Quote from: savuporo on 05/06/2016 04:45 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 05/06/2016 04:33 pmI think that's an excellent point--the Russians are a new partner here.They are not, entirely ? ESA member and Russians have collaborated on multiple planetary missions before, going back as far as Vega probes.I believe that the ExoMars 2020 mission is an order of magnitude more complicated interface than those earlier missions. Even the 2016 orbiter was much simpler. ESA built the orbiter, the Russians specific whole instruments, and the Russions supplied the launcher. All systems with straightforward interfaces. The 2020 lander system is, as I understand it, a joint development.
Quote from: Blackstar on 05/06/2016 04:33 pmI think that's an excellent point--the Russians are a new partner here.They are not, entirely ? ESA member and Russians have collaborated on multiple planetary missions before, going back as far as Vega probes.
I think that's an excellent point--the Russians are a new partner here.
Quote from: vjkane on 05/06/2016 04:52 pmQuote from: savuporo on 05/06/2016 04:45 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 05/06/2016 04:33 pmI think that's an excellent point--the Russians are a new partner here.They are not, entirely ? ESA member and Russians have collaborated on multiple planetary missions before, going back as far as Vega probes.I believe that the ExoMars 2020 mission is an order of magnitude more complicated interface than those earlier missions. Even the 2016 orbiter was much simpler. ESA built the orbiter, the Russians specific whole instruments, and the Russions supplied the launcher. All systems with straightforward interfaces. The 2020 lander system is, as I understand it, a joint development.Yeah i totally understand that, i'm pretty intrigued about how AVIO is building and testing the avionics for a Lavochkin built lander exactly, and where exactly is the hand off. So yes interfaces are more complex, but it seems like a gradual progression, not a cold start.
Quote from: Don2 on 05/06/2016 05:28 amThis is another example of an overambitious aerospace project heading down the well worn path of schedule overruns and cost blowouts. In many ways it is not a lot less ambitious than Curiosity, but the Europeans are telling themselves that they are going to build Exomars for a lot less. A MER class rover would be much more suited to European skills and budgets.I think that's kind of an insulting comment to European scientists and engineers, I guess you must have missed successful missions such as Rosetta. This is a complex project and delay was always a possibility, but this is as much an issue with funding by their political masters as anything.
This is another example of an overambitious aerospace project heading down the well worn path of schedule overruns and cost blowouts. In many ways it is not a lot less ambitious than Curiosity, but the Europeans are telling themselves that they are going to build Exomars for a lot less. A MER class rover would be much more suited to European skills and budgets.
Quote from: Star One on 05/06/2016 05:51 amQuote from: Don2 on 05/06/2016 05:28 amThis is another example of an overambitious aerospace project heading down the well worn path of schedule overruns and cost blowouts. In many ways it is not a lot less ambitious than Curiosity, but the Europeans are telling themselves that they are going to build Exomars for a lot less. A MER class rover would be much more suited to European skills and budgets.I think that's kind of an insulting comment to European scientists and engineers, I guess you must have missed successful missions such as Rosetta. This is a complex project and delay was always a possibility, but this is as much an issue with funding by their political masters as anything.I don't see how this is insulting to Europeans. NASA came into the 90s with some left over competency from Viking and Apollo. They built from Pathfinder through Polar Lander, the MER rovers and Phoenix to Curiosity. Rob Manning in his book stated that Curiosity wouldn't have worked without the expertise that NASA had built up on earlier projects. I don't think it is insulting to Europeans to say that they should be trying to build competency in the same way that the US did. There is also an industrial base issue. Rosetta is a spacecraft that is dependent on electro-optical instrumentation. Weather satellites, earth observing spacecraft and astronomy missions are built with a similar set of skills as Rosetta. The radio and solar panel technologies come from communications spacecraft. Landers and rovers are a very different breed from orbiters like Rosetta. The instrumentation and sample handling systems for rovers are highly specialized. I can't think of any other industry that uses similar technology. Entry, descent and landing also requires a very specialized set of skills, which are really only shared by ICBM programs and human spaceflight. Apart from a French SLBM program, the Europeans have no expertise in this area. Building the very specialized industrial skills needed for Mars rovers only really makes sense if it is part of a long term program of rovers and landers. Sometimes NASA gets it right, and if Europe wants successful Mars landings they are going to have to make the same commitment. At present, Exomars appears to be a one off project.
