Fully funded; https://www.twitter.com/BBCAmos/status/804665280614060032https://www.twitter.com/BBCAmos/status/804685097844740096ESA share of ~100mEuro taken from mandatory science budget. Current missions safe but future CV missions may be delayed.
ESA share of ~100mEuro taken from mandatory science budget. Current missions safe but future CV missions may be delayed.
Quote from: Alpha_Centauri on 12/02/2016 01:30 pmESA share of ~100mEuro taken from mandatory science budget. Current missions safe but future CV missions may be delayed.Not everyone's going to be happy about this, me included. How does this work anyway, since science budget is a mandatory contribution and Mars program isn't (or is it now?).edit: They're claiming no delays to CV missions and directing funding to ExoMars will not be 'detrimental to science'. It's not at all clear to me how this is going to happen in practice.
edit: They're claiming no delays to CV missions and directing funding to ExoMars will not be 'detrimental to science'. It's not at all clear to me how this is going to happen in practice.
ESA and Thales Alenia Space signed a contract today that secures the completion of the European elements of the next mission.
The contract signed in Rome, Italy, secures the completion of the European elements and the rigorous tests to prove they are ready for launch.These include the rover itself, which will be accommodated within the Russian descent module, along with the carrier module for cruise and delivery to Mars.ESA is also contributing important elements of the descent module, such as the parachute, radar, inertial measurement unit, UHF radio elements, and the onboard computer and software.The science instruments for the rover and surface platform are funded by national agencies of ESA member states, Roscosmos and NASA following calls to the scientific community.
Final two ExoMars landing sites chosenTwo ancient sites on Mars that hosted an abundance of water in the planet’s early history have been recommended as the final candidates for the landing site of the 2020 ExoMars rover and surface science platform: Oxia Planum and Mawrth Vallis.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Final_two_ExoMars_landing_sites_chosenQuoteFinal two ExoMars landing sites chosenTwo ancient sites on Mars that hosted an abundance of water in the planet’s early history have been recommended as the final candidates for the landing site of the 2020 ExoMars rover and surface science platform: Oxia Planum and Mawrth Vallis.*Fingers crossed for Mawrth*
No updates on Schiaparelli investgation?
Quote from: Alpha_Centauri on 03/28/2017 05:22 pmhttp://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Final_two_ExoMars_landing_sites_chosenQuoteFinal two ExoMars landing sites chosenTwo ancient sites on Mars that hosted an abundance of water in the planet’s early history have been recommended as the final candidates for the landing site of the 2020 ExoMars rover and surface science platform: Oxia Planum and Mawrth Vallis.*Fingers crossed for Mawrth*My understanding from an inside source this was something driven by internal politics, not science or engineering. Oxia is a perfectly good site and bringing the already rejected back Mwarth back into the picture is unnecessary and unhelpful. IMHO!
Quote from: Dalhousie on 04/02/2017 10:13 pmQuote from: Alpha_Centauri on 03/28/2017 05:22 pmhttp://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Final_two_ExoMars_landing_sites_chosenQuoteFinal two ExoMars landing sites chosenTwo ancient sites on Mars that hosted an abundance of water in the planet’s early history have been recommended as the final candidates for the landing site of the 2020 ExoMars rover and surface science platform: Oxia Planum and Mawrth Vallis.*Fingers crossed for Mawrth*My understanding from an inside source this was something driven by internal politics, not science or engineering. Oxia is a perfectly good site and bringing the already rejected back Mwarth back into the picture is unnecessary and unhelpful. IMHO!That was not my understanding; even back when Oxia was chosen for 2018 it was mentioned that the landing ellipses for the other sites were more favourable in 2020 and so they would reconsider.Here are the supporting documents the working group used;https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/4th-exomars-lss-workshop/supporting-materialsI cannot see how Oxia is interesting astrobiologically. Its clays are all of one type, laid down in a single global event, and bare no relation to the later Hesperian outflow which has heavily eroded it.Mawrth on a the other hand is a scientific candy store in comparison, clearly demonstrating dynamic geochemistry which could potentially have supported life. Albeit admittedly a bit more difficult site engineering-wise. And the Oxia unit is very likely also one of the ones present at Mawrth anyway.
I on the other hand don't see the attraction of Mwarth! Heavily altered clays are difficult to interpret, be the clays from hydrothermal alteration or weathering, and not particular good places to mind microfossils or biomarkers. Only sedimentary clays are good for that. Plus it looks to be rough and difficult to both land on and traverse. There are good reasons why it keeps getting rejected as a site.
The anti-Mawrth case was made by Dawn Sumner at the previous 2020 workshop. She interpreted the clays at Mawrth as part of the Oyama ejecta blanket, and therefore their original geological context is unknown. Mawrth fell in the ranking pretty quickly after that. Mawrth supporters don't seem to address that critique at all in the third workshop.