Author Topic: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion  (Read 400866 times)

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #840 on: 10/28/2016 06:51 pm »
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/mars-lander-crash-complicates-follow-rover-2020?utm_source=sciencemagazine&utm_medium=facebook-text&utm_campaign=marspostmortem-8622


Mars lander crash complicates follow-up rover in 2020
By Daniel CleryOct. 25, 2016 , 3:45 PM

Engineers at the European Space Agency (ESA) are racing to figure out what went wrong with the Schiaparelli Mars lander. On 19 October, it seemed to drop out of the sky and crash to the surface less than a minute before its planned soft landing. A diagnosis is urgent, because many of the same pieces of technology will be used to get a much bigger ExoMars rover down to the surface in 2020.

More than engineering is at stake. If the ExoMars 2020 rover is to fly at all, ESA must persuade its 22 member states to chip in to cover a €300 million shortfall in the €1.5 billion cost of both the 2016 and 2020 phases of ExoMars. On 1–2 December, at a meeting of government ministers, ESA officials will make their case that they are not throwing good money after bad. After the Schiaparelli loss, securing funding for ExoMars 2020 “is really more important than ever, if Europe wants to be seen as part of exploring our solar system,” says David Southwood of Imperial College London, who was ESA’s director of science from 2001 until 2011.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #841 on: 10/28/2016 06:55 pm »
More than engineering is at stake. If the ExoMars 2020 rover is to fly at all, ESA must persuade its 22 member states to chip in to cover a €300 million shortfall in the €1.5 billion cost of both the 2016 and 2020 phases of ExoMars. On 1–2 December, at a meeting of government ministers, ESA officials will make their case that they are not throwing good money after bad. After the Schiaparelli loss, securing funding for ExoMars 2020 “is really more important than ever, if Europe wants to be seen as part of exploring our solar system,” says David Southwood of Imperial College London, who was ESA’s director of science from 2001 until 2011.

ExoMars 2020 is essentially one large landing mission versus 2016's orbiter/tiny lander right?  Their concern is obvious although I'm still confused on where Russia fits into the lander outside of the launcher and the rover's platform.  Are they going to contribute to the landing sequence too?
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1667
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 1184
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #842 on: 10/28/2016 07:06 pm »
2016 is the orbiter+demo EDL module, 2020 is a huge surface platform with instruments + a rover.

If the 2020 mission fails, this will be of a huge scientific loss.

Offline eeergo

Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #843 on: 10/28/2016 07:24 pm »
More than engineering is at stake. If the ExoMars 2020 rover is to fly at all, ESA must persuade its 22 member states to chip in to cover a €300 million shortfall in the €1.5 billion cost of both the 2016 and 2020 phases of ExoMars. On 1–2 December, at a meeting of government ministers, ESA officials will make their case that they are not throwing good money after bad. After the Schiaparelli loss, securing funding for ExoMars 2020 “is really more important than ever, if Europe wants to be seen as part of exploring our solar system,” says David Southwood of Imperial College London, who was ESA’s director of science from 2001 until 2011.

A much more "sharp-penned" analysis by Spanish astrophysicist/blogger Daniel Marín can be read here (in Spanish):

http://danielmarin.naukas.com/2016/10/27/revisitando-los-restos-de-schiaparelli/

Translating the most relevant passages:

[...] but, what was the cause of the failure? During the last few days we have witnessed a deluge of news items in the media blaming the accident on the Guidance and Navigation System (GNC) and, more precisely, on the software.Every time an accident occurs it's normal the media hastens to find its causes, but the attention is powerfully drawn to the fact that even ESA's high command -an organism that isn't particularly characterized by its transparency if we compare it to NASA- has confirmed half-heartedly that yes, we are dealing with a software failure. All of this without even waiting for a preliminary report of the fiasco.

[...] As aviation accidents show time and again, sometimes the most obvious explanation is not always the correct one. It is very possible that Schiaparelli crashed due to a software error, yes. But it is also possible that it didn't. Until the final report is released -or leaked- it's all but conjectures.

