
Quote from: Infinitesky on 04/02/2016 09:53 amYes, I know that although CASC can not communicate directly with NASA..Speaking of communications. I wonder if this thing would speak fully standard CCSDS 0x1ACFFC1D dialect. Chang'e 1/2 almost did. But i'm wondering if ESA is doing any prep work with CNSA to be able to relay through Mars Express or TGO. That would be a tricky conversation to have, because Electra
Why would that be any more tricky than anything else?
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/28/2016 10:38 pmSo, I talked to a coworker who said that last Friday was a multilateral discussion in Paris about planetary protection issues. China, Russia and ESA sent representatives (I was a little unclear, but I think that he said that there were no NASA people there, which I find a little odd--but it may be that the U.S. was represented by non-government people). He confirmed that NASA cannot communicate directly with China on this issue. He did say he got some material about the Chinese program that he will share and I'll post here.Yes, I know that although CASC can not communicate directly with NASA, but it is said that they can participate in the multilateral communications.Perhaps a large part of them are from the U.S. non-governmental organizations.(Maybe Mars Society?I seem to have heard that there was a Chinese student there before. )Thank you very much for file sharing,I'm familiar with the contents of the past missions, but I also have found something new about the future Mars missions.It is surprising to learn from this channel rather than from domestic.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 04/03/2016 01:19 amWhy would that be any more tricky than anything else?NASA is still prohibited from directly collaborating with CNSA, it would be just odd if NASA contributed asset would end up helping the Chinese mission. ESOC contributing their own assets to Chang'e missions is obviously not under any of these restrictions, so that's probably procedurally easier.
Mars express is not a NASA mission, nor is the TGO, both of which you specified, so why is this a problem?
Quote from: Dalhousie on 04/03/2016 03:46 amMars express is not a NASA mission, nor is the TGO, both of which you specified, so why is this a problem?TGO carries a NASA payload, that is there partially for NASA's usage and purposes
Quote from: savuporo on 04/03/2016 05:31 amQuote from: Dalhousie on 04/03/2016 03:46 amMars express is not a NASA mission, nor is the TGO, both of which you specified, so why is this a problem?TGO carries a NASA payload, that is there partially for NASA's usage and purposesNot that I can see, some participating scientists is about it. The instruments are primarily Belgian (1) Swiss (1) and Russian (2):
Quote from: Dalhousie on 04/03/2016 12:09 pmQuote from: savuporo on 04/03/2016 05:31 amQuote from: Dalhousie on 04/03/2016 03:46 amMars express is not a NASA mission, nor is the TGO, both of which you specified, so why is this a problem?TGO carries a NASA payload, that is there partially for NASA's usage and purposesNot that I can see, some participating scientists is about it. The instruments are primarily Belgian (1) Swiss (1) and Russian (2):The NASA payload is the Electra radio, which is exactly what would be involved in use of TGO or Mars Express for relay from the Chinese lander.
Fortunately the Chinese orbiter should be carrying it's own relay.
Also should dispel any notion that there is no space race going on, at least in Asia.
an engineer saying that he regrets that India went to Mars before China does not make a space race. it's not as if the government had invested to make sure that China went there first.
I like to look at space-related CONOPS diagrams, so I stumbled upon this concept to use many CZ-9 rockets for a human Mars mission. I tried Google reverse image search and TinEye, but couldn't find it anywhere else.edit: Page is currently dead. I have archived the Google cache.
Quote from: Pipcard on 04/15/2016 02:16 pmI like to look at space-related CONOPS diagrams, so I stumbled upon this concept to use many CZ-9 rockets for a human Mars mission. I tried Google reverse image search and TinEye, but couldn't find it anywhere else.edit: Page is currently dead. I have archived the Google cache.So how many launches? It would appear to be a split mission, semi-direct architecture, probably chemical fuelled. the "26 presumably refers to the time between the first and second window. What does the "21" refer to? It's too short to be from second window to arrival back at Earth. It's a bit short even for time from the second window to the start of the return trip. Too long though for the surface interval.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 04/17/2016 06:03 amQuote from: Pipcard on 04/15/2016 02:16 pmI like to look at space-related CONOPS diagrams, so I stumbled upon this concept to use many CZ-9 rockets for a human Mars mission. I tried Google reverse image search and TinEye, but couldn't find it anywhere else.edit: Page is currently dead. I have archived the Google cache.So how many launches? It would appear to be a split mission, semi-direct architecture, probably chemical fuelled. the "26 presumably refers to the time between the first and second window. What does the "21" refer to? It's too short to be from second window to arrival back at Earth. It's a bit short even for time from the second window to the start of the return trip. Too long though for the surface interval.Cargo Ship(货运飞船) :4 HLLV(LEO Capability 100 Tonnes) launch 4 propulsion modules + 1 CZ-5 launch mars land module(include mars surface habitats)Crew Ship(载人飞船): 6 HLLV launch 6 propulsion modules + 1 CZ-5 launch DSH + 1 CZ-5 launch mars land module(include mars ascent vehicle and earth reentry vehicle)the launches are 10 HLLV + 3 CZ-5according to the paper, crew ship total flight time(earth launches&orbit assemble,tranfer to mars,landing,surface survey,ascent, return to earth&reentry) is 629 or 993 days/ 21 or 33 monthsI don't think it's a Serious programme
Quote from: Lsquirrel on 04/17/2016 06:56 amQuote from: Dalhousie on 04/17/2016 06:03 amQuote from: Pipcard on 04/15/2016 02:16 pmI like to look at space-related CONOPS diagrams, so I stumbled upon this concept to use many CZ-9 rockets for a human Mars mission. I tried Google reverse image search and TinEye, but couldn't find it anywhere else.edit: Page is currently dead. I have archived the Google cache.So how many launches? It would appear to be a split mission, semi-direct architecture, probably chemical fuelled. the "26 presumably refers to the time between the first and second window. What does the "21" refer to? It's too short to be from second window to arrival back at Earth. It's a bit short even for time from the second window to the start of the return trip. Too long though for the surface interval.Cargo Ship(货运飞船) :4 HLLV(LEO Capability 100 Tonnes) launch 4 propulsion modules + 1 CZ-5 launch mars land module(include mars surface habitats)Crew Ship(载人飞船): 6 HLLV launch 6 propulsion modules + 1 CZ-5 launch DSH + 1 CZ-5 launch mars land module(include mars ascent vehicle and earth reentry vehicle)the launches are 10 HLLV + 3 CZ-5according to the paper, crew ship total flight time(earth launches&orbit assemble,tranfer to mars,landing,surface survey,ascent, return to earth&reentry) is 629 or 993 days/ 21 or 33 monthsI don't think it's a Serious programmeMaybe not but it is an interesting first study. About 1000 tonnes IMLO. No mention of aerocapture or ISRU? What about crew size?The 21/33 month missions would be opposition/conjunction class options
it uses Aerocapture, MAV uses MMH/NTO,so there is not use ISRUmars surface hab has a height of 6m and diameter of 6m, hab volume is 20m3.deep space is 8m long and 4m diameter, hab volume is 50m3
going back to robotic Mars missions, which we are more likely to see in the next future...China’s plans for the Moon, Mars and beyondhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36085659
Quote from: plutogno on 04/20/2016 05:36 amgoing back to robotic Mars missions, which we are more likely to see in the next future...China’s plans for the Moon, Mars and beyondhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36085659Moon, Mars and Beyond? Where have I heard that before? Still, interesting stuff.