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.
... 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?
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)
3.2 Mission DefinitionThe ExoMars 2018 is the second mission of the overall ExoMars Program; the first mission, ExoMars2016, 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 accordingwith 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 ofo 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 ESAo Rover Module with the Pasteur P/L package, provided by ESAo 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 ScienceThe ExoMars-2016 TGO will work as Data Relay System between the ESA Rover and Ground Segmentand between the ROSCOSMOS Surface Platform and Ground Segment.The Launch Services segment is provided by Khrunichev; the Launcher is PROTON M, with BREEZE Mupper 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 iscurrently foreseen that science data as collected during surface operations phase will be firstlyanalyzed in the ROCC and then transferred in the proper format to ESAC for long term archivingand subsequent dissemination to the scientific community.
. 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.
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.
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.
Maybe ESA might attempt another EDL demonstrator mission before testing their luck with the 2018 rover.
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/
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: savuporo on 11/03/2016 05:20 amQuote from: ccdengr on 11/03/2016 05:14 amBlaming 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.
Quote from: ccdengr on 11/03/2016 05:14 amBlaming 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.