In this sense, nobody should let it slip that ESA has a keen interest in shelving the "Schiaparelli incident" and declare the mission a success as swiftly as possible. Motives? Next December, the European Ministry Summit has to approve whether or not it allocates around €300M ExoMars 2020 needs to press ahead. And with this landscape in sight, a software failure is -in theory- something easier to digest and correct than a hardware one -or, even worse, a project management failure. As an example that we shouldn't haste to reach conclusions, just yesterday [Oct 26th] the news broke that the accident could have been caused due to excessive oscillations after the parachute deploy. These oscillations would have confused the onboard navigation system, that shut off the engines prematurely.

In conclusion, I don't see the advantage for this narrative in saying that the failure was a 'simple' software failure. If so, it would mean that every safety and quality control protocol has failed and, by extension, we would be dealing with deficient project management. If ExoMars 2020 also smashes on the ground by a simple software error, it would not provide much solace.
-DaviD-

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #844 on: 10/28/2016 07:28 pm »
... Their concern is obvious although I'm still confused on where Russia fits into the lander outside of the launcher and the rover's platform.  Are they going to contribute to the landing sequence too?
No, they are not doing EDL, there are threads here for that mission that cover some of who does what equation. Lavochkin appears to be building the lander platform and propulsion without much of control systems.

To provide an official quote
Quote
1.3.Industrial Consortium

A  broad industrial  consortium  is  developing the  2018 ExoMars  mission.  Airbus  Defence  &  Space  UK  is  the Rover Module Lead , namely the rover platform with all related   equipment,   including   the   mobility   system.

Through  the  partnership  with  Roscosmos ,  Lavochkin (LAV)  is the industrial prime of the Entry, Descent and  Landing  system  and  the  Surface  Platform.

Finally,  the  overall  2018  mission  prime  contractor  is  Thales  Alenia Space Italy (TAS-I), who in addition to the above modules, coordinates the development of the Carrier Module (CM),  the  rover  Drill  and  SPDS, the  Autonomous  Mission  Management  software and  the  Rover  Operations Control Centre (ROCC)
These are the primes, obviously there are a ton of other parties involved, largely overlapping with Schiaparelli participants.

EDIT, and more detail on ESA-Roscosmos split on GNC/EDL systems attached
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/1_03_EXOMARS%202018_F.%20Mura.pdf


Quote
3.2 Mission Definition
The ExoMars 2018 is the second mission of the overall ExoMars Program; the first mission, ExoMars
2016, is lead by ESA and will be launched in 2016.
ExoMars 2018 is to be launched in 2018, is lead by ESA and is developed with ROSCOSMOS according
with the ESA-ROSCOSMOS Management Plan rules and responsibilities.

The ExoMars 2018 Space Segment is consisting of:
o ESA provided Carrier Module (CM)
o ROSCOSMOS provided Descent Module (DM), which in turn composed of
o EDL/GNC System
   Entry TPS
   Parachute(s) Subsystem, Provided by ESA
   Propulsion subsystem for Controlled Landing
   Landing gears subsystem for soft landing
   EDL/GNC Sensors (IMU, RDA), provided by ESA
o Rover Module with the Pasteur P/L package, provided by ESA
o Surface Platform, including
   Rover Egress System
   Electrical Power SubSystem
   Elektra proximity TLC Subsystem, provided by ESA
   Cruise and EDL On Board Computer and S/W, provided by ESA
   Surface Operations On Board Computer
   P/L instruments for surface Science