Landers and rovers are a very different breed from orbiters like Rosetta. The instrumentation and sample handling systems for rovers are highly specialized....
Entry, descent and landing also requires a very specialized set of skills, which are really only shared by ICBM programs and human spaceflight. Apart from a French SLBM program, the Europeans have no expertise in this area.
Before you get too harsh on ESA, what became Curiosity was endorsed by the Decadal Survey as a modest-cost rover technology demonstration mission.It seems that Mars rover missions have a way of expanding, regardless of the space agency. NASA has the advantage of a single funding source while ESA, for this voluntary program, must negotiate among a number of member states.
Quote from: Star One on 05/06/2016 10:02 pmEntry, descent and landing also requires a very specialized set of skills, which are really only shared by ICBM programs and human spaceflight. Apart from a French SLBM program, the Europeans have no expertise in this area. Quite a bit more than that. There have been programs such as EXPERT, IXV, ARD SHEFEX, and others planetary landers such as Huygens and Beagle 2. The UK has built and tested many ballistic missile warheads over the past 50 years.
The UK bought the Trident SLBM system off the shelf from the US. The bomb or physics package they build themselves at Aldermaston. I'm not sure about the re-entry vehicle.
while Mars 2020 has added a drone.
You seem to be ignoring the Russian side's long experience in such matters in all of this. Yes they've had troubles in recent times but it does annoy me when people ignore their long history in spaceflight. Doesn't that count for anything?
I've read that ESA and Russia have found that their management, design, and testing methods are quite different. Also, given the nature of the landing system, it has proven harded to have clean interfaces. As a result, progress has been slower as the two organizations work out how to work together productively. Any future cooperative missions will benefit from these learnings.
Quote from: Dalhousie on 05/06/2016 10:17 pmQuote from: Star One on 05/06/2016 10:02 pmEntry, descent and landing also requires a very specialized set of skills, which are really only shared by ICBM programs and human spaceflight. Apart from a French SLBM program, the Europeans have no expertise in this area. Quite a bit more than that. There have been programs such as EXPERT, IXV, ARD SHEFEX, and others planetary landers such as Huygens and Beagle 2. The UK has built and tested many ballistic missile warheads over the past 50 years.The UK bought the Trident SLBM system off the shelf from the US. The bomb or physics package they build themselves at Aldermaston. I'm not sure about the re-entry vehicle.
Beagle 2 was a failure so that doesn't count. Huygens was simpler because they could just float down under a parachute and that didn't require an accurate landing.
Space science flagships in general have a way of growing in cost and ambition. As a replacement for Hubble, the science community originally asked for a 4m diameter mirror which was cool but not cryogenic. Somehow that morphed into the 6.5m deployable cryogenic monster we have today. At the present, Europa Clipper seems to be in the process of gaining a lander, while Mars 2020 has added a drone.
Quote from: Don2 on 05/06/2016 10:20 pmwhile Mars 2020 has added a drone.I don't think the drone is part of the baseline package. It's still being talked about, not built.
Quote from: Blackstar on 05/06/2016 10:46 pmQuote from: Don2 on 05/06/2016 10:20 pmwhile Mars 2020 has added a drone.I don't think the drone is part of the baseline package. It's still being talked about, not built.Anyway it's a helicopter rather than a drone if we are going to be pedantic.
Quote from: Star One on 05/07/2016 07:23 amQuote from: Blackstar on 05/06/2016 10:46 pmQuote from: Don2 on 05/06/2016 10:20 pmwhile Mars 2020 has added a drone.I don't think the drone is part of the baseline package. It's still being talked about, not built.Anyway it's a helicopter rather than a drone if we are going to be pedantic.Oh, don't get me started on the pedantry of this--having worked some aeronautics studies, we were admonished that we should never use "drone" even though that's what everybody knows. Instead it's UAS, or sometimes UAV, or sometimes some other acronym that somebody invented and hopes catches on. I just stopped caring.
I hope it does get onto the rover as it sounds an interesting idea.
JWST is passively cooled, so I wouldn't call it cryogenic (Spitzer, on the other hand, was cryogenic during its primary mission). As far as I know the goal was always to make the optics as cold as practicable in a passively cooled telescope.