The ExoMars-2016 TGO will work as Data Relay System between the ESA Rover and Ground Segment
and between the ROSCOSMOS Surface Platform and Ground Segment.
The Launch Services segment is provided by Khrunichev; the Launcher is PROTON M, with BREEZE M
upper stage. The Launch site is Baikonur.
The Ground Segment is consisting of the Mission Operations System:
   The Carrier and DM Composite Operations Centre located at ESOC
   The ESA and Russia Ground Station & Communication Subnet
   The Relay Orbiter Operations Centre and Rover <> ROCC Communication Hub located at ESOC, Germany;
   The ExoMars Rover Operations Control Centre (ROCC) located at ALTEC, Italy;
   The Pasteur payload Science Data Archiving and Dissemination located at ESAC, Spain; it is
currently foreseen that science data as collected during surface operations phase will be firstly
analyzed in the ROCC and then transferred in the proper format to ESAC for long term archiving
and subsequent dissemination to the scientific community.
« Last Edit: 10/28/2016 07:54 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1667
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 1184
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #845 on: 10/28/2016 07:43 pm »
There's one thing you can't deny, guys :) We're getting better with orbiters :)

Back in 90s Russia lost 1 orbiter, Japan also lost 1 (finally gave up hope in 2003) and NASA lost two!!!

This decade India, Europe with Russia and NASA each have a successful orbiter.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #846 on: 10/28/2016 08:47 pm »
. As an example that we shouldn't haste to reach conclusions, just yesterday [Oct 26th] the news broke that the accident could have been caused due to excessive oscillations after the parachute deploy. These oscillations would have confused the onboard navigation system, that shut off the engines prematurely.

If there were oscillations, that would be blindingly obvious in IMU datastream. I doubt that it would take that long for preliminary investigation results in that case
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #847 on: 10/30/2016 04:07 pm »
Two articles that don't have any updates on investigation, but summarize current thinking and impact on 2020

http://www.nature.com/news/computing-glitch-may-have-doomed-mars-lander-1.20861
Quote
The most likely culprit is a flaw in the craft’s software or a problem in merging the data coming from different sensors, which may have led the craft to believe it was lower in altitude than it really was, says Andrea Accomazzo, ESA’s head of solar and planetary missions. Accomazzo says that this is a hunch; he is reluctant to diagnose the fault before a full post-mortem has been carried out.
...
The ExoMars team will try to replicate the mistake using a virtual landing system designed to simulate the lander’s hardware and software, says Vago, to make sure that scientists understand and can deal with the issue before redesigning any aspects of ExoMars 2020.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/mars-lander-crash-complicates-follow-rover-2020
Quote
The pressure is on Schiaparelli’s engineers because the ExoMars 2020 rover and its landing platform are already taking shape. Many components, which are being duplicated from Schiaparelli with little change, need to be shipped to Russia for integration into the spacecraft by next year, says Thierry Blancquaert, Schiaparelli’s mission manager. The aeroshell that will protect the 2020 rover during descent and slow it as it enters the atmosphere is the same shape but instead will be built by Russia, which has been partnering with ESA on the ExoMars program since NASA pulled out in 2012. The parachute in 2020 will be the same type but will deploy in two phases—a small one followed by a big one—and the main chute will be much larger: 35 meters across compared to Schiaparelli’s 12 meters.

The thrusters that will ease the 2020 rover onto the surface will be different, and are currently being developed by Russian space agency Roscosmos. But the radar Doppler altimeter—which senses the surface and allows the thrusters to bring the spacecraft down gently—as well as the guidance and navigation systems will be the same as Schiaparelli’s, so those parts of last week’s descent will be under special scrutiny.

No ETA on when any further insights may be revealed
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #848 on: 10/31/2016 01:43 pm »
Maybe ESA might attempt another EDL demonstrator mission before testing their luck with the 2018 rover.

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #849 on: 10/31/2016 02:22 pm »
Maybe ESA might attempt another EDL demonstrator mission before testing their luck with the 2018 rover.
If they expect to still launch the rover in 2020 then there is very little time to build another demonstrator and no money available for it. Schiaparelli validated most of the EDL both in terms of hardware and timeline. It also showed them what they need to focus on. Another demo might not be all that helpful compared to the cost. If ESA wants a rover in 2020 then they are best off to just go ahead and build it but to learn what they can from Schiaparelli and do as much ground testing as they can.

Offline Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1667
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 1184
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #850 on: 11/02/2016 02:36 pm »
An update:

The ExoMars team plans to take the very first photos in the end of November, with a media release on December 1.

http://nccr-planets.ch/getting-ready-tricky-task/

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1424
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #851 on: 11/02/2016 04:50 pm »
I don't know how anybody could prove that... it can only be speculation.  I tend to think that a lot of information is already out there, and ITAR would not be a huge factor.  But that's just speculation as well.

Offline tolis

  • Member
  • Posts: 82
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #852 on: 11/02/2016 08:45 pm »
An update:

The ExoMars team plans to take the very first photos in the end of November, with a media release on December 1.

http://nccr-planets.ch/getting-ready-tricky-task/

ESA probably decided to do that to show something more positive to the Ministerial meeting
than the charred ruin of Schiaparelli. Id'ing the cause of the mishap and maybe some entry & descent data
e.g. a profile of aeroshell interior temperature would also help.

Online ccdengr

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 661
  • Liked: 491
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #853 on: 11/03/2016 05:14 am »
On Monday somebody told me about an article that blamed the failure on the inability of NASA to share engineering data due to ITAR concerns.
There's an annual conference that covers EDL and other topics that always seems to have open-literature publications with a lot of detail -- http://ippw2016.jhuapl.edu/

Blaming the failure on the US seems like quite a stretch to me.  The Europeans have never been shy about claiming how much better/cost-effective their missions are than NASA's, so they should own their failures too.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #854 on: 11/03/2016 05:20 am »
Blaming the failure on the US seems like quite a stretch to me.  The Europeans have never been shy about claiming how much better/cost-effective their missions are than NASA's, so they should own their failures too.
ExoMars doesn't have any ITAR components onboard apart from JPL provided UHF radios on both TGO and EDM. I find that unlikely.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • England
  • Liked: 336
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #855 on: 11/03/2016 02:35 pm »
I fail to see how that would cause the failure since the EDL subsystems are all European.  What crucial information would NASA not have been able to provide about a non-US system?

Certainly when NASA pulled out of Exomars and Russia stepped in then NASA would not have been able to provide the actual reentry subsystems because of their dual use potential. But then ESA would like to develop their own ITAR-free systems anyway.

Just seems to me people clutching at straws trying to justify how this mission failed while NASA landers have worked.
« Last Edit: 11/03/2016 04:43 pm by Alpha_Centauri »

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #856 on: 11/03/2016 04:04 pm »
I fail to see how that would CAUSE the failure since the EDL subsystems are all European.  What crucial information would NASA not have been able to provide about a non-US system?

Certainly when NASA pulled out of Exomars and Russia stepped in then NASA would not have been able to provide the actual reentry subsystems because of their dual use potential. But then ESA would like to develop their own ITAR-free systems anyway.

Just seems to me people clutching at straws trying to justify how this mission failed while NASA landers have worked.
NASA did well on their first attempt with Viking when there was no data to be shared. NASA also crashed Mars Polar Lander when they did have access to the data on the three previous successful landers. Because the blame was not placed elsewhere NASA was able to learn some important questions by asking "What did we do wrong with MPL?" Subsequent NASA Mars probes and orbiters have all been successful. In the same way ESA can learn a lot from Schiaparelli's failure by honestly asking those same difficult questions.


Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18201
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #858 on: 11/03/2016 06:47 pm »
Blaming the failure on the US seems like quite a stretch to me.  The Europeans have never been shy about claiming how much better/cost-effective their missions are than NASA's, so they should own their failures too.
ExoMars doesn't have any ITAR components onboard apart from JPL provided UHF radios on both TGO and EDM. I find that unlikely.

To be precise, what I was told that the article said is that ITAR prevented NASA from sharing information with the lander design team. I'll have to go back to my source and ask him for a link to the article.
It still would be incredibly silly for somebody to blame the failed landing on not getting information from NASA. It was an ESA mission, with ESA hardware, software, flight operations, etc. How could anyone blame the failure on ITAR?

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1424
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ESA-Roscosmos: ExoMars 2016 updates and discussion
« Reply #859 on: 11/03/2016 06:56 pm »
And anyway you can't prove that something failed because somebody didn't tell you something. 

Tags: Mars Exomars 